G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Vicenta Escaño was married to Pastor Tenchavez without the knowledge of her parents. They subsequently became estranged. Later on, she sought and obtained a divorce from the State of Nevada and subsequently married a certain Russell Moran. Tenchavez initiated a complaint against Vicenta and her parents whom he charged with having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband and alienating her affections. The appealed judgment did not decree a legal separation, but freed the plaintiff from supporting his wife and to acquire property to the exclusion of his wife. It allowed the counterclaim of Mamerto Escaño and Mena Escaño for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against the plaintiff-appellant. The Supreme Court ruled that in this jurisdiction Vicenta Escaño’s divorce and second marriage are not entitled to recognition as valid. It follows, likewise, that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity. Wherefore, her marriage and cohabitation with Russell Leo Moran is technically “intercourse with a person not her husband” from the standpoint of Philippine law, and entitles plaintiff appellant Tenchavez to a decree of legal separation under our law, on the basis of adultery. However, the plaintiff-appellant’s charge that his wife’s parents, Dr. Mamerto Escaño and his wife, the late Doña Mena Escaño, alienated the affection of their daughter and influenced her conduct toward her husband are not supported by credible evidence.
FACTS:
On February 24, 1948, Vicenta Escaño exchanged marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez without the knowledge of her parents before a Catholic chaplain. The marriage was the culmination of a previous love affair and was duly registered with the local civil registrar. As of June, 1948 the newlyweds were already estranged. On 22 August 1950, she filed a verified complaint for divorce against the herein plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court of 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. In 1951 Mamerto and Mena Escaño (Vicenta’s parents) filed a petition with the Archbishop of Cebu to annul their daughter’s marriage to Pastor. On 10 September 1954, Vicenta sought papal dispensation of her marriage. On 13 September 1954, Vicenta married an American, Russell Leo Moran, in Nevada.
Tenchavez initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against Vicenta F. Escaño, her parents 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 anyway influenced their daughter’s acts, and counterclaimed for moral damages. The appealed judgment did not decree a legal separation, but freed the plaintiff from supporting his wife and to acquire property to the exclusion of his wife. It allowed the counterclaim of Mamerto Escaño and Mena Escaño for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against the plaintiff-appellant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained by the wife absolved her from the obligation to live together with petitioner-husband – NO; therefore, she’s liable for damages to petitioner husband
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The Court ruled that the valid marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escaño remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippine Law, notwithstanding the decree of absolute divorce that the wife sought and obtained. At the time the divorce decree was issued, Vicenta Escaño, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. She was then subject to Philippine law, and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act. No. 386), already in force at the time. For the Philippine courts to recognize and give recognition or effect to a foreign decree of absolute divorce between Filipino citizens would be a patent violation of the declared public policy of the state, specially in view of the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code.
From the preceding facts and considerations, there flows as a necessary consequence that in this jurisdiction Vicenta Escaño’s divorce and second marriage are not entitled to recognition as valid; for her previous union to plaintiff Tenchavez must be declared to be existent and undissolved. It follows, likewise, that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity (Civil Code, Art. 2176). Wherefore, her marriage and cohabitation with Russell Leo Moran is technically “intercourse with a person not her husband” from the standpoint of Philippine law, and entitles plaintiff appellant Tenchavez to a decree of legal separation under our law, on the basis of adultery (Revised Penal Code, Art. 333).
However, the plaintiff-appellant’s charge that his wife’s parents alienated the affection of their daughter and influenced her conduct toward her husband are not supported by credible Evidence. 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. While his suit may not have been impelled by actual malice, the charges were certainly reckless in the face of the proven facts and circumstances. Court actions are not established for parties to give vent to their prejudices or spleen.