Tenchanvez vs.

Escaño

Pastor B. Tenchavez, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Vicenta F. Escaño, et al.,

defendants-appellees.

Facts:
Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years of age exchanged marriage vows to Vicenta Escaño Mendoza
27 years of age, without the knowledge of her parents, before a Catholic chaplain, Lt.
Moises Lavares on 24 February 1948. But apparently they were unable to live together
due to certain circumstances. As of June 1948 the newlyweds were already estranged and
living with their separate lives.

On 22 August 1950 Vicenta Escaño Mendoza filed a verified complaint for divorce
against Pastor Tenchavez 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.

In 1951 Mamerto and Mena Escaño filed a petition with Archbishop of Cebu to annul
their daughter’s marriage to Pastor Tenchavez. On 10 September 1954, Vicenta sought
papal dispensation of her marriage. And on 13 September 1954, Vicenta married an
American Russell Leo Moran, in Nevada.

But on 30 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.

While on the otherhand parents of Vicenta Escaño filed a counterclaimed for moral
damages.

Issue:
1. Was the the lack of ecclesiastical authorization by the solemnizing officer a ground in
declaring the marriage null and void?

2. Was the decision given to Filipino citizen living abroad by foreign courts apply to
Philippine laws?

3. Was the complaint filed against Vicenta Escaño’s parents sufficient in form whom the
petitioner charged for having been dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her
husband on the grounds of alienating Vicenta’s affection.

Ruling:
1. NO, The chaplain’s alleged lack of ecclesiastical authorization from the parish priest
and the Ordinary, as required by Canon law, is irrelevant in our civil law. On the basis on
Act 3613 of the Philippine legislature which was the marriage law in force at the time.

2. NO. “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. And that both Vicenta Escaño,like her husband, was a Filipino Citizen. She was
then subject to Philippine law, as provided by Article 15 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.

Wherefore, her marriage and cohabitation with Leo 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”

3. NO, the testimony of Pastor Tenchavez about the Escaño’s animosity toward him
strikes the court to be merely based on conjecture and exaggeration. In so doing
Vicenta’s parents cannot be charged with alienation of affections in the absence of malice
or unworthy motives. As provide by Sec. 529 of the Civil Code.

Wherefore Tenchavez, in falsely charging Vicenta’s aged parents with racial or social
discrimination and with having exerted efforts and pressured her to seek annulment and
divorce, unquestionably caused them unrest and anxiety, entitling them to recover
damages.
Distinguish Legal Separation from Annulment of Marriage.
ANS: Legal Separation and Annulment of Marriage may be distinguished from each
other in the following ways:
(1) The marriage is not defective in legal separation. The marriage is defective in
annulment of marriage.
(2) In legal separation, the grounds arise only after the marriage. In annulment of
marriage, the grounds must exist at the time of or before the marriage.
(3) In legal separation, the spouses are still married to each other and cannot,
therefore, remarry. In annulment of marriage, the spouses can marry again as the
marriage is set aside.
(4) In legal separation, there are 10 grounds for legal separation while in annulment,
there are only 6 grounds.

6. What are the grounds for legal separation? (1953, 1975)

ANS: The grounds for legal separation are:
(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against
the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change
religious or political affiliation;
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common
child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or
connivance in such corruption or inducement;
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more
than 6 years, even if pardoned;
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage,
whether in the Philippines or abroad;
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause
for more than one year.