6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-19671

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/nov1965/gr_l-19671_1965.html 1/6

TodayisFriday,June13,2014

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L19671November29,1965

PASTORB.TENCHAVEZ,plaintiffappellant,vs.VICENTAF.ESCAO,ETAL.,defendantsappellees.

I.V.Binamira&F.B.Barriaforplaintiffappellant.Jalandoni&Jarnirfordefendantsappellees.

REYES,J.B.L.,J.:

Directappeal,onfactualandlegalquestions,fromthejudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofCebu,initsCivilCaseNo.R4177,denyingtheclaimoftheplaintiffappellant,PastorB.Tenchavez,forlegalseparationandonemillionpesos indamagesagainsthiswifeandparentsinlaw, thedefendantsappellees,Vicente,MamertoandMena,1allsurnamed"Escao,"respectively.2

Thefacts,supportedbytheevidenceofrecord,arethefollowing:

Missingher lateafternoonclasseson24February1948 in theUniversityofSanCarlos,CebuCity,whereshewasthenenrolledasasecondyearstudentofcommerce,VicentaEscao,27yearsofage(scionofawelltodoandsociallyprominentFilipinofamilyofSpanishancestryanda"shelteredcolegiala"),exchangedmarriagevowswithPastorTenchavez,32yearsofage,anengineer,exarmyofficerandofundistinguishedstock,without theknowledgeofherparents,beforeaCatholicchaplain,Lt.MoisesLavares,inthehouseofoneJuanAlburointhesaidcity.Themarriagewas theculminationofaprevious loveaffairandwasduly registeredwith the localcivilregister.

Vicenta's letters to Pastor, and his to her, before the marriage, indicate that the couple were deeply in love.Togetherwithafriend,PacitaNoel,theirmatchmakerandgobetween,theyhadplannedouttheirmaritalfuturewhereby Pacita would be the governess of their firstborn they started savingmoney in a piggy bank. A fewweeksbefore their secretmarriage, their engagementwasbrokenVicenta returned theengagement ringandaccepted another suitor, Joseling Lao. Her love for Pastor beckoned she pleaded for his return, and theyreconciled. This time they planned to get married and then elope. To facilitate the elopement, Vicenta hadbroughtsomeofherclothestotheroomofPacitaNoelinSt.Mary'sHall,whichwastheirusualtrystingplace.

Althoughplannedforthemidnightfollowingtheirmarriage,theelopementdidnot,however,materializebecausewhenVicentewentbacktoherclassesafterthemarriage,hermother,whogotwindoftheintendednuptials,wasalreadywaitingforheratthecollege.VicentawastakenhomewheresheadmittedthatshehadalreadymarriedPastor.MamertoandMenaEscaoweresurprised,becausePastorneverasked for thehandofVicente, andwere disgusted because of the great scandal that the clandestinemarriage would provoke (t.s.n., vol. III, pp.110506). The following morning, the Escao spouses sought priestly advice. Father Reynes suggested arecelebrationtovalidatewhathebelievedtobeaninvalidmarriage,fromthestandpointoftheChurch,duetothelackofauthorityfromtheArchbishoportheparishpriestfortheofficiatingchaplaintocelebratethemarriage.Therecelebrationdidnottakeplace,becauseon26February1948MamertoEscaowashandedbyamaid,whosename he claims he does not remember, a letter purportedly coming from San Carlos college students anddisclosinganamorous relationshipbetweenPastorTenchavezandPacitaNoelVicenta translated the letter toher father,andthereafterwouldnotagreetoanewmarriage.VicentaandPastormet thatday in thehouseofMrs.PilarMendezona.Thereafter,Vicenta continued livingwithherparentswhilePastor returned tohis job inManila. Her letter of 22 March 1948 (Exh. "M"), while still solicitous of her husband's welfare, was not asendearingasherpreviousletterswhentheirlovewasaflame.

VicentawasbredinCatholicwaysbutisofachangeabledisposition,andPastorknewit.Shefondlyacceptedherbeing called a "jellyfish." She was not prevented by her parents from communicating with Pastor (Exh. "1Escao"),butherlettersbecamelessfrequentasthedayspassed.AsofJune,1948thenewlywedswerealready

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-19671

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/nov1965/gr_l-19671_1965.html 2/6

estranged(Exh."2Escao").VicentahadgonetoJimenez,MisamisOccidental,toescapefromthescandalthathermarriagestirredinCebusociety.There,alawyerfiledforherapetition,draftedbythenSenatorEmmanuelPelaez, to annul her marriage. She did not sign the petition (Exh. "B5"). The case was dismissed withoutprejudicebecauseofhernonappearanceatthehearing(Exh."B4").

On24June1950,withoutinformingherhusband,sheappliedforapassport,indicatinginherapplicationthatshewassingle,thatherpurposewastostudy,andshewasdomiciledinCebuCity,andthatsheintendedtoreturnaftertwoyears.Theapplicationwasapproved,andsheleftfortheUnitedStates.On22August1950,shefiledaverified complaint for divorce against the herein plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court of the State ofNevadainandfortheCountyofWashoe,onthegroundof"extremecruelty,entirelymentalincharacter."On21October1950,adecreeofdivorce,"finalandabsolute",wasissuedinopencourtbythesaidtribunal.

In 1951 Mamerto and Mena Escao filed a petition with the Archbishop of Cebu to annul their daughter'smarriagetoPastor(Exh."D").On10September1954,Vicentasoughtpapaldispensationofhermarriage(Exh."D"2).

On13September1954,VicentamarriedanAmerican,RussellLeoMoran,inNevada.ShenowliveswithhiminCalifornia,and,byhim,hasbegottenchildren.SheacquiredAmericancitizenshipon8August1958.

Buton30July1955,TenchavezhadinitiatedtheproceedingsatbarbyacomplaintintheCourtofFirstInstanceofCebu,andamendedon31May1956,againstVicentaF.Escao,herparents,MamertoandMenaEscao,whomhechargedwithhavingdissuadedanddiscouragedVicentafromjoiningherhusband,andalienatingheraffections, and against the Roman Catholic Church, for having, through its Diocesan Tribunal, decreed theannulmentofthemarriage,andaskedforlegalseparationandonemillionpesosindamages.Vicentaclaimedavaliddivorce fromplaintiffandanequallyvalidmarriage toherpresenthusband,RussellLeoMoranwhileherparentsdeniedthattheyhadinanywayinfluencedtheirdaughter'sacts,andcounterclaimedformoraldamages.

Theappealedjudgmentdidnotdecreealegalseparation,butfreedtheplaintiff fromsupportinghiswifeandtoacquirepropertytotheexclusionofhiswife.ItallowedthecounterclaimofMamertoEscaoandMenaEscaoformoralandexemplarydamagesandattorney'sfeesagainsttheplaintiffappellant,totheextentofP45,000.00,andplaintiffresorteddirectlytothisCourt.

Theappellantascribes,aserrorsofthetrialcourt,thefollowing:

1.InnotdeclaringlegalseparationinnotholdingdefendantVicentaF.Escaoliablefordamagesandindismissingthecomplaint.

2. In not holding the defendant parentsMamertoEscanoand the heirs ofDoaMenaEscao liable fordamages.

3Inholdingtheplaintiff liableforandrequiringhimtopaythedamagestothedefendantparentsontheircounterclaimsand.

4.Indismissingthecomplaintandindenyingthereliefsoughtbytheplaintiff.

Thaton24February1948theplaintiffappellant,PastorTenchavez,andthedefendantappellee,VicentaEscao,werevalidlymarriedtoeachother,fromthestandpointofourcivillaw,isclearlyestablishedbytherecordbeforeus. Both parties were then above the age of majority, and otherwise qualified and both consented to themarriage, which was performed by a Catholic priest (army chaplain Lavares) in the presence of competentwitnesses.Itisnowhereshownthatsaidpriestwasnotdulyauthorizedundercivillawtosolemnizemarriages.

Thechaplain'sallegedlackofecclesiasticalauthorizationfromtheparishpriestandtheOrdinary,asrequiredbyCanonlaw,isirrelevantinourcivillaw,notonlybecauseoftheseparationofChurchandStatebutalsobecauseAct3613ofthePhilippineLegislature(whichwasthemarriagelawinforceatthetime)expresslyprovidedthat

SEC. 1.Essential requisites. Essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacity of the contractingpartiesandconsent.(Emphasissupplied)

Theactualauthorityofthesolemnizingofficerwasthusonlyaformalrequirement,and,therefore,notessentialtogive themarriagecivileffects,3and this is emphasizedby section27of saidmarriageact,whichprovided thefollowing:

SEC.27.Failuretocomplywithformalrequirements.NomarriageshallbedeclaredinvalidbecauseoftheabsenceofoneorseveraloftheformalrequirementsofthisActif,whenitwasperformed,thespousesoroneofthembelievedingoodfaiththatthepersonwhosolemnizedthemarriagewasactuallyempoweredtodoso,andthatthemarriagewasperfectlylegal.

Thegoodfaithofallthepartiestothemarriage(andhencethevalidityoftheirmarriage)willbepresumeduntil

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-19671

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/nov1965/gr_l-19671_1965.html 3/6

thecontraryispositivelyproved(Laovs.DeeTim,45Phil.739,745Franciscovs.Jason,60Phil.442,448).Itiswelltonoteherethatinthecaseatbar,doubtsastotheauthorityofthesolemnizingpriestaroseonlyafterthemarriage,whenVicenta'sparentsconsultedFatherReynesandthearchbishopofCebu.Moreover,theveryactof Vicenta in abandoning her original action for annulment and subsequently suing for divorce implies anadmissionthathermarriagetoplaintiffwasvalidandbinding.

DefendantVicentaEscaoarguesthatwhenshecontractedthemarriageshewasundertheundueinfluenceofPacita Noel, whom she charges to have been in conspiracy with appellant Tenchavez. Even granting, forargument's sake, the truth of that contention, and assuming that Vicenta's consent was vitiated by fraud andundue influence, such vices did not render hermarriageab initio void, butmerely voidable, and themarriageremainedvaliduntilannulledbyacompetentcivilcourt.Thiswasneverdone,andadmittedly,Vicenta'ssuit forannulmentintheCourtofFirstInstanceofMisamiswasdismissedfornonprosecution.

It is equally clear from the record that the valid marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta EscaoremainedsubsistingandundissolvedunderPhilippinelaw,notwithstandingthedecreeofabsolutedivorcethatthewifesoughtandobtainedon21October1950fromtheSecondJudicialDistrictCourtofWashoeCounty,StateofNevada,ongroundsof"extremecruelty,entirelymentalincharacter."Atthetimethedivorcedecreewasissued,VicentaEscao,likeherhusband,wasstillaFilipinocitizen.4ShewasthensubjecttoPhilippinelaw,andArticle15oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippines(Rep.ActNo.386),alreadyinforceatthetime,expresslyprovided:

Lawsrelatingtofamilyrightsanddutiesortothestatus,conditionandlegalcapacityofpersonsarebindinguponthecitizensofthePhilippines,eventhoughlivingabroad.

TheCivilCodeofthePhilippines,nowinforce,doesnotadmitabsolutedivorce,quoadvinculomatrimoniiandinfact does not even use that term, to further emphasize its restrictive policy on the matter, in contrast to thepreceding legislation that admitted absolute divorce on grounds of adultery of the wife or concubinage of thehusband(Act2710).Insteadofdivorce,thepresentCivilCodeonlyprovidesforlegalseparation(TitleIV,Book1,Arts.97 to108),and,even in thatcase, itexpresslyprescribes that "themarriagebondsshallnotbesevered"(Art.106,subpar.1).

For the Philippine courts to recognize and give recognition or effect to a foreign decree of absolute divorcebetiveenFilipinocitizenscouldbeapatentviolationofthedeclaredpublicpolicyofthestate,speciallyinviewofthethirdparagraphofArticle17oftheCivilCodethatprescribesthefollowing:

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and thosewhich have for their object publicorder,policyandgoodcustoms,shallnotberenderedineffectivebylawsorjudgmentspromulgated,orbydeterminationsorconventionsagreeduponinaforeigncountry.

Evenmore,thegrantofeffectivityinthisjurisdictiontosuchforeigndivorcedecreeswould,ineffect,giverisetoanirritatingandscandalousdiscriminationinfavorofwealthycitizens,tothedetrimentofthosemembersofourpolitywhosemeansdonotpermitthemtosojournabroadandobtainabsolutedivorcesoutsidethePhilippines.

From this point of view, it is irrelevant that appellant Pastor Tenchavez should have appeared in the Nevadadivorcecourt.Primarilybecausethepolicyofourlawcannotbenullifiedbyactsofprivateparties(CivilCode,Art.17, jam quot.) and additionally, because the mere appearance of a nonresident consort cannot conferjurisdictionwherethecourtoriginallyhadnone(Areavs.Javier,95Phil.579).

From the preceding facts and considerations, there flows as a necessary consequence that in this jurisdictionVicentaEscao'sdivorceandsecondmarriagearenotentitledtorecognitionasvalidforherpreviousuniontoplaintiff Tenchavez must be declared to be existent and undissolved. It follows, likewise, that her refusal toperform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband constitute in law awrongcausedthroughherfault,forwhichthehusbandisentitledtothecorrespondingindemnity(CivilCode,Art.2176). Neither an unsubstantiated charge of deceit nor an anonymous letter charging immorality against thehusband constitute, contrary to her claim, adequate excuse. Wherefore, her marriage and cohabitation withRussell LeoMoran is technically "intercoursewithapersonnotherhusband" from thestandpointofPhilippineLaw, and entitles plaintiffappellant Tenchavez to a decree of "legal separation under our law, on the basis ofadultery"(RevisedPenalCode,Art.333).

Theforegoingconclusionsastotheuntowardeffectofamarriageafteraninvaliddivorceareinaccordwiththepreviousdoctrinesandrulingsof thiscourtonthesubject,particularlythosethatwererenderedunderour lawsprior to the approval of the absolute divorce act (Act 2710 of the Philippine Legislature). As amatter of legalhistory,ourstatutesdidnotrecognizedivorcesavinculobefore1917,whenAct2710becameeffectiveandthepresentCivilCodeofthePhilippines,indisregardingabsolutedivorces,ineffectmerelyrevertedtothepoliciesonthe subject prevailing before Act 2710. The rulings, therefore, under the Civil Code of 1889, prior to the Actabovementioned, are now, fully applicable. Of these, the decision in Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil. 855, is ofparticularinterest.SaidthisCourtinthatcase:

AsthedivorcegrantedbytheFrenchCourtmustbeignored, itresultsthatthemarriageofDr.Moryand

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-19671

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/nov1965/gr_l-19671_1965.html 4/6

LeonaCastro,celebrated inLondon in1905,couldnot legalize their relationsand thecircumstance thatthey afterwards passed for husband and wife in Switzerland until her death is wholly without legalsignificance.TheclaimsoftheverychildrentoparticipateintheestateofSamuelBishopmustthereforeberejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated and acknowledged natural children. Thechildrenofadulterousrelationsarewhollyexcluded.Theword"descendants"asusedinArticle941oftheCivilCodecannotbeinterpretedtoincludeillegitimatesbornofadulterousrelations.(Emphasissupplied)

Except for the fact that thesuccessional rightsof thechildren,begotten fromVicenta'smarriage toLeoMoranafter the invaliddivorce,arenot involved in thecaseatbar, theGmurcase isauthority for theproposition thatsuchunionisadulterousinthisjurisdiction,and,therefore,justifiesanactionforlegalseparationonthepartoftheinnocentconsortofthefirstmarriage,thatstandsundissolvedinPhilippinelaw.Innotsodeclaring,thetrialcourtcommittederror.

Trueitisthatourrulinggivesrisetoanomaloussituationswherethestatusofaperson(whetherdivorcedornot)woulddependon the territorywhere thequestionarises.Anomaliesof thiskindarenotnew in thePhilippines,andtheanswertothemwasgiveninBarrettovs.Gonzales,58Phil.667:

Thehardshipof theexistingdivorce laws in thePhilippine Islandsarewellknown to themembersof theLegislature. It is thedutyof theCourtstoenforcethe lawsofdivorceaswrittenbyLegislature if theyareconstitutional.Courtshavenorighttosaythatsuchlawsaretoostrictortooliberal.(p.72)

Theappellant'sfirstassignmentoferroris,therefore,sustained.

However,theplaintiffappellant'schargethathiswife'sparents,Dr.MamertoEscaoandhiswife,thelateDoaMenaEscao,alienatedtheaffectionsoftheirdaughterandinfluencedherconducttowardherhusbandarenotsupportedby credible evidence.The testimonyofPastorTenchavezabout theEscao's animosity towardhimstrikesustobemerelyconjectureandexaggeration,andarebeliedbyPastor'sownletterswrittenbeforethissuitwasbegun(Exh."2Escao"and"Vicenta,"Rec.onApp.,pp.270274).Intheselettersheexpresslyapologizedtothedefendantsfor"misjudgingthem"andforthe"greatunhappiness"causedbyhis"impulsiveblunders"and"sinfulpride,""effronteryandaudacity"[sic].PlaintiffwasadmittedtotheEscaohousetovisitandcourtVicenta,and the recordshowsnothing toprove thathewouldnothavebeenaccepted tomarryVicentehadheopenlyaskedforherhand,asgoodmannersandbreedingdemanded.Evenafterlearningoftheclandestinemarriage,and despite their shock at such unexpected event, the parents of Vicenta proposed and arranged that themarriageberecelebratedinstrictconformitywiththecanonsof theirreligionuponadvicethat thepreviousonewascanonicallydefective. If no recelebrationof themarriageceremonywashad itwasnotdue todefendantsMamertoEscaoandhiswife,buttotherefusalofVicentatoproceedwith it.ThatthespousesEscaodidnotseek tocompelor induce theirdaughter toassent to the recelebrationbut respectedherdecision,or that theyabidedbyherresolve,doesnotconstitutein lawanalienationofaffections.NeitherdoesthefactthatVicenta'sparents sent hermoneywhile shewas in theUnited States for it was natural that they should not wish theirdaughtertoliveinpenuryeveniftheydidnotconcurinherdecisiontodivorceTenchavez(27Am.Jur.130132).

ThereisnoevidencethattheparentsofVicenta,outofimpropermotives,aidedandabettedheroriginalsuitforannulment, or her subsequent divorce she appears to have acted independently, and being of age, shewasentitledtojudgewhatwasbestforherandaskthatherdecisionsberespected.Herparents,insodoing,certainlycannot be chargedwith alienation of affections in the absence ofmalice or unworthymotives,which have notbeenshown,goodfaithbeingalwayspresumeduntilthecontraryisproved.

SEC.529.LiabilityofParents,GuardiansorKin.Thelawdistinguishesbetweentherightofaparenttointeresthimself in themaritalaffairsofhischildandtheabsenceof rights inastranger to intermeddle insuchaffairs.However,suchdistinctionbetweentheliabilityofparentsandthatofstrangersisonlyinregardtowhatwilljustifyinterference.Aparentisliableforalienationofaffectionsresultingfromhisownmaliciousconduct,aswherehewrongfullyenticeshissonordaughtertoleavehisorherspouse,butheisnotliableunlessheactsmaliciously,without justificationandfromunworthymotives.Heisnot liablewhereheactsandadviseshischildingoodfaithwithrespecttohischild'smaritalrelationsintheinterestofhischildasheseesit,themarriageofhischildnotterminatinghisrightandlibertytointeresthimselfin,andbeextremelysolicitousfor,hischild'swelfareandhappiness,evenwherehisconductandadvicesuggestorresultintheseparationof thespousesor theobtainingofadivorceorannulment,orwhereheactsundermistakeormisinformation,orwherehisadviceorinterferenceareindiscreetorunfortunate,althoughithasbeenheldthattheparentisliableforconsequencesresultingfromrecklessness.Hemayingoodfaithtakehischildintohishomeandaffordhimorherprotectionandsupport,solongashehasnotmaliciouslyenticedhischildaway,ordoesnotmaliciouslyenticeorcausehimorhertostayaway,fromhisorherspouse.Thisrulehasmorefrequentlybeenapplied inthecaseofadvicegiventoamarrieddaughter,but it isequallyapplicableinthecaseofadvicegiventoason.

PlaintiffTenchavez,infalselychargingVicenta'sagedparentswithracialorsocialdiscriminationandwithhavingexerted efforts and pressured her to seek annulment and divorce, unquestionably caused them unrest andanxiety, entitling them to recover damages.While this suit may not have been impelled by actualmalice, the

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-19671

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/nov1965/gr_l-19671_1965.html 5/6

charges were certainly reckless in the face of the proven facts and circumstances. Court actions are notestablishedforpartiestogiveventtotheirprejudicesorspleen.

In the assessment of themoral damages recoverable by appellant Pastor Tenchavez from defendant VicenteEscao,itispropertotakeintoaccount,againsthispatentlyunreasonableclaimforamillionpesosindamages,that (a) the marriage was celebrated in secret, and its failure was not characterized by publicity or unduehumiliation on appellant's part (b) that the parties never lived together and (c) that there is evidence thatappellanthadoriginallyagreed to theannulmentof themarriage,althoughsuchapromisewas legally invalid,beingagainstpublicpolicy(cf.Art.88,Civ.Code).Whileappellantisunabletoremarryunderourlaw,thisfactisa consequence of the indissoluble character of the union that appellant entered into voluntarily andwith openeyes rather thanof her divorceandher secondmarriage.All told,weareof theopinion that appellant shouldrecoverP25,000onlybywayofmoraldamagesandattorney'sfees.

WithregardtotheP45,000damagesawardedtothedefendants,Dr.MamertoEscaoandMenaEscao,bythecourtbelow,weopine that thesameareexcessive.While the filingof thisunfoundedsuitmusthavewoundedsaid defendants' feelings and caused them anxiety, the same could in no way have seriously injured theirreputation,orotherwiseprejudicedthem,lawsuitshavingbecomeacommonoccurrenceinpresentsociety.Whatisimportant,andhasbeencorrectlyestablishedinthedecisionofthecourtbelow,isthatsaiddefendantswerenot guilty of any improper conduct in thewhole deplorable affair. ThisCourt, therefore, reduces the damagesawardedtoP5,000only.

Summingup,theCourtrules:

(1)Thata foreigndivorcebetweenFilipinocitizens,soughtanddecreedafter theeffectivityof thepresentCivilCode (Rep. Act 386), is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction and neither is the marriagecontractedwithanotherpartybythedivorcedconsort,subsequentlytotheforeigndecreeofdivorce,entitledtovalidityinthecountry

(2)ThattheremarriageofdivorcedwifeandhercohabitationwithapersonotherthanthelawfulhusbandentitlethelattertoadecreeoflegalseparationconformablytoPhilippinelaw

(3) That the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by one consort entitles the other to recoverdamages

(4)Thatanaction foralienationofaffectionsagainst theparentsofoneconsortdoesnot lie in theabsenceofproofofmaliceorunworthymotivesontheirpart.

WHEREFORE,thedecisionunderappealisherebymodifiedasfollows

(1)AdjudgingplaintiffappellantPastorTenchavezentitledtoadecreeoflegalseparationfromdefendantVicentaF.Escao

(2)SentencingdefendantappelleeVicentaEscao topayplaintiffappellantTenchavez theamountofP25,000fordamagesandattorneys'fees

(3)SentencingappellantPastorTenchaveztopaytheappellee,MamertoEscaoandtheestateofhiswife,thedeceasedMenaEscao,P5,000bywayofdamagesandattorneys'fees.

Neitherpartytorecovercosts.

Bengzon,C.J.,BautistaAngelo,Concepcion,Dizon,Regala,Makalintal,Bengzon,J.P.andZaldivar,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1Thelatterwassubstitutedbyherheirswhenshediedduringthependencyofthecaseinthetrialcourt.

2TheoriginalcomplaintincludedtheRomanCatholicChurchasadefendant,soughttobeenjoinedfromactingonapetitionfortheecclesiasticalannulmentofthemarriagebetweenPastorTenchavezandVicentaEscaothecaseagainstthedefendantChurchwasdismissedonajointmotion.

3InthepresentCivilCodethecontraryruleobtains(Art.53).

4ShewasnaturalizedasanAmericancitizenonlyon8August1958.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-19671

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/nov1965/gr_l-19671_1965.html 6/6