TENCHAVES V ESCANO Gr. No. L-19671

PASTOR B.
TENCHAVEZ, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
VICENTA F. ESCAÑO, ET AL., defendants-appellees
G.R. No. L-19671 November 29, 1965
EN BANC
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
TOPIC: Article 17 of R.A. No. 386 (Civil Code of the Philippines)
DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Lex Loci Celebrationis
FACTS:
On February 1948, Vicenta Escaño, 27 years of age, exchanged

marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years of age, without the
knowledge of her parents, before a Catholic chaplain, Lt. Moises Lavares,
in the house of one Juan Alburo in Cebu City. The marriage was duly
registered with the local civil register. The Escaño spouses sought priestly
advice. Father Reynes suggested a recelebration to validate what he
believed to be an invalid marriage. The recelebration did not take place.
The two were unable to live together after the marriage and as of June
1948, they were already estranged.
On June 1950, Vicenta Escaño applied for a passport, indicating in

her application that she was single, that her purpose was to study, and she
was domiciled in Cebu City, and that she intended to return after two years.
The application was approved, and she left for the United States.
On 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 October 1950, a decree of divorce, "final and
absolute", was issued in open court by the said tribunal.
On September 1954, Vicenta married an American, Russell Leo

Moran, in Nevada. On August 1958, She acquired American citizenship.
On July 1955, Tenchavez filed a complaint in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu, and amended on 31 May 1956, against Vicenta F.
Escaño, her parents, Mamerto and Mena Escaño whom he charged with
having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband, and
alienating her affections, and against the Roman Catholic Church, for
having, through its Diocesan Tribunal, decreed the annulment of the
marriage, and asked for legal separation and one million pesos in
damages. Vicenta’s parents denied that they had in any way influenced
their daughter’s acts, and counterclaimed for moral damages.
ISSUE/S:
In relation to article 17:
WHETHER OR NOT THE DIVORCE OBTAINED BY VICENTA

ABROAD WAS VALID AND BINDING IN THE PHILIPPINES.
RULING:
No. Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez’ marriage remain existent

and undissolved under the Philippine Law.
It is equally clear from the record that the valid marriage between
Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escaño remained subsisting and
undissolved under Philippine law, notwithstanding the decree of absolute
divorce that the wife sought and obtained on 21 October 1950 from the
Second Judicial District Court of Washoe County, State of Nevada, on
grounds of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character."
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,
and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Rep. Act No. 386),
already in force at the time, expressly provided:
Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition

and legal capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad.
For the Philippine courts to recognize and give recognition or effect to a

foreign decree of absolute divorce between Filipino citizens could be a
patent violation of the declared public policy of the state, especially in view
of the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code that prescribes the
following:
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those

which have for their object public order, policy and good customs,
shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated,
or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
Even more, the grant of effectivity in this jurisdiction to such foreign divorce
decrees would, in effect, give rise to an irritating and scandalous
discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens, to the detriment of those
members of our polity whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad
and obtain absolute divorces outside the Philippines.
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
Wherefore, 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).
WHETHER OR NOT TENCHAVEZ IS ENTITLED TO LEGAL

SEPARATION AND TO MORAL DAMAGES.
Yes. The Court ruled that it can be gleaned from the facts and
considerations that Tenchavez is entitled to a decree of legal separation on
the basis of adultery as provided under Art. 333 of the Revised Penal
Code. Since our jurisdiction does not recognize Vicenta’s divorce and
second marriage as valid, her marriage and cohabitation with the American
is technically “intercourse with a person not her husband” from the
standpoint of Philippine Law. Her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and
her denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband also constitute in
law a wrong for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding
indemnity. Thus, the latter is entitled to a decree of legal separation
conformably to Philippine law.

TENCHAVES V ESCANO Gr. No. L-19671

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TENCHAVES V ESCANO Gr. No. L-19671

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TENCHAVES V ESCANO Gr. No. L-19671

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PASTOR B.

G.R. No. L-19671 November 29, 1965

TOPIC: Article 17 of R.A. No. 386 (Civil Code of the Philippines)

DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Lex Loci Celebrationis

On February 1948, Vicenta Escaño, 27 years of age, exchanged

On June 1950, Vicenta Escaño applied for a passport, indicating in

On September 1954, Vicenta married an American, Russell Leo

WHETHER OR NOT THE DIVORCE OBTAINED BY VICENTA

No. Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez’ marriage remain existent

Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition

For the Philippine courts to recognize and give recognition or effect to a

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those

From the preceding facts and considerations, there flows as a necessary

Wherefore, her marriage and cohabitation with Russell Leo Moran is

WHETHER OR NOT TENCHAVEZ IS ENTITLED TO LEGAL

You might also like