TERRE v TERRE

AC# 2349

July 3, 1992

VOID v VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

SUMMARY: Disbarment case against Jordan Terre who convinced a married woman to marry without judicial declaration of nullity of void marriage (incestuous) AND THEN marrying someone else after a few years without getting a judicial declaration of nullity for his first marriage (bigamous). FACTS: 12/24/1981: Disbarment case filed by Dorothy B. Terre against Jordan Terre for "grossly immoral conduct," Jordan Terre alleged to have contracted a second marriage and living with another woman other than complainant, while his prior marriage with complainant remained subsists 4/24/85: Three years, respondent still has not answered. SC decided to suspend respondent for evading notice from court. 9/28/85: Respondent finally answered via Answer with Motion to Set Aside/Lift Suspension. Stated the ff: o Petitioner Dorothy Terre was married to Merito Bercenilla 1968 o Petitioner mockingly told him of her private meetings with Bercenilla and that child she was carrying then was the son of Bercenilla o That believing in good faith, Jordan Terre married Helina Malicdem believing that his first marriage is void ab initio. SC denied petition Petitioner testified. Petitioner and Respondent met highschool where petitioner was already married. Both moved to Manila where eventually, respondent studied Law in Lyceum. Respondent continued courting her even with the knowledge that she was married. Respondent said that her prior marriage was void ab initio since Bercenilla is her first cousin. Despite her objections, respondent wrote single under her status in the marriage license stating that her first marriage was void ab initio and requires no judicial declaration. Couple was thereby married. Respondent suddenly left petitioner 1981. Eventually, respondent found out that respondent married.

ISSUE/S:

WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a subsequent marriage RULING: Respondent disbarred. RATIO: The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In the first place, respondent has not rebutted complainant's evidence as to the basic facts which underscores the bad faith of respondent Terre. In the second place, that pretended defense is the same argument by which he had inveigled complainant into believing that her prior marriage to Merlito A. Bercenilla being incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy and Merlito being allegedly first cousins to each other), she was free to contract a second marriage with the respondent. Respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of this Court which holds that for purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential . Even if we were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that mistaken belief in good faith, the same result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own argument, his first marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second marriage to Helina Malicdem must be regarded as bigamous and criminal in character.

July 28, 2013

P a g e |1