Tenchavez v. Escano (1966: Manila) was not proven.
was not proven. In the present case the charge of cruelty was also not
1st: Pastor Tenchavez & Vicenta Escaño were married in 1948. In 1950, defendant
Escaño obtained a foreign divorce in Nevada. She further sought papal dispensation
of the marriage but no document was presented.
2nd: Escaño’s marriage to American Rusell Leo Moran in the US in 1954, which was
later blessed with 3 children.
ISSUES:
(1) WON divorce is valid
(2) WON Court may then compel Escaño to cohabit with Tenchavez
RATIO: (1) Divorce is invalid for a foreign divorce decree cannot be recognized in the
Phils especially if it was granted by court of the place which was not the parties’ bona
fide domicile and on a ground not recognized by our law, which does not allow
absolute divorce. Even in private international law, foreign decrees (esp those
confirming or dissolving a marriage) cannot be enforced or recognized if they
contravene public policy.
(2) No. It is not within the province of courts to attempt to compel one of the sps to
cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to the other. However, a sp who unjustifiable
deserts the conjugal abode can be denied support.
Dadivas de Villanueva v. Villanueva
Appeal from the judgement of the Four of First Instance in Manila
Facts:
 July 16, 1905 – Aurelia Dadivas de Villanuevas married Rafael Villanueva
and they had three children. (18, 10, 9)
 May 27, 1927 Aurelia filed a case for separate maintenance due to infidelity
and cruelty. 10 years prior to the institution of the case, Rafael was guilty of
repeated acts of infidelity with four different women. Even after the
institution of the case it was shown that he have had an illicit relations with
another woman.
 The incorrigible nature of the defendant in his relations with other women
coupled with his lack of consideration and even brutality caused Aurelia to
leave the conjugal home and for her to establish her own abode. Their final
separation occurred on April 20, 1947.
 There was no sufficient evidence to establish the cruelty of the husband but
there were sufficient evidence to establish the infidelity of the husband.
Issue: WON the wife is entitled for separate support from her husband.
Held: Yes
Ratio:
 In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to require separate
maintenance from the husband it is not necessary that the husband should
bring a concubine into the home. Perverse and illicit relations with women
outside the conjugal home are sufficient grounds.
 Ruling in Arroyo vs. Vasquez de Arroyo is not applicable because in the
Arroyo case the only grounds that were alleged was cruelty and that charge
proven but the Aurelia also accused her husband of infidelity and that charge
has been proven (repeated acts of conjugal infidelity) and the husband
appears to be a recurrent, if not incurable offender. This fact gives the wife
an undeniable right to relief.
 Goita vs. Campos Rueda – husband cannot by his own wrongful acts,
relieve himself from the duty to support his wife. When he drives his wife
from the domicile fixed by him, he cannot take advantage of her departure to
abrogate the law applicable to the marital relations and repudiate his duties.
Issue: WON she is entitled to P750 monthly allowance
Held: No
Court granted allowance of P500 a month. P750 would be excessive since the living
quarters that she uses are part of the conjugal estate.
Issue: WON the custody of the children should be transferred to the father
Held: No
Ratio: Custody of the 2 minor children shall remain with Aurelia. The children are
currently living with her and her custody will not be disturbed.
CIPRIANA GARCIA vs. ISABELO SANTIAGO AND ALEJO SANTIAGO
Appeal from Nueva Ecija COFI dismissing complaint
FACTS
• April 8, 1910 – Cipriana Garcia & Isabelo Santiago were married
• Feb. 3, 1925 – Cipriana compelled to leave the conjugal dwelling due to:
1. continued family dissensions
2. Alejo, Isabelo’s son by his first wife seduced Prisca Aurelio, Cipriana’s
daughter by her first husband. Prisca gave birth to a child. Isabelo, instead of
requiring his son to marry Prisca, refused to interfere & he seemed to
tolerate the illicit relationship.
3. Isabelo has conveyed/been conveying their conjugal properties to Alejo to
foster latter’s whims & caprices and thus, damaging & prejudicing her rights.
Some of these properties include lands acquired during their marriage with
money belonging to the conjugal partnership. Land annually produces 4,500
cavanes of palay at P4.00/cavan.
• Other allegations of Cipriana/Prayers to the Court:
1. Their separation is necessary to avoid personal violence. She could not live
in the conjugal dwelling due to the illicit relationship of Alejo & Prisca
tolerated by Isabelo.
2. She is entitled to P500.00 pendente lite monthly pension from conjugal
partnership. However, Isabelo refused to provide for her support despite her
demands.
3. She should be in-charge of the administration of the property of their
conjugal partnership because Isabelo is unfit to do so. He exhibits immoral
conduct & acts by publicly maintaining an illicit relationship with Geronima
Yap.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
4690023.doc
Page 1 of 2
• Isabelo: answered with a general denial.
• COFI: dismissed petition.
ISSUES & RATIO (as per Cipriana’s appeal):
1. WON their separation is unjustified
NO. They were having a stormy life prior to the separation due to the frequent fights.
Isabelo ordered her to leave the house & threatened to ill-treat her if she returned.
Prisca’s situation is embarrassing for her mother. Highly possible that Alejo caused
Prisca’s pregnancy. Compelling them to cohabit could lead to further quarrels.
2. WON transfers of property from Isabelo to Alejo are illegal
NO. Failed to prove that property was community property. Documentary evidence
even show that it was acquired by Isabelo before their marriage.
3. WON Cipriana is entitled to P500.00 monthly maintenance
NO. That’s too much. P50.00 would be enough.
4. WON Isabelo is unfit to administer their conjugal property
NO. No sufficient reason found to deprive him of this right.
5. WON Cipriana is entitled to an allowance of attorney’s fees
NO.
HOLDING: Judgment modified. Separation is allowed. Isabelo ordered provide
Cipriana with a P50.00 monthly allowance to be paid within the first 10 days of the
month. No costs allowed.
Atilano vs. Chua Ching Beng
Facts: Chua Ching Beng and Pilar Atilano were married in Zamboanga after which
they went to Manila and established their residence with Chua’s parents. Afterwards,
at Chua’s initiative, they went to Zamboanga to visit Pilar’s parents. It seems that he
was prevailed upon by the wife’s parents to return to Manila leaving her behind, with
the understanding that she would follow him later. She didn’t. About two years later,
Pilar filed with the Zamboanga CFI a complaint for support against her husband,
alleging that they’ve been living separately for two years, and that their marriage had
been unharmonious. It appears that the wife is involved in a domestic controversy,
being pitted against her husband’s immediate relatives and making marital life
difficult. She demanded for support. Defendant refuted the allegations and prayed
that the complaint be dismissed. Meanwhile, the plaintiff files a petition for alimony
pendente lite which defendant opposed. Based on a stipulation of facts agreed upon
by the parties, the court rendered judgment granting the wife’s allowance. The
defendant filed a petition electing to fulfill his obligation as thus fixed by the court by
receiving and maintaining plaintiff at his residence in Pasay, and that if the plaintiff
refuses, the defendant will not be compelled to remit allowance to her in Zamboanga.
This petition was denied and therefore, the defendant brought the case to the CA who
certified the case to the SC.
Issue: WON a wife is entitled to receive support from her husband where she refused
to live with him on account of some misunderstandings she had with the husband’s
immediate relatives.
Held: Decision appealed from is modified by giving the defendant husband the option
of supporting his wife at their conjugal dwelling apart from the home of the parents of
the husband. Should the plaintiff refuse, then the defendant is relieved from the
obligation of giving support.
Ratio: The court found that while the wife strongly wanted to be separated from the
husband, the husband was open to fix the problem, acknowledging his obligation to
support her and even expressing his willingness to abide by her wishes to have a
conjugal dwelling apart from his parents, although this might be financially taxing for
him to sustain. The defendant acknowledges that the Art. 111, CC imposes on the
husband the responsibility of maintaining and supporting his wide and family but he
insists that under Art. 209, CC he is given the option to fulfill said duty either by
paying the allowance as fixed by the Court or by receiving and maintaining the person
entitled thereto in his house. He has thus elected to perform his obligation by the
second means allowed by the law. The law affords moral and legal obstacle as a
ground to compel husband to provide separate maintenance for the wife. However,
misunderstanding with in-laws is not a valid moral and legal obstacle. Art. 110 does
not preclude the husband from fixing the conjugal residence at the patriarchal home,
nor is it against any recognized norm of morality.
Although the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
respect and fidelity and render mutual help and assistance, and that the wife is
entitled to be supported, our laws contain no provision compelling the wife to live with
her husband where even without legal justification she establishes her residence
apart from that provided for by the former. But there is no reason why she should be
allowed any support from the husband.
Del Rosario v. Del Rosario (1949: Manila)
On May 9, 1940, plaintiff Genoveva D.R. (widow w/ 2 kids) and defendant Teoderico
D.R. (mechanic, widower w/ a son) were married. They lived together in the house of
defendant's mother. Because of petty quarrels, plaintiff left the conjugal home in
1942.
ISSUE: WON plaintiff is justified in leaving and is entitled to support
RATIO: Yes. As the marriage vow does not include making sacrifices for the in-laws,
there is legal justification for W’s refusal to live with H, taking into account the
traditional hatred between W and her mother-in-law (hahaha). It is true that W is
obliged to follow her H wherever he wishes to establish the residence (Art 58 CC), but
this right does not include compelling W to live with mo-in-law, if they cannot get
along together. Alimony will be set according to H’s ability to pay.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
4690023.doc
Page 2 of 2