Title: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of

the Revised Penal Code
Facts:
The appellant, in representation of the Attorney
General, filed an appeal that urges the
revocation of a demurrer sustained by the Court
of First Instance of Manila presented by the
defendant. The defendant, accused of having
illegally smoked opium aboard the merchant
vessel Changsa of English nationality while the
said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay, two and
a half miles from the shores of the city. In the
said demurrer, the defendant contended the lack
of jurisdiction of the lower court of the said
crime, which resulted to the dismissal of the
case.
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine courts have
jurisdiction over the crime committed aboard
merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdictional
waters.
Held:
Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed
in our internal waters thus the Philippine courts
have a right of jurisdiction over the said offense.
The Court said that having the opium smoked
within our territorial waters even though aboard
a foreign merchant ship is a breach of the public
order because it causes such drugs to produce
pernicious effects within our territory.
Therefore, the demurrer is revoked and the
Court ordered further proceedings.

TENCHAVEZ V. ESCAO
Facts:
Vicenta Escao and Pastor Tenchavez
secretly got married before a Catholic
chaplain and planned to elope.The
elopement did not materialize because
Vicentas 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 laws
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 nonresident 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, Vicentas 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.
15 Phil. 355 Civil Law Torts and
Damages When Liability for Quasi Delict
Arises Unfounded Suit
In February 1948, Pastor Tenchavez and
Vicenta Escao secretly married each
other and of course without the knowledge
of Escaos parents who were of
prominent social status. The marriage was
celebrated by a military chaplain. When
Escaos parents learned of this, they
insisted a church wedding to be held but
Escao withdrew from having a recelebration because she heard that
Tenchavez was having an affair with
another woman. Eventually, their
relationship went sour; 2 years later,
Escao went to the US where she acquired
a decree of absolute divorce and she
subsequently became an American citizen
and also married an American.
In 1955, Tenchavez initiated a case for
legal separation and further alleged that
Escaos parents dissuaded their daughter
to go abroad and caused her to be
estranged from him hence hes asking for
damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00.
The lower court did not grant the legal
separation being sought for and at the
same time awarded a P45,000.00 worth of
counter-claim by the Escaos.
ISSUE: Whether or not damages should
be awarded to either party in the case at
bar
HELD: Yes.
On the part of Tenchavez:
His marriage with Escao was a secret one
and the failure of said marriage did not
result to public humiliation; that they

never lived together and he even

consented to annulling the marriage
earlier (because Escao filed for
annulment before she left for the US but
the same was dismissed due to her nonappearance in court); that he failed to
prove that Escaos parents dissuaded
their daughter to leave Tenchavez and as
such his P1,000,000.00 claim cannot be
awarded. HOWEVER, by reason of the fact
that Escao left without the knowledge of
Tenchavez and being able to acquire a
divorce decree; and Tenchavez being
unable to remarry, the SC awarded
P25,000.00 only by way of moral damages
and attorneys fees to be paid by Escao
and not her parents.
On the part of Escaos parents:
It is true that the P1,000,000.00 for
damages suit by Tenchavez against the
Escaos is unfounded and the same must
have wounded their feelings and caused
them anxiety, the same could in no way
have seriously injured their reputation, or
otherwise prejudiced them, lawsuits
having become a common occurrence in
present society. What is important, and
has been correctly established in the
decision of the lower court, is that they
were not guilty of any improper conduct in
the whole deplorable affair. The SC
reduced the damages awarded from
P45,000.00 to P5,000.00 only.

.R. No. L-23678 (June 6, 1967)

Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of

Texas and of the United States. He had five
legitimate children with his first wife (whom he
divorced), three legitimate children with his
second wife (who survived him) and, finally,
three illegitimate children.
6 years prior Amos Bellis death, he executed
two(2) wills, apportioning the remainder of his
estate and properties to his seven surviving
children. The appellants filed their oppositions
to the project of partition claiming that they
have been deprived of their legitimes to which
they were entitled according to the Philippine
law. Appellants argued that the deceased
wanted his Philippine estate to be governed by
the Philippine law, thus the creation of two
separate wills.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine law be applied
in the case in the determination of the
illegitimate childrens successional rights
RULING:
Court ruled that provision in a foreigners will
to the effect that his properties shall be
distributed in accordance with Philippine law
and not with his national law, is illegal and
void, for his national law cannot be ignored in
view of those matters that Article 10 now

Bellis vs. Bellis

Article 16 of the Civil Code states said

national law should govern.

FACTS:

Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and

domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his
will should be governed by his national law.
Since Texas law does not require legitimes,
then his will, which deprived his illegitimate
children of the legitimes, is valid.

The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate

children are not entitled to the legitimes under
the texas law, which is the national law of the
deceased

7 SCRA 95 Civil Law Application of

Laws Foreign Law Nationality
Principle Internal and Conflict Rule
Application of the Renvoi Doctrine
Edward Christensen was born in New
York but he migrated to California where
he resided for a period of 9 years. In
1913, he came to the Philippines where
he became a domiciliary until his death. In
his will, he instituted an acknowledged
natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen
(legitimate), as his only heir, but left a
legacy sum of money in favor of Helen
Christensen Garcia (illegitimate). Adolfo
Aznar was the executor of the estate.
Counsel for Helen claims that under
Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code,
California law should be applied; that
under California law, the matter is referred
back to the law of the domicile. On the
other hand, counsel for Maria, averred
that the national law of the deceased must
apply, illegitimate children not being
entitled to anything under California law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the national law of
the deceased should be applied in
determining the successional rights of his
heirs.
HELD: The Supreme Court deciding to
grant more successional rights to Helen
said in effect that there are two rules in

California on the matter; the internal law

which applies to Californians domiciled in
California and the conflict rule for
Californians
domiciled
outside
of
California. Christensen being domiciled in
the
Philippines,
the
law
of
his domicile must be followed. The case
was remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings the determination of
the successional rights under Philippine
law only.

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 foreign
divorce between the petitioner and
private respondent in Nevada is

binding in the Philippines where

petitioner is a Filipino citizen.
HELD:
Private respondent is no longer the
husband of the petitioner. He would
have no standing to sue petitioner to
exercise control over conjugal
assets. He is estopped by his own
representation before the court from
asserting his right over the alleged
conjugal property. Furthermore,
aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
which may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law.
Petitioner is not bound to her marital
obligations to respondent by virtue
of her nationality laws. She should
not be discriminated against her own
country if the end of justice is to be
served.
ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner, VS. HON.
MANUEL ROMILLO JR., as Presiding Judge of
Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National
Capital Region Pasay City and RICHARD
UPTON, respondents
October 8, 1985
FACTS:
Alice Reyes, the petitioner is a citizen of the
Philippines while private respondent Richard

Upton is a citizen of the United States. They

were married in Hong Kong in 1972 and they
established residence in the Philippines. They
had two children and they were divorced in
Nevada, USA in 1982. The petitioner remarried
in Nevada to Theodore Van Dorn. The private
responded filed against petitioner stating that the
petitioners business is a conjugal property of
the parties and that respondent is declared with
right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner
moved to dismiss the case on the ground that
the cause of action is barred by previous
judgment in the divorce proceedings before the
Nevada Court, where respondent acknowledged
that they had no community property as of June
11, 1982.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the private respondent as
petitioners husband is entitled to exercise
control over conjugal assets?
RULING:
The petition is granted. Complaint is dismissed.
The policy against absolute divorce cover only
Philippine nationals. However, aliens may obtain
divorce abroad, which may be recognized in the
Philippines provided they are valid according to
their national law.
From the standards of American law, under
which divorce dissolves marriage, the divorce in
Nevada released private respondent from the
marriage between them with the petitioner. Thus,
pursuant to his national law, private respondent
is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would
have no standing to sue in the case as
petitioners husband entitled to exercise control
over conjugal assets. He is estopped by his own
representation before said court from asserting
his right over the alleged conjugal property.