(Rai Rai) : Tenchavez v. Escano, 15 SCRA 355 (1965)
(Rai Rai) : Tenchavez v. Escano, 15 SCRA 355 (1965)
At the time the divorce was issued, Vicenta was still a Filipino citizen and therefore
subject to Philippine law. Art 15 of the NCC expressly provides that the laws relating
to rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of the person are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
since our CC doesnt admit absolute divorce, it would be a violation of public
policy for the Philippine courts to recognize this foreign decree of absolute
divorce between Filipino citizens
W/N Vicenta is liable for damages for her acts against Tenchavez YES
W/N the trial court erred in not granting legal separation to Tenchavez
YES
Since Vicenta and Tenchavez are still validly married under Philippine law, Vicentas
marriage to Leo Moran is adulterous in our jurisdiction and so the grant of legal
separation is justified.
W/N Vicentas parents should be liable for alienating the affection of their
daughter and influencing her conduct towards her husband NO (Relevant
Issue)
This charge is not supported by credible evidence, since Tenchavezs testimony was
considered by the Court to be merely conjecture and exaggeration.
in his letters to the parents prior to the suit asked for their forgiveness since
he misjudged them and caused them unhappiness because he married their
daughter without asking them first
clearly, there seems to have been no impediment to their marriage had he
only asked for their permission to marry Vicenta
the parents even proposed a recelebration of the marriage the fact that it
did not push through was not due to the parents but because Vicenta didnt
want to go through with it
o that the parents did nothing and respected her decision does not
constitute an alienation of affections
it is also not undue influence that her parents sent her money while she was
living in the States since they wouldnt have wanted her to live poor
No evidence that the parents of Vicenta, out of improper motives, aided and abetted
her original suit for annulment or her subsequent divorce. In the absence of malice or
unworthy motives, which have not been shown, good faith being always presumed
until the contrary is proved.
RULING: legal separation between Tenchavez and Vicenta, Vicenta to pay Tenchavez
damages and ordering Tenchavez to pay attys fees.