You are on page 1of 2

PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ vs. VICENTA F. ESCAO, ET AL.

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


FACTS:
On February 24, 1948 Vicenta Escao , exchanged marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez
before a Catholic chaplain, Lt. Moises Lavares, in the house of one Juan Alburo in the said city.
The marriage was duly registered with the local civil register. However, the two were unable to
live together after the marriage and as of June 1948, they were already estranged. Vicenta left for
the United Stated in 1950. On the same year, she filed a verified complaint for divorce against
the herein plaintiff in the State of Nevada 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.
But on 30 July 1955, Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint in the
Court of First Instance of Cebu, and amended on 31 May 1956, against Vicenta F. Escao, her
parents, Mamerto and Mena Escao, 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 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.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the divorce sought by Vicenta Escao is valid and binding upon courts of
the Philippines.
2.

Whether or not the charges against Vicenta Escaos parents were sufficient in form.

RULING:
1. No. Vicenta Escao and Pastor Tenchavez marriage remain existent and undissolved under
the Philippine Law. Escaos divorce and second marriage cannot be deemed valid under the
Philippine Law to which Escao was bound since in the time the divorce decree was issued,
Escao, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. The acts of the wife in not complying with
her wifely duties, deserting her husband without any justifiable cause, leaving for the United
States in order to secure a decree of absolute divorce, and finally getting married again are acts
which constitute a willful infliction of injury upon the husbands feelings in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy, thus entitling Tenchavez to a decree of legal separation
under our law on the basis of adultery.

2. No. Tenchavez charge against Vicentas parents is not supported by credible evidence. The
testimony of Tenchavez about the Escaos animosity toward him strikes the court to be merely
conjecture and exaggeration, and were belied by Tenchavez own letters written before the suit
had begun. An action for alienation of affections against the parents of one consort does not lie in
the absence of proof of malice or unworthy motives on their part.
Plaintiff 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.

You might also like