You are on page 1of 1

TENCHAVEZ v ESCAÑO AUTHOR: PARIAN

[15 SCRA 355, 1965] NOTES: (if applicable)


TOPIC: Marriages dissolved by a foreign judgment The complaint against the parents were dismissed for
PONENTE: Reyes, JBL., J. lack of evidence.

FACTS: (chronological order)


 1948: Pastor Tenchavez married Vicenta Escaño in Cebu. They made it a secret from Vicenta’s parents.
When they found out, they wanted the couple to remarry in a church to make the wedding valid from the
standpoint of the Church.
 However, Vicenta received a letter alleging that Pastor has an ongoing affair with Vicenta’s friend.
Vicenta did not push through with the church wedding.
 Vicenta continued to live with her parents while Pastor had to go back to his job in Manila.
 Vicenta then moved to Misamis Occidental to escape the “shame from the marriage”. There, a lawyer filed
a petition for annulment for her but she did not sign the petition and did not appear at the hearing.
 1951: Vicenta went to US and had her marriage divorced there.
 1954: She married Russell Moran, an American, and stayed with him in the US. In 1958, she became a US
citizen.
 But in 1955, Pastor filed for legal separation (and a complaint against her parents for dissuading and
discouraging Vicenta from joining him to be his wife. He filed for moral damages worth P1M.).
 Vicenta claimed a valid divorce from plaintiff and an equally valid marriage to her present husband,
Russell Leo Moran (while her parents denied that they had in any way influenced their daughter's acts, and
counterclaimed for moral damages.).
 CFI did not grant the petition.
ISSUE(S): WON Pastor and Vicenta should be legally separated.
HELD: Yes. Petition granted. (But Pastor was ordered to pay damages to Vicenta’s parents.)

RATIO:
 The marriage between Tenchavez and Escaño remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippine law,
notwithstanding the decree of absolute divorce that Escaño sought and obtained from Nevada.
 At the time the divorce decree was issued, Escaño, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. She was then
subject to Philippine law.
 Her marriage to Tenchavez was never declared null and void, as well. Vicenta Escaño's divorce and second
marriage are not entitled to recognition as valid; (1) for she was still a Filipino citizen when the divorce decree was
obtained, and; (2) for her previous union to Tenchavez is still existent and undissolved.
 Her marriage and cohabitation with Russell Moran is technically "intercourse with a person not her husband" from
the standpoint of Philippine Law, and entitles Tenchavez to a decree of "legal separation under our law, on the
basis of adultery".
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Foreign divorce decree obtained by a Filipino citizen is not recognized under the Philippine law.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

You might also like