Tenchavez v.

Escano Facts: Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escano both of legal age exchanged marital vows (1948) without the knowledge of Escanos parents who were shocked but successfully stopped the couples plan of eloping. The parents later on decided to have a recelebration in order to avoid shame from the community. The recelebration however failed to happen as Vicenta did not agree to it after receiving a note from some maid disclosing an affair between Pastor and their matchmaker Pacita Noel. From this point on, the newly weds became estranged as Vicenta left for Misamis Occidental to escape her shame while Pastor went back to Manila for his work. A lawyer filed for Vicentas petition to annul their marriage but the petition was left unsigned by Vicenta so the case was dismissed. 2 years after, Vicenta left for the US (1950) and and filed for divorce against Pastor which was affirmed by a court in Nevada. Her parents likewise filed a petition with the archbishop of Cebu to annul her marriage to Pastor. Vicenta on the otherhand married an American (1954) had children with him and acquired American Citizenship (1958). (1955) Pastor filed a complaint in the CFI of Cebu against Vicenta and her parents who he charged with having dissuaded their daughter to join him and alienated her affections for him. He asked for legal separation and damages amounting to 1 million pesos. Judgment rendered by the lower court did not allow for legal separation but freed him from supporting Vicenta and allowed him to acquire property separate from her. However, the court allowed counterclaim from the parents of Vicenta for damages in the amount of 45000 pesos. Issue: WON a divorce issued in the US is binding on two Filipino citizens. Held: No. Art. 15 of the Civil Code makes Philippine laws binding to Filipino citizens though residing abroad. Philippine laws do not recognize divorce and only legal separation in the form of the annulment of marriage is allowed. Vicentas refusal to perform her wifely duties, desertion of her husband and marriage to the American, which is considered adultery, entitles Pastor to legal separation and damages. Republic v. Iyoy Facts: Crasus and Fely, both Filipino citizens got married in Cebu (1961) lived in the country and had 5 children. After the marriage, Crasus alleged that Fely was hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant. Fely subsequently left for the USA leaving the children to Crasus. Eventually, Crasus received divorce papers from

Fely which he disregarded. In 1985 Fely married an American citizen. Fely returned to the Philippines several times over the course of the years. Crasus filed for annulment of marriage (1997) on the grounds that there was no possibility of reconciliation and that Felys acts brought dishonor to the family, which are clear indications of psychological incapacity to perform necessary obligation of marriage. Fely filed a response arguing that she exhibited normal behavior and had to leave to provide for the family, which Crasus failed to do. She further claims that upon acquiring divorce married an American citizen and acquired the citizenship as well. The marriage to the American being legal by virtue of her acquiring the said divorce. Both Fely and Crasus prayed for legal separation and damages. While the lower court declared their marriage null and void, the state through the OSG appealed the judgment to CA. CA upheld the decision from the lower court hence the petition to the SC. Issue: WON Fely and Crasus have grounds for annulment via psychological incapacity. Held: No. Fely is not psychologically incapable of performing her marriage obligations. Certain standards are necessary in order to establish psychological incapacity, all of which were not met by the respondent. Their reliance on article 26 of the family code is misplaced as Fely was still a Filipino citizen when they applied for legal separation. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. Facts: Alice, a Filipina citizen, married Richard, a US citizen in Hong Kong (1972) lived in the Philippines and had 2 children. They get divorced in Nevada in (1982) on the grounds of incompatibility and stating that there is no community of property and there are no community obligations to be adjudicated. Alice remarried to Theodore Van Dorn. Richard on the other hand filed suit against Alice for a business, which he alleged, was conjugal property asking for rights to manage it. Alice filed a motion to dismiss stating that Nevada court proceedings bar this course of action as Richard already declared they had no conjugal assets. RTC judged denied her motion to dismiss. Issue: Is a foreign decree of absolute divorce binding in the Philippine jurisdiction in the case of Alice and Richard? Held: Yes. Divorce is valid and binding. Richard being an American citizen has legally divorced Alice and is recognized by the Philippine courts. It would be unjust to

insist that Alice continue with her marital obligations when Richard has already been granted reprieve by the laws of his nation. Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera Filipino citizen Imelda Pilapil married German Erich Geiling in Germany. They brought life to a child and lived in Malate, Philippines. Not long after, they had a falling out which lead to a divorce proceeding in Germany filed by Geiling. This petition was granted by the German court (1983). (1986) Geiling filed criminal charges of adultery against Pilapil. The said adulterous affairs occurred before the German court granted the divorce. Issue: WON Geiling can prosecute Pilapil on the grounds of adultery though they are no longer husband and wife given that the affair happened before the divorce. Held: The law provides that only the offended spouse can sue for adultery. Though Geiling is the offended spouse, he has already obtained a divorce in his country, which is duly recognized by the Philippine courts. Thus, he is no longer the husband of petitioner and has no locus standi to commence the charges at the time he filed the suit.