University of the Philippines College of Law

Law 100 | Prof. Katrina Legarda

Case Digest
TOPIC: Binding Effect
DOCTRINE: Validity of Marriage
CASE Number (including date): G.R. No. L-19671. November 29, 1965.
CASE Name: Tenchavez vs. Escao
Ponente: REYES, J.B.L.

FACTS
Pastor Tenchavez, then 32 years old and an engineer and ex-army officer, and Vicenta
Escao, then 27 years old and a 2nd year student of commerce, exchanged marriage
vows before Lt. Moises Ravales, a Catholic Chaplain.
They planned to elope but Vicentas mother got wind of the plans and brought her
home.
Afraid of the scandal it might create, Vicentas parents planned a recelebration but it
was cut short by a letter sent by San Carlos College students that alleged that Pastor
has an affair with Pacita Noel, a common friend and matchmaker of the two.
They met and Vicenta continued living with her parents while Pastor went back to his
job in Manila.
Vicenta had gone to Misamis Occidental to escape the heat borne from her marriage in
Cebu. While there, a lawyer filed a petition for annulment but it was dismissed without
prejudice due to her non-appearance.
On June 24, 1950, she left for the U.S. without informing her husband. She filed for
divorce there and it was issued as final and absolute on October 21, 1950.
1951, Vicentas parents, Mamerto and Mena filed a petition with the Archbishop to
annul their daughters marriage.
On September 13, 1954, Vicenta married an American, Russell Leo Moran, in Nevada
and now lives with him in California and has begotten children.
On July 30, 1955, Tenchavez initiated proceedings at bar.
RELEVANT LAWS

NCC Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
(9a)
FC Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws
in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be
valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37
and 38. (17a)
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to

remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As
amended by Executive Order 227)
Act 3613
"SEC. 1. Ecclesiastical Requisites.Essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacityof
the contracting parties and their consent." (Italics supplied)||| (Tenchavez v. Escao, G.R. No.
L-19671, [November 29, 1965], 122 PHIL 752-776)
"SEC. 27. Failure to comply with formal requirements:No marriage shall be declared invalid
because of the absence of one or several of the formal requirements of this Act if, when it
was performed, the spouses or one of them believed in good faith that the person who
solemnized the marriage was actually empowered to do so, and that the marriage was
perfectly legal."||| (Tenchavez v. Escao, G.R. No. L-19671, [November 29, 1965], 122 PHIL
752-776)

ISSUES
1. Whether or not their marriage is still valid and subsisting.
2. Whether or not Vicentas parents are liable for damages.
3. Whether or not they were validly married. (ito na ata yun relevant sa topic.)
HELD (including the Ratio Decidendi)
1. YES. Because according to civil law, both are above the age of maturity, qualified, and
consented to the marriage, ceremony was performed by a priest, and in the presence of
competent witnesses. The very action of suing for divorce implies their marriage was valid
and binding. Even if she were under undue influence, it would only make the marriage
voidable and still valid until annulled. The absolute decree of divorce doesnt affect the
validity of the marriage, as Vicenta was still a Filipino citizen and thus, subject to Philippine
law. (NCC Article 15). The civil code also doesnt admit absolute divorce. According to
Philippine law, her second marriage then cannot be seen as valid as her previous union is
still existent and undissolved. The adulterous relationship of Vicenta is enough grounds for
legal separation prayed for by Tenchavez.
2. NO. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that they alienated their daughters affections and
influenced her conduct. However, this isnt supported by evidence. This is seen in Pastors
letters and in the parents willingness to recelebrate the marriage. Vicenta appears to have
acted independently.
3. YES. They were both above the age of majority, both consented to the marriage, and was
performed by a Catholic priest in the presence of competent witnesses. It is also not shown
anywhere that army chaplain Lavares was not duly authorized under civil law to solemnize
marriages. Chaplains alleged lack of ecclesiastical authorization from the parish priest is
irrelevant in Civil Law because of the separation of Church and State. The actual authority of
the solemnizing officer is also only a formal requirement and not essential in giving the
marriage civil effects as said by Act 3613, the marriage law in force during that time.

RULING:
Wherefore the decision under appeal is hereby modified as followed:
1. Adjudging plaintiff-appellant Pastor Tenchavez entitled to a decree of legal
separation from defendant Vicenta.
2. Sentencing Vicenta to pay Tenchavez the amount of P25000 and attorneys
fees.
3. Sentencing appellant Tenchavez to pay the appellee, Mamerto Escano and the
estate of his deceased wife, Mena Escano, P5000 by way of damages and
attorneys fees.