Tenchavez vs.
Escaño
No. L-19671. November 29, 1965
FACTS:
Pastor and Vicenta entered into a secret marriage before a Catholic chaplain. Upon discovery of their
daughter’s marriage, spouses Mamerto and Mena sought priestly advice where it was suggested that
the marriage be recelebrated. However, the recelebration did not take place and the newlyweds
eventually became estranged. Later, unknown to Pastor, Vicenta left for the United States. There, she
filed a complaint for divorce on the ground of extreme mental cruelty, and an absolute divorce was
granted by the Court of Nevada. She later sought for the annulment of her marriage from the
Archbishop of Cebu. Vicenta eventually married an American in Nevada and acquired American
citizenship.
Tenchavez filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against Vicenta and her parents whom
he charged with having dissuaded and discouraged their daughter from joining him and alienating her
affections, and against the Roman Catholic Church for having decreed the annulment of the marriage.
He asked for legal separation and one million pesos in damages.
Vicenta claims a valid divorce from Tenchavez and an equally valid marriage to her American husband;
while her parents filed a counterclaim for moral damages, denying that they had in any way influenced
their daughter’s acts.
The trial court did not decree a legal separation but freed Tenchavez from supporting his wife and to
acquire property to her exclusion. It granted the counterclaim of the Españo spouses for moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against Tenchavez, to the extent of P45,000.00. Thus, he filed a
direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not the divorce obtained by Vicenta abroad was valid and binding in the Philippines;
2.) Whether or not Tenchavez is entitled to legal separation and to moral damages.
RULING:
1.) No. The Court held that under Philippine law, the valid marriage between Tenchavez and Escaño
remained subsisting and undissolved notwithstanding the decree of absolute divorce that the wife
sought and obtained in Nevada. Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which was already in force
at the time expressly provided that “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.” Here, at the time the divorce decree was issued, Vicenta, like her husband, was still a Filipino
citizen. She was then still subject to Philippine law, which does not admit absolute divorce. Thus, under
Philippine law, the divorce was invalid.
2.) 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.
As to moral damages the Court assessed Tenchavez’s claim for a million pesos as unreasonable, taking
into account some considerations. First, the marriage was celebrated in secret, and its failure was not
characterized by publicity or undue humiliation on his part. Second, the parties never lived together.
Third, there is evidence that Tenchavez had originally agreed to the annulment of the marriage,
although such a promise was legally invalid, being against public policy. Fourth, the fact that Tenchavez
is unable to remarry under our law is a consequence of the indissoluble character of the union that he
entered into voluntarily and with open eyes. Therefore, he should recover P25,000 only by way of moral
damages and attorney’s fees.
