Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Tenchavez v. Escano

    Uploaded by

    Marie Claire T. Inductivo
    The Supreme Court denied Pastor Tenchavez's claim for legal separation and 1 million pesos in damages from his wife Vicenta Escaño and her parents. While Tenchavez falsely accused Vicenta's parents of discrimination in an effort to seek annulment or divorce, the Court found this entitled the parents to damages, though the suit was not likely motivated by actual malice. The Court determined Tenchavez was only entitled to 25,000 pesos in moral damages from Vicenta, considering their secret marriage, lack of living together, and Tenchavez's original agreement to annulment. The Court also ruled that Vicenta's foreign divorce was not valid under Philippine law and that Tenchavez was entitled to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tenchavez v. Escano

    Uploaded by

    Marie Claire T. Inductivo
    14 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied Pastor Tenchavez's claim for legal separation and 1 million pesos in damages from his wife Vicenta Escaño and her parents. While Tenchavez falsely accused Vicenta's parents of discrimination in an effort to seek annulment or divorce, the Court found this entitled the parents to damages, though the suit was not likely motivated by actual malice. The Court determined Tenchavez was only entitled to 25,000 pesos in moral damages from Vicenta, considering their secret marriage, lack of living together, and Tenchavez's original agreement to annulment. The Court also ruled that Vicenta's foreign divorce was not valid under Philippine law and that Tenchavez was entitled to

    Original Title

    TENCHAVEZ V. ESCANO.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied Pastor Tenchavez's claim for legal separation and 1 million pesos in damages from his wife Vicenta Escaño and her parents. While Tenchavez falsely accused Vicenta's parents of discrimination in an effort to seek annulment or divorce, the Court found this entitled the parents to damages, though the suit was not likely motivated by actual malice. The Court determined Tenchavez was only entitled to 25,000 pesos in moral damages from Vicenta, considering their secret marriage, lack of living together, and Tenchavez's original agreement to annulment. The Court also ruled that Vicenta's foreign divorce was not valid under Philippine law and that Tenchavez was entitled to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views2 pages

    Tenchavez v. Escano

    Uploaded by

    Marie Claire T. Inductivo
    The Supreme Court denied Pastor Tenchavez's claim for legal separation and 1 million pesos in damages from his wife Vicenta Escaño and her parents. While Tenchavez falsely accused Vicenta's parents of discrimination in an effort to seek annulment or divorce, the Court found this entitled the parents to damages, though the suit was not likely motivated by actual malice. The Court determined Tenchavez was only entitled to 25,000 pesos in moral damages from Vicenta, considering their secret marriage, lack of living together, and Tenchavez's original agreement to annulment. The Court also ruled that Vicenta's foreign divorce was not valid under Philippine law and that Tenchavez was entitled to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PASTOR B.

    TENCHAVEZ, plaintiff-appellant,
    vs.
    VICENTA F. ESCAÑO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

    I. V. Binamira & F. B. Barria for plaintiff-appellant.


    Jalandoni & Jarnir for defendants-appellees.

    G.R No. L-19671, November 29, 1965

    REYES, J.B.L., J.:

    FACTS: Direct appeal, on factual and legal questions, from the judgment of the Court of First
    Instance of Cebu, in its Civil Case No. R-4177, denying the claim of the plaintiff-appellant,
    Pastor B. Tenchavez, for legal separation and one million pesos in damages against his wife and
    parents-in-law, the defendants-appellees, Vicente, Mamerto and Mena,1 all surnamed "Escaño,"
    respectively. 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 this
    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.

    In the assessment of the moral damages recoverable by appellant Pastor Tenchavez from
    defendant Vicente Escaño, it is proper to take into account, against his patently unreasonable
    claim for a million pesos in damages, that (a) the marriage was celebrated in secret, and its
    failure was not characterized by publicity or undue humiliation on appellant's part; (b) that the
    parties never lived together; and (c) that there is evidence that appellant had originally agreed to
    the annulment of the marriage, although such a promise was legally invalid, being against public
    policy (cf. Art. 88, Civ. Code). While appellant is unable to remarry under our law, this fact is a
    consequence of the indissoluble character of the union that appellant entered into voluntarily and
    with open eyes rather than of her divorce and her second marriage. All told, we are of the
    opinion that appellant should recover P25,000 only by way of moral damages and attorney's fees.

    ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the divorce obtained by Vicenta abroad was valid and binding in
    the Philippine; (2) Whether or not Tenchavez is entitled to legal separation and to moral
    damages.

    RULING: (1) No. That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the
    effectivity of the present Civil Code (Article 15), is not entitled to recognition as valid in this
    jurisdiction; and neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced consort,
    subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country; (2) Yes. That the
    remarriage of divorced wife and her co-habitation with a person other than the lawful husband
    entitle the latter to a decree of legal separation conformably to Philippine law.

    You might also like