NISCE, ALYSSA ANGELA R.

12081000 G05 ABSOLUTE DIVORCE

TENCHAVEZ v. ESCAÑO

November 29, 1965 G.R. No. L-19671 REYES, J.B.L., J.

DOCTRINE

A foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the new Civil Code (August
30, 1950), is not valid in the Philippines; and neither is the marriage contracted after the divorce in pursuant to
Article 15 of the Civil Code which states that ​laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and
legal capacity of person are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

FACTS

- In 1948, Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez started a romantic relationship in their college days. Escano
came from a socially prominent Filipino family of Spanish ancestry while Tenchavez came from an
undistinguished one.

- Thereafter, they exchanged marriage vows before a Catholic chaplain and were duly registered with the local
civil registrar. Escaño parents disputed their marriage due to their well-known status in Cebuano society.

- Consequently, Father Reynes, a priest advised a recelebration because from the viewpoint of the Church, the
marriage is invalid due to the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.

- The recelebration did not occur because an anonymous letter arrived at the Escaños which indicated a sexual
relationship between Tenchavez and Pacita. Vicenta Escano then filed a petition for annulment, however, the
case was dismissed because she did not sign the petition and did not appear at the hearing.

- In 1950, Vicenta left for the U.S. to pursue her studies and indicated in her documents that she was single.
Months later, she filed for divorce against Tenchavez in the State of Nevada, on the ground of “extreme cruelty
and entirely mental in character,” which was approved. She then married an American, Mr. Moran, and has
begotten children with him. She later acquired American citizenship in 1958.

ISSUES

Whether or not the divorce obtained by Vicenta Escaño in the US is valid under Philippine law.

RULING
- ​No, the marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escaño remained subsisting and undissolved
under Philippine Law. At the time the divorce decree was issued, Vicenta Escaño, like her husband, was still a
Filipino citizen. Hence, she is subject to the Philippine law, specifically Article 15 of the Civil Code. Thus, her
cohabitation with Moran is seen as an intercourse with a person other than her husband and this entitles
Tenchavez to a decree of “legal separation.”

- To recognize the decree of divorce of foreign courts would be in violation of public policy and Article 17 of the
Civil Code. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts, or property and those which have for their object public
order, policy, and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by
determinations or conventions agreed upon in foreign country.

- If Tenchavez was also in the Nevada Court when divorce was filed it would make no difference since mere
appearance cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which had none.

- Tenchavez now has grounds to acquire divorce against respondent since she had a relationship with someone
other than her husband, entitling him to ask for legal separation under the basis of adultery.

- Petitioner has grounds to file for legal separation and recover for moral damages and fees.

​NISCE, ALYSSA ANGELA R. 12081000 G05 ABSOLUTE DIVORCE

VAN DORN v. ROMILLO

October 8, 1985 G.R. No. L-68470 MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.

DOCTRINE

In consideration of his or her national law, when a foreign spouse is no longer the husband or wife of a Filipino
spouse as a result of a foreign divorce obtained by the Filipino, he or she would no longer have standing to sue to
exercise control over conjugal assets.

FACTS

- Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn (Filipino) and Richard Upton (American) were married in Hong Kong in 1972and
established residence in the Philippines. Their union resulted in having 2 children.

- In 1982, they were divorced in Nevada, United States. Since then, Alice has been remarried to Theodore Van
Dorn.

- In 1983, Richard filed a suit against Alice, stating that petitioner's business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Shop,
for short), is conjugal property of the parties. He ordered petitioner to render an accounting of that business, and
that private respondent be 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 wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "no
community property" as of June 11, 1982.

- RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines and under
Philippine laws, a Divorce Decree has no bearing.

ISSUES

Whether or not the decision of the Nevada Court regarding a divorce decree is binding in the Philippines.

RULING

- ​YES. ​The main contention is the divorce obtained in Nevada by the parties. The Nevada District Court, which
decreed the divorce, had obtained jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person before the Court during the
trial of the case. It also obtained jurisdiction over private respondent who authorized his attorneys in the divorce
case, ​Karp & Gradt Ltd., to agree on the ground of incompatibility in understanding that there were neither
community property nor community obligations.

- Under 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 police and
morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they
are valid according to their national law.

- In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage in accordance to American law,
under which divorce dissolves the marriage. He is bound by the decision of his own country’s court which validly
exercised jurisdiction over him.

- Pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing
to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets.

NISCE, ALYSSA ANGELA R. 12081000 G05 Marriages giving rise to criminal liability

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. FORMER JUDGE TORMIS

August 30, 2016 A.C. No. 9920

DOCTRINE

Marriages conducted by the solemnizing officer past the 3-month period before issuance of a marriage license is
still considered valid, but the solemnizing officer shall be subject to administrative penalties. ​For marriages
involving a Filipino and a Foreigner, the foreigner must secure a certificate of legal capacity to marry from their
embassy.

FACTS
- This case deals with a Disbarment complaint against Judge Rosabella Tormis.

- Atty. Rullyn Garcia led a judicial audit team created by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to investigate
Branches 2,3,4, and 8 of the MTC in cities of Cebu City for alleged misdeeds in the solemnization of marriages.

-Two (2) undercover agents from the team, posing as a couple, went there and found that respondent judges in
that case connived with the court personnel, who acted as “fixers” in solemnizing marriages. The judges
heedlessly kept solemnizing marriages despite irregularities in the requirements provided under the law.

- In the Resolution dated July 10, 2007, the Court treated the judicial audit team’s memorandum as an
administrative complaint against the Judges involved and was suspended until petition is completed.
- All the court personnel involved were asked to show cause why they should not be disciplined for their
misconduct.

- Judge Tormis denied the charges against her. She claimed that the action of the OCA was an “entrapment” and
that the affidavit was hearsay. She blamed the filing clerk for the irregularities in the number of marriages
solemnized in her sala.

- Judge Tormis solemnized a total of one hundred eighty-one (181) marriages from 2003-2007, while the monthly
reports of cases reflected a total of three hundred and five (305) marriages she solemnized from 2004 to 2007. Of
the 181 marriages she solemnized, one hundred and thirty one (131), or 72.38% were solemnized under Article
34 of the Family Code, while fifty (50), or 27.62% were with marriage licenses.

- The following were solemnized by her with no or incomplete supporting documents. Also, the validity of the
supporting documents, especially the marriage licenses presented, appear to be questionable.

- The OCA through a memorandum dated June 15, 2010 found Tormis guilty. This decision was upheld by this
Court and noted the individual liability of the judges.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the evidence provided sufficient to prove that Judge Tormis’ acts constitute gross misconduct
and merit the penalty of disbarment.

2. Whether or not the marriages are deemed valid even if it was solemnized with irregularities on the marriage
license.

RULING
1. ​Whether or not the evidence provided sufficient to prove that Judge Tormis’ acts constitute gross misconduct
and merit the penalty of disbarment.
- ​YES. ​Respondent’s act of heedlessly solemnizing marriages in utter disregard of the law and jurisprudence
clearly constitutes gross misconduct. Since the Judges are the physical representation of the State, it is within
every Judge’s obligation to abide by the law and be an example. The standard of integrity imposed on them is-
and should be- higher than that of the average person for it is their integrity that gives the right to judge.

- Moreover, although it is true that marriages under Article 34 of the Family Code merit exemption from a marriage
license, respondent should have complied with the mandate of personally ascertaining the circumstances of
cohabitation of the parties. Records reveal that the declarations embodied in the required joint affidavit of
cohabitation of the parties do not actually represent the accurate circumstances of their alleged cohabitation.

- ​As the solemnizing officer, respondent should have ensured that pertinent requirements were secured before the
issuance of the marriage license. Respondent used her authority as a judge to make a mockery of marriage. As a
judicial officer, she is expected to know the law on solemnization of marriages.

2. Whether or not the marriages are deemed valid even if it was solemnized with irregularities on the marriage
license.
- YES. According to Article 16 of the Family Code, marriage license within the prohibited period shall subject the
issuing officer to administrative sanctions but shall not affect the validity of the marriage. It is noted that it is the
marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage.

-Also, it is the Judge’s responsibility to examine and assess personally required documents before solemnizing a
marriage. Requirements shall be first submitted to the Civil Registrar before a marriage license shall be issued. If
the Judge sees the said marriage license fit, then the solemnizing of the marriage shall proceed.