Tenchavez-Ninal

8/12/2019 Tenchavez-Ninal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tenchavez-ninal 1/5

TITLE: Tenchavez vs. Escano

CITATION: 15 SCRA 355

FACTS:

27 years old Vicenta Escano who belong to a prominent Filipino Family of Spanish ancestry got married on

Feburary 24, 1948 with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years old engineer, and ex-army officer before Catholic chaplain Lt.Moises Lavares. The marriage was a culmination of the love affair of the couple and was duly registered in the

local civil registry. A certain Pacita Noel came to be their match-maker and go-between who had an amorous

relationship with Tenchavez as written by a San Carlos college student where she and Vicenta are

studying. Vicenta and Pastor are supposed to renew their vows/ marriage in a church as suggested by Vicenta’s

parents. However after translating the said letter to Vicenta’s dad, he disagreed for a new marriage. Vicenta

continued leaving with her parents in Cebu while Pastor went back to work in Manila.

Vicenta applied for a passport indicating that she was single and when it was approved she left for the United

States and filed a complaint for divorce against Pastor which was later on approved and issued by the Second

Judicial Court of the State of Nevada. She then sought for the annulment of her marriage to the Archbishop of

Cebu. Vicenta married Russell Leo Moran, an American, in Nevada and has begotten children. She acquiredcitizenship on August 8, 1958. Petitioner filed a complaint against Vicenta and her parents whom he alleged to

have dissuaded Vicenta from joining her husband.

ISSUE: Whether the divorce sought by Vicenta Escano is valid and binding upon courts of the Philippines.

HELD:

Civil Code of the Philippines does not admit divorce. Philippine courts cannot give recognition on foreign decrees

of absolute divorce between Filipino citizens because it would be a violation of the Civil Code. Such grant would

arise to discrimination in favor of rich citizens who can afford divorce in foreign countries. The adulterous

relationship of Escano with her American husband is enough grounds for the legal separation prayed by

Tenchavez. In the eyes of Philippine laws, Tenchavez and Escano are still married. A foreign divorce betweenFilipinos sought and decreed is not entitled to recognition neither is the marriage of the divorcee entitled to

validity in the Philippines. Thus, the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by one spouse entitled the

other for damages.

WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal is hereby modified as follows;

(1) Adjudging plaintiff-appellant Pastor Tenchavez entitled to a decree of legal separation from defendant Vicenta

F. Escaño;

(2) Sentencing defendant-appellee Vicenta Escaño to pay plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez the amount of P25,000 for

damages and attorneys' fees;

(3) Sentencing appellant Pastor Tenchavez to pay the appellee, Mamerto Escaño and the estate of his wife, the

deceased Mena Escaño, P5,000 by way of damages and attorneys' fees.





On February 2, 1946, Paula and Lorenzo had a written agreement, dissolving their marital union,

suspending his support upon her, and waiving his authority to file a case of adultery against her. Lorenzo returned

to the US and filed for a divorce in 1951 which was granted in 1952.

On January 16, 1958, Lorenzo married Alicia Fortuno, in the Philippines; afterwhich, they bore three

children: Raul, Luz, and Beverly. In 1981, Lorenzo executed a will, bequeathing all his property to Alicia and three

children. Before the proceeding could be terminated, Lorenzo died in 1985.On Sept. 4, 1985, Paula filed with the RTC of Iriga a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s

estate, contending that she was Lorenzo’s surviving spouse.

In 1987, the RTC granted her petition, stating that Lorenzo’s divorce decree was void and inapplicable in the

Philippines and therefore his marriage to Alicia was void. The RTC entitled Paula to one-half of their conjugal

properties, and one-third of the estate – the two-thirds would be divided equally among the illegitimate children.

Paula was appointed as legal administratix of the estate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Paula Llorente was entitled to inherit from the estate of Lorenzo Llorente.

HELD:

Since Lorenzo was an American citizen, issues arising from the case are governed by foreign law. The CA and RTC

called to the fore the renvoi doctrine, where the case was referred back to the law of the decedent’s domicile, inthis case, the Philippine law. Most US laws follow the domiciliary theory. Thus, the Philippine law applies when

determinging the validity of Lorenzo’s will.

The case was remanded to the RTC for the ruling on the intrinsic validity of the will of the deceased.

Republic vs. Orbecido

GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of Christ in

the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly, respectively. In

1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Orbecido discovered that his wifehad been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from his son that his wife sometime in 2000 had obtained

a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. He thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to

remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

HELD:

The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article 26 Par.2

should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were

Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce

decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at thetime of the solemnization of the marriage.

Hence, the court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26 Par 2 be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen who

has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a citizenship and remarried, also to remarry under Philippine law.



Ninal vs. Bayadog

328 SCRA 122

FACTS:

Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. They had 3 children namely Babyline,

Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24, 1985leaving the children under the guardianship of Engrace Ninal. 1 year and 8 months later, Pepito and Norma

Badayog got married without any marriage license. They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived together

for at least 5 years exempting from securing the marriage license. Pepito died in a car accident on February 19,

1977. After his death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma

alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage license.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?

2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of the nullity of Pepito’s marriage after his

death?

HELD:

The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage license. They cannot be exempted even

though they instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years because from the time of

Pepito’s first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma, only about 20 months had elapsed.

Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living with

each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period cohabitation was not

the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his marriage to Norma is still void.

Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be the source of rights. It can be questioned even

after the death of one of the parties and any proper interested party may attack a void marriage.

REPUBLIC VS. CA 236 SCRA 257

FACTS:

Respondent Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by a City Court

Judge of Pasig City and was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents.Defendant Cardenas personally

attended the procuring of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage, including the procurement

of the marriage license.

The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was unknown to Castro's

parents. They decided to live together when Castro discovered she was pregnant. The cohabitation lasted only for

four months. Thereafter, the couple parted ways. Desiring to follow her daughter in the U.S, Castro wanted to put

in order the marital status before leaving for the U.S. She then discovered that there was no marriage licenseissued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage as certified by the Civi l Registrar of Pasig, Metro

Manila.

Respondent then filed a petition with the RTC of Quezon City seeking for the judicial declaration of nullity of her

marriage claiming that no marriage license was ever issued to them prior to the solemnization of their marriage.

The trial court denied the petition holding that the certification was inadequate to establish the alleged non-



issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the marriage between the parties. It ruled that the

"inability of the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no

marriage license issued. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was reversed.

ISSUE:

Is the marriage valid? Is there such a thing as a "secret marriage"?

HELD:

At the time of the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing marital relations was the

New Civil Code. The law provides that no marriage license shall be solemnized without a marriage license first

issued by the local civil registrar. Being one of the essential requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a license

would render the marriage void ab initio.

It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city court. The

subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a "secret marriage" - a legally non-existent phrase but

ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of

either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the marriage between Castro and Cardenas asinitially unknown to the parents of the former.

Documents

Tenchavez-Ninal