Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19671)
Procedural History
– Trial court (Court of First Instance, Cebu) Civil Case No. R-4177: dismissed petitioner’s complaint for legal separation and damages; granted counterclaim of respondents for moral damages (₱45,000).
– Direct appeal by Tenchavez to the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Factual Background
– Secret marriage on February 24, 1948, between Tenchavez and Vicenta (both of age), solemnized by an army chaplain in Cebu.
– Parents Escano opposed upon learning of the clandestine ceremony; no canonical re-celebration occurred at Vicenta’s refusal.
– Marital estrangement by mid-1948; Vicenta returned home, resumed studies, and later filed—but did not pursue—a civil annulment suit.
– In 1950 Vicenta obtained an American passport (stating single status), secured a Nevada divorce decree (October 21, 1950) on “extreme mental cruelty” grounds, and remarried Russell Moran in September 1954.
Issues
- Validity of the 1948 marriage under Philippine civil law.
- Recognition of Nevada absolute divorce under Philippine public policy and Civil Code.
- Right of petitioner to legal separation and damages for wife’s desertion and remarriage.
- Liability of Vicenta’s parents for alleged alienation of affection.
Applicable Law (1935 Constitution Era)
– Act No. 3613 (Marriage Law, in force 1930–1950): essential requisites—legal capacity and consent; formal defects excused when parties acted in good faith (Sec. 1, 27).
– Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386, effective 1949): family law binding on Filipino citizens abroad (Art. 15); legal separation in lieu of absolute divorce (Arts. 97–108).
– Public policy prohibits recognition of foreign decrees contravening Philippine law on marriage (Civil Code, Art. 17).
– Quasi-delict liability for wrongful acts causing moral damages (Arts. 2176, 2219).
– Revised Penal Code adultery provisions (Art. 333) as basis for legal separation ground.
Court’s Analysis on Marriage Validity
– Both spouses were of legal age, consented, and ceremony registered civilly.
– Potential lack of ecclesiastical authorization irrelevant under civil law and separation of Church and State.
– Good faith presumed; no civil annulment obtained.
Court’s Analysis on Foreign Divorce and Remarriage
– Vicenta remained a Filipino citizen when she secured an absolute divorce in Nevada.
– Philippine law does not admit absolute divorce a vinculo matrimonii; only legal separation is recognized.
– Public policy (Civil Code Art. 17) bars recognition of foreign decrees that dissolve marriage bonds totally.
– Subsequent remarriage to Moran is void and constitutes adulterous intercourse under Philippine law.
Court’s Conclusions on Legal Separation and Damages
– The original marriage subsists undissolved; Vicenta’s refusal to cohabit, denial of consortium, desertion, and remarriage justify legal separation under Philippine law (Revised Penal Code Art. 333; Civil Code Art. 2176).
– Petitioner entitled t
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-19671)
Facts of Courtship, Secret Marriage and Estrangement
- Vicenta F. Escano, 27-year-old commerce student at University of San Carlos and daughter of a well-to-do Filipino family of Spanish ancestry, secretly married Pastor B. Tenchavez, a 32-year-old engineer and ex-army officer, on 24 February 1948 before Catholic Chaplain Lt. Moises Lavares in Cebu City.
- The clandestine wedding was registered with the civil registrar; prior correspondence and shared plans (e.g., naming Pacita Noel as governess, saving money in a piggy bank) evidenced deep mutual love.
- Engagement had briefly broken; she accepted another suitor but later reconciled with Pastor Tenchavez and planned the elopement.
- Vicenta’s mother intercepted her after class; Vicenta admitted the marriage at home, causing scandal and parental displeasure because Pastor never asked formally for her hand.
- On parental advice, Father Reynes suggested a canonical “recelebration” to cure alleged ecclesiastical defects, but Vicenta refused after her father received an anonymous letter accusing Pastor of an affair with the matchmaker.
- The couple never cohabited: Vicenta remained with her parents; Tenchavez returned to Manila. Letters of Vicenta cooled over time, and by June 1948 they were estranged.
Attempts at Annulment and Flight Abroad
- A lawyer filed, but Vicenta did not sign, a petition for annulment drafted by then-Senator Emmanuel Pelaez; the case was dismissed for non-appearance.
- On 24 June 1950 Vicenta applied for a passport describing herself as “single” to study abroad; she left for the United States.
- On 22 August 1950 she sued for absolute divorce in Nevada on grounds of “extreme mental cruelty”; the Nevada court granted a final and absolute decree on 21 October 1950.
Subsequent Ecclesiastical Proceedings and Remarriage
- In 1951 Vicenta’s parents petitioned the Archbishop of Cebu to annul her marriage to Tenchavez; on 10 September 1954 Vicenta sought a papal dispensation (undocumented on record).
- On 13 September 1954 Vicenta married American Russell Leo Moran in Nevada; they settled in California and had children.
- She became a naturalized U.S. citizen on 8 August 1958.
Original Lawsuit for Legal Separation and Damages
- On 30 July 1955 Pastor Tenchavez filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, amended on 31 May 1956, for:
• Legal separation from Vicenta
• One million pesos in moral and exemplary damages against Vicenta and her parents (Mamerto and Mena Escano) for alienation of affections and discouragement of her conjugal obligations
• Injunction against the Roman Catholic Church’s pending ecclesiastical annulment - Vicenta counterclaimed for recognition of her Nevada divorce and remarriage, and her parents counterclaimed for moral damages.
Trial Court Judgment and Appeal
- The trial court:
• Denied legal s