11. Tenchavez v.

Escano
FACTS: 27 year 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 acquired citizenship 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:
1. Whether or not the divorce sought by Vicenta Escaño is valid and binding upon courts of the Philippines.
2. Whether or not the charges against Vicenta Escaño’s parents were sufficient in form.
RULING:
1. No. Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez’ marriage remain existent and undissolved under the Philippine
Law. Escaño’s divorce and second marriage cannot be deemed valid under the Philippine Law to which Escaño
was bound since in the time the divorce decree was issued, Escaño, like her husband, was still a Filipino
citizen. The acts of the wife in not complying with her wifely duties, deserting her husband without any
justifiable cause, leaving for the United States in order to secure a decree of absolute divorce, and finally
getting married again are acts which constitute a willful infliction of injury upon the husband’s feelings in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, thus entitling Tenchavez to a decree of legal
separation under our law on the basis of adultery.

2. No. Tenchavez’ charge against Vicenta’s parents are not supported by credible evidence. The testimony of
Tenchavez about the Escaño’s animosity toward him strikes the court to be merely conjecture and
exaggeration, and were belied by Tenchavez’ own letters written before the suit had begun. An action for
alienation of affections against the parents of one consort does not lie in the absence of proof of malice or
unworthy motives on their part.
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.

12. Republic vs. Cipriano Orbecio III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
FACTS: Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines
in Lam-an, Ozamis City, on May 24, 1981. They were blessed with a with a son and a daughter. Lady Myros left
for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer in 1986. After few years, Cipriano discovered that his
wife had been naturalized as an American citizen.
Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree sometime in 2000 and then married
a certain Innocent Stanley and lived in California. Thereafter, he filed a petition for authority to remarry with
the trial court invoking par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code. Having no opposition, on May 15, 2002, the
Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur granted the petition of the respondent and allowed him to remarry.
The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it
was denied. Orbecido filed a petition for review of certiorari on the Decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a foreign
citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise
remarry under Philippine law?
HELD: Yes. The Court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code 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.
“Art. 26 (2) 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 the Philippine laws.”
The article 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 became naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtained
a divorce decree.
The instant case was one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were two Filipino
citizens, but later on, the wife was naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce
granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed, she remarried an American citizen while residing in the US. The
Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the
solemnization of the marriage.
We state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1. There is a valid
marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 2. A valid divorce is obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of
the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. In this case, when Cipriano’s wife
was naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between
her and Cipriano. As fate would have it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce
capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both
present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the “divorced” Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.
However, since Orbecido was not able to prove as fact his wife’s naturalization, he was still barred from
remarrying. Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of proof, failed to submit competent evidence showing
his allegations that his naturalized American wife had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried. Therefore,
the Petition of the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the RTC Br. 32 of
Molave, Zamboanga del Sur is hereby SET ASIDE.