Title
Tenchavez vs. Escano
Case
G.R. No. L-19671
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1965
A clandestine 1948 marriage between Vicenta Escano and Pastor Tenchavez was valid under Philippine law, but Vicenta's Nevada divorce and remarriage were unrecognized, entitling Pastor to legal separation and damages, while her parents were cleared of alienation claims.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 123936)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Marriage Formation and Background
    • On February 24, 1948, Vicenta Escano (27), a second-year commerce student of prominent Spanish-Filipino lineage, secretly married Pastor B. Tenchavez (32), an engineer and ex-army officer of modest background, before Lt. Moises Lavares in Cebu City without parental consent. Their prior love affair, mediated by friend Pacita Noel, included elopement plans and piggy-bank savings.
    • The elopement failed when Vicenta’s mother intercepted her at college, learned of the marriage, and brought her home. Her parents, Mamerto and Mena Escano, alarmed by the clandestine wedding’s scandal, sought ecclesiastical advice for a possible recelebration, which did not materialize due to Vicenta’s refusal.
  • Estrangement, Foreign Proceedings, and Remarriage
    • Vicenta and Pastor grew estranged by June 1948. Vicenta relocated to Jimenez, Misamis Occidental; her civil annulment petition was dismissed for non-appearance. In June 1950 she procured a passport (declaring herself single) and traveled to the U.S.
    • On August 22, 1950, Vicenta filed for “extreme cruelty” divorce in Nevada; on October 21, 1950, the court granted a final decree. In September 1954 she allegedly sought papal dispensation, then married Russell Leo Moran in Nevada and later became a U.S. citizen.
  • Philippine Proceedings and Trial Court Judgment
    • On July 30, 1955, Tenchavez sued in Cebu for legal separation and ₱1,000,000 moral damages against Vicenta and her parents for alienation of affection. Vicenta counterclaimed for recognition of her Nevada divorce and ₱ damages; her parents sought moral damages.
    • The Court of First Instance denied legal separation, dismissed Tenchavez’s claim against Vicenta, but awarded Mamerto and heirs of Mena Escano ₱45,000. Tenchavez appealed.

Issues:

  • Was the secret February 1948 marriage valid under Philippine civil law despite alleged canonical defects?
  • Is Vicenta’s Nevada absolute divorce and subsequent U.S. marriage binding in the Philippines?
  • Is Tenchavez entitled to legal separation and moral damages for desertion and adultery by Vicenta?
  • Are Mamerto and Mena Escano liable for alienation of Vicenta’s affections?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.