Tenchavez – versus – Escaño
Parents of Escaño for alienating her
G.R. No. L-19671
November 29, 1965 15 SCRA 335
FACTS:
1. Defendant- Appellee -Vicenta F. Escaño, 27
years of age, secretly married Plaintiff-
Appellant Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years of
age, on February 24, 1948.
2. The marriage was solemnized by a Catholic
chaplain, Lt. Moises and was duly registered
with the local civil register.
3. Vicenta was set to go with Tenchavez after
their class on the same Day, But the mother
of Viicenta having learned of the fact of their
marriage was already waiting for her in
the college, she was taken home where she
admitted that she already married
Tanchavez.
4. Mamerto and Mena Escaño, to avoid great
scndal consulted a priest. Father Reynes
advice for recelebration of marriage of which
they believed to be invalid, due to lack of
authority from the Bishop of the preciding
chaplain.
5. On the day of marriage a maid handed a
letter to mamerto escaño, disclosing that
Tanchavez and Pacita Noel are in
relationship, Vicenta having learned of the
fact, did not proceeded with the wedding.
6. On 24 June 1950, without informing her
husband, she applied for a passport,
indicating that she was single, that her
purpose was to stidy. The application was
approved, and she left for the United States.
7. On 22 August 1950, she filed a verified
complaint for divorce against the herein
plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court
of the State of Nevada in and for the County
of Washoe, on the ground of "extreme
cruelty, entirely mental in character." On
21 October 1950, a decree of divorce, "final
and absolute", was issued in open court by
the said tribunal.
8. On 13 September 1954, Vicenta married an
American, Russell Leo Moran, in Nevada.
She now lives with him in California, and, by
him, has begotten children. She acquired
American citizenship on 8 August 1958.
9. On July 30 1955, Tenchavez intitated the
proceedings at Bar by a complaint in the
court of first instance at Cebu for the
following grounds against Vicenta.
a.
affection with Tenchavez
b. Roman Ctholic for having decreed
the annulment
c. Legal Separtion on 1 Million
damages against Tenchavez.
10. Vicenta claimed a valid divorce from plaintiff
and equally valid marriage to her husband.
ISSUE:
1. Was the decree of divorce sought by Escaño
binding under Philippine Laws?
2. Was the marriage between Moran and
Escaño valid?
3. Was Escaño guilty of adultery?
RULING:
1. No. At the time the divorce decree was
issued, Vicenta Escaño, like her husband,
was still a Filipino citizen. She was then
subject to Philippine law, under Article 15 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines (Rep. Act
No. 386).
a. SC: “a foreign divorce between
Filipino Citizens, sought and decreed
after the effectivity of the present civil
code (Rep Act 386), is not entitled to
recognition as valid in this
jurisdiction; and neither is the
marriage contracted with another
party by divorced consort,
subsequently to the foreign decree of
divorced entitled to validity in the
country”
2. No. From the preceding facts and
considerations, there flows as a necessary
consequence that in this jurisdiction Vicenta
Escaño's divorce and second marriage are
not entitled to recognition as valid; for her
previous union to plaintiff Tenchavez must
be declared to be existent and undissolved.
3. Yes. Her marriage and cohabitation with
Russell Leo Moran is technically "intercourse
with a person not her husband" from the
standpoint of Philippine Law, and entitles
plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez to a decree of
"legal separation under our law, on the basis
of adultery" (Revised Penal Code, Art.
333).