TENCHAVEZ V.

ESCANO
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 Vicentas
parents. However after translating the said letter to Vicentas 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: 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 between Filipinos
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.

Van Dorn v. Romillo

Facts:
Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and private respondent, Richard Upton, a US
citizen, was married in Hong Kong in 1979. They established their residence in the
Philippines and had 2 children. They were divorced in Nevada, USA in 1982 and petitioner
remarried, this time with Theodore Van Dorn. A suit against petitioner was filed on June 8,
1983, stating that petitioners business in Ermita Manila, the Galleon Shop, is a conjugal
property with Upton and prayed therein that Alice be ordered to render an accounting of the
business and he be declared as the administrator of the said property.
Issue: Whether or not the divorce is valid
YES.
There can be no question as to the validity of the Nevada divorce in any of the States
of the US. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. Owing to the
nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are
covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our
concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.
The divorce is likewise valid as to the petitioner.
As such, pursuant to his national law, he is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He
has no standing to sue as husband of the petitioner over their conjugal assets. He is estopped
by his own representation before his own country's court from asserting that right to exercise
control over their conjugal assets
-

Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera
FACTS:
Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private
respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national before the
Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal
Republic of Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20,
1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Conjugal disharmony
eventuated in private respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding
against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in
January 1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation,
support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January
23, 1983.
The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the
ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child
was granted to the petitioner.
On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery
before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to
Imelda, latter had an affair with William Chia as early as 1982 and
another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983.
ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the
ground of adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife
as decree of divorce was already issued.

HELD:

The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and

concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be
the offended spouse and nobody else. Though in this case, it appeared
that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a
valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, and said
divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so
far as he is concerned. Thus, under the same consideration and
rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner
and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the
imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.

Republic v. Orbecido
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 wife had 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 (2).
Held:
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.
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.
Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code only applies to case where at the time of the celebration of
the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The instant case is 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 U. S. A.
Therefore, the 2nd par. of Art. 26 does not apply to the instant case.
However, the legislative intent must be taken into consideration and rule of reason must be
applied. The Supreme Court ruled that par. 2 of Art. 26 should be construed and interpreted to
include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino
citizens, but later on, one of then 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 the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be sanction
absurdity and injustice. Were the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal
import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature, it
should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the
letter of the law. A stature may therefore be extended to case not within the literal meaning of its
terms, so long as they come within its spirits or intent.