Tenchavez vs escano
bar by a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and
Facts:
Vicenta Escaño, 27 years of age exchanged marriage vows with
Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years of age, an engineer, ex-army officer
and of undistinguished stock, without the knowledge of her
parents, before a Catholic chaplain, Lt. Moises Lavares. It was
duly registered with the local civil register.
Vicenta's letters to Pastor, and his to her, before the marriage,
indicate that the couple were deeply in love. Together with a
friend, Pacita Noel, their matchmaker and go-between, they had
planned out their marital future
Vicenta returned the engagement ring and accepted another
suitor, Joseling Lao. Her love for Pastor beckoned; she pleaded
for his return, and they reconciled. This time they planned to get
married and then elope.
Her mother, got wind of the intended nuptials. Vicenta admitted
that she had already married Pastor. Mamerto and Mena Escaño
were surprised, because Pastor never asked for the hand of
Vicente, and were disgusted because of the great scandal that
the clandestine marriage would provoke.
The following morning, the Escaño spouses sought priestly
advice. Father Reynes suggested a recelebration to validate
what he believed to be an invalid marriage, from the standpoint
of the Church, due to the lack of authority from the Archbishop or
the parish priest for the officiating chaplain to celebrate the
marriage.
The recelebration did not take place, because on 26 February
1948 Mamerto Escaño was handed by a maid, whose name he
claims he does not remember, a letter purportedly coming from
San Carlos college students and disclosing an amorous
relationship between Pastor Tenchavez and Pacita Noel; Vicenta
translated the letter to her father, and thereafter would not agree
to a new marriage.
On 24 June 1950, without informing her husband, she applied for
a passport, indicating in her application that she was single, that
her purpose was to study, and she was domiciled in Cebu City,
and that she intended to return after two years.
The application was approved, and she left for the United States.
On 22 August 1950, she filed a verified complaint for divorce
against the herein plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court of
the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe, on the
ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." On 21
October 1950, a decree of divorce, "final and absolute", was
issued in open court by the said tribunal.
In 1951 Mamerto and Mena Escaño filed a petition with the
Archbishop of Cebu to annul their daughter's marriage to Pastor.
On 10 September 1954, Vicenta sought papal dispensation of
her marriage.
On 13 September 1954, Vicenta married an American, Russell
Leo Moran, in Nevada. She now lives with him in California, and,
by him, has begotten children. She acquired American
citizenship on 8 August 1958.
But on 30 July 1955, Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at
amended on 31 May 1956, against Vicenta F. Escaño, her
parents, Mamerto and Mena Escaño, whom he charged with
having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her
husband, and alienating her affections, and against the Roman
Catholic Church, for having, through its Diocesan Tribunal,
decreed the annulment of the marriage, and asked for legal
separation and one million pesos in damages.
Vicenta claimed a valid divorce from plaintiff and an equally valid
marriage to her present husband, Russell Leo Moran; while her
parents denied that they had in any way influenced their
daughter's acts, and counterclaimed for moral damages.
Issue:
WON his wife's parents, Dr. Mamerto Escaño and his wife,
the late Doña Mena Escaño, committed acts that alienated
the affections of their daughter and influenced her conduct
toward her husband
Held:
SC held that such allegations are not supported by credible
evidence.
The testimony of Pastor Tenchavez about the Escaño's
animosity toward him strikes us to be merely conjecture and
exaggeration, and are belied by Pastor's own letters written
before this suit was begun.
In these letters he expressly apologized to the defendants
for "misjudging them" and for the "great unhappiness"
caused by his "impulsive blunders" and "sinful pride,"
"effrontery and audacity".
Plaintiff was admitted to the Escaño house to visit and court
Vicenta, and the record shows nothing to prove that he
would not have been accepted to marry Vicente had he
openly asked for her hand, as good manners and breeding
demanded.
Even after learning of the clandestine marriage, and despite
their shock at such unexpected event, the parents of Vicenta
proposed and arranged that the marriage be recelebrated in
strict conformity with the canons of their religion upon advice
that the previous one was canonically defective.
If no recelebration of the marriage ceremony was had it was
not due to defendants Mamerto Escaño and his wife, but to
the refusal of Vicenta to proceed with it.
That the spouses Escaño did not seek to compel or induce
their daughter to assent to the recelebration but respected
her decision, or that they abided by her resolve, does not
constitute in law an alienation of affections.
There is no evidence that the parents of Vicenta, out of
improper motives, aided and abetted her original suit for
annulment, or her subsequent divorce; she appears to have
acted independently, and being of age, she was entitled to
judge what was best for her and ask that her decisions be
respected.
Her parents, in so doing, certainly cannot be charged with
alienation of affections in the absence of malice or unworthy
motives, which have not been shown, good faith being
always presumed until the contrary is proved.
ST. LOUIS REALTY CORP. VS. CA
Facts:
Dr. Conrado Aramil, a neuropsychiatrist and member of the
faculty of UE Ramon Magsaysay Medical Center, sought to
recover damages for a wrongful advertisement in the
Sunday Times where St Louis Realty Corp. misrepresented
his house with Mr. Arcadio. St. Louis published an ad on
December 15, 1968 with the heading “where the heart is”.
This was republished on January 5, 1969.
In the advertisement, the house featured was Dr Aramil’s
house and not Mr. Arcadio with whom the company asked
permission and the intended house to be published.
After Dr Aramil noticed the mistake, he wrote a letter to St.
Louis demanding an explanation 1 week after such receipt.
No rectification or apology was published despite that it was
received by Ernesto Magtoto, the officer in charge of the
advertisement. This prompted Dr. Aramil’s counsel to
demand actual, moral and exemplary damages.
On March 18, 1969, St Louis published an ad now with Mr.
Arcadio’s real house but nothing on the apology or
explanation of the error. Dr Aramil filed a complaint for
damages on March 29. During the April 15 ad, the notice of
rectification was published.
Issue:
WON St. Louis is liable to pay damages to Dr. Aramil.
Held: St Louis was grossly negligent in mixing up residences
in a widely circulated publication. Furthermore, it never made
any written apology and explanation of the mix- up. It just
contented itself with a cavalier rectification . St. Louis Realty
committed an actionable quasi-delict under articles 21 and
26 of the Civil Code because the questioned advertisements
pictured a beautiful house which did not belong to Arcadio
but to Doctor Aramil who, naturally, was annoyed by that
contretemps”.
Gregorio vs ca
Facts:
Datuin filed an BP 22 case against gregorio, representative
of Sansio Phil inc., for delivering insufficiently funded bank
checks as payment for the numerous appliances bought by
Alvi Marketing from Sansio.
There was an error in the address of gregorio in the
complaint causing her not to receive the summons and was
indicted for the crime. She filed a motion for deferment of
arraignment and reinvestigation.
Gregorio stated that she could not have issued those checks
since she doesnt even have a checking account which PNB
confirmed. The signatures in the checks dont even match
hers.
Motion for reinvestigation is granted. Datuin then submitted
an affidavit of desistance stating that gregorio was not one of
the signatories of the bounced checks subject of
prosecution.
Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against datuin and
sansio phil inc.
Issue:
WON Datuin and Sansio are liable for damages
Held:
SC held that respondents did not exercise diligent efforts to
ascertain the true identity of the person who delivered to
them insufficiently funded checks;
and that respondents never gave her the opportunity to
controvert the charges against her, because they stated an
incorrect address in the criminal complaint.
Gregorio claimed damages for the embarrassment and
humiliation she suffered when she was suddenly arrested at
her city residence in Quezon City while visiting her family.
She anchored her civil complaint on Articles 26, 2176, and
2180 of the Civil Code. Noticeably, despite alleging either
fault or negligence on the part of Sansio and Datuin,
Gregorio never imputed to them any bad faith in her
complaint.
It appears that Gregorio’s rights to personal dignity, personal
security, privacy, and peace of mind were infringed by
Sansio and Datuin when they failed to exercise the requisite
diligence in determining the identity of the person they
should rightfully accuse of tendering insufficiently funded
checks.
This fault was compounded when they failed to ascertain the
correct address of petitioner, thus depriving her of the
opportunity to controvert the charges, because she was not
given proper notice.
Because she was not able to refute the charges against her,
petitioner was falsely indicted for three (3) counts of violation
of B.P. Blg. 22.
She suffered embarrassment and humiliation over her
sudden arrest and detention and she had to spend time,
effort, and money to clear her tarnished name and
reputation, considering that she had held several honorable
positions in different organizations and offices in the public
service, particularly her being a Kagawad in Oas, Albay at
the time of her arrest.

There exists no contractual relation between Gregorio and

Sansio. On the other hand, Gregorio is prosecuting Sansio,
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, for its vicarious liability,
as employer, arising from the act or omission of its employee
Datuin.

These allegations, assuming them to be true, sufficiently

constituted a cause of action against Sansio and Datuin.
Thus, the RTC was correct when it denied respondents’
motion to dismiss.