Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez secretly got married before a Catholic chaplain and planned to elope.The elopement did not materialize because Vicenta’s mother discovered such marriage. Her parents asked the advice of one Father Reynes and subsequently agreed to recelebrate the marriage. However, Vicenta refused to proceed with the ceremony because a letter from the students of san Carlos College disclosed that Pastor and their matchmaker, Pacita Noel had an amorous relationship. Vicenta left for the States, acquired a foreign divorce and married an American, Russel Leo Moran in Nevada. She sought for a divorce from Tenchavez in 1950 and sought ecclesiastical release from her marriage to Tenchavez in 1954. Escano claims that state recognition should be accorded the Church's disavowal of her marriage with Tenchavez.. Escano argued that her second marriage deserves the law’s recognition and protection over the other.es the laws recognition and protection over the other since it fits concept of a marriage as a social institution because publicly contracted, recognized by both civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and blessed by three children. She also contends that the court has no jurisdiction over her.
Husband filed complaint:
Vs. Parents: for having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband and alienating her affections
Vs. Roman Catholic Church: for having decreed annulment
Parents filed counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages.
Issue
WON marriage between Tenchavez and Escano still subsists in lieu of the divorce
WON there is an action for alienation of affections against parents
Held
NO
Ratio:
1. no proof of malice
2. parents themselves suggested that the marriage be celebrated again
3. also, Vicenta appeared to have acted independently and being of age, she was entitled to 4. judge what was best for her and ask that her decisions be respected
THERE WAS A VALID MARRIAGE between Vicenta and Tenchaves:
With regard to jurisdiction over Escano, the court states that when against the non-resident defendant affects the personal status of the plaintiff, as, for instance, an action for separation or for annulment of marriage, ..., Philippine courts may validly try and decide the case, because, then, they have jurisdiction over the matter , and in that event their jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. The point is the personal status of the plaintiff domiciled in the Philippines. Divorce, although successfully obtained in another country, cannot be applied in the Philippines since it is contrary to public policy. The principle is well-established, in private international law, that foreign decrees cannot be enforced or recognized if they contravene public policy. Furthermore, Vicenta’s refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium and her desertion of husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is entitled to damages (2176). When, however, the action against the non-resident defendant affects the personal status of the plaintiff, as, for instance, an action for separation or for annulment of marriage, ..., Philippine courts may validly try and decide the case, because, then, they have jurisdiction over the res, and in that event their jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. The res is the personal status of the plaintiff domiciled in the Philippines, 45,000 damages awarded to parents deemed excessive: filing of suit nay have wounded their feelings and caused anxiety but this has not seriously injured their reputation or otherwise prejudiced them, lawsuits having become a common occurrence in present society.