PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTA F. ESCAÑO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On February 24, 1948, Vicenta Escaño, 27, and Pastor Tenchavez, 32, were married secretly by a Catholic army chaplain in Cebu. The marriage was registered. Vicenta’s parents, Mamerto and Mena Escaño, were surprised and disapproving. A planned church re-celebration did not proceed due to a letter alleging an affair between Tenchavez and their friend Pacita Noel. Vicenta continued living with her parents, and Tenchavez returned to Manila. Their relationship estranged. In 1950, Vicenta, representing herself as single, went to the United States, obtained a divorce decree from a Nevada court on grounds of extreme mental cruelty, and later married an American, Russell Leo Moran, with whom she had children and acquired American citizenship in 1958. In 1955, Tenchavez filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against Vicenta and her parents, seeking legal separation and damages, alleging the parents alienated Vicenta’s affections. The trial court denied legal separation and damages against Vicenta and her parents, but instead awarded moral and exemplary damages to the parents against Tenchavez on their counterclaim. Tenchavez appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether a legal separation should be decreed; (2) whether Vicenta Escaño is liable for damages; (3) whether her parents are liable for damages; and (4) whether the plaintiff is liable for damages to the parents on their counterclaim.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment.
1. The marriage between Tenchavez and Vicenta was valid under Philippine civil law. The alleged lack of ecclesiastical authorization for the chaplain did not affect its civil validity under the then-governing Act 3613.
2. The Nevada divorce decree obtained by Vicenta in 1950 was not recognized in the Philippines because both parties were Filipino citizens at that time, and Philippine law (the Civil Code) does not admit absolute divorce. Therefore, the marriage remained subsisting, and Vicenta’s subsequent marriage to Moran was invalid under Philippine law.
3. Tenchavez is entitled to a decree of legal separation from Vicenta based on her desertion and remarriage.
4. Vicenta is liable for moral damages and attorney’s fees to Tenchavez for securing an invalid divorce and remarrying. The Court awarded P25,000.
5. The parents, Mamerto and Mena Escaño, were not liable for damages as there was no proof they maliciously alienated Vicenta’s affections. However, the damages awarded to them on their counterclaim against Tenchavez were reduced from P45,000 to P5,000 as the original award was deemed excessive.
