TERRE v.

TERRE
[Adm. Case No. 2349. July 3, 1992]
TOPIC: Effects of final judgment - Remarriage
PONENTE: Per Curiam

AUTHOR: Villaseor, Pamela

NOTES:

FACTS:
Dorothy B. Terre (petitioner) charged Jordan Terre (respondent), a member of the Philippine Bar with grossly
immoral conduct, by contracting a second marriage and living with another woman other than her while their
marriage remained subsisting.
The Court required Jordan to answer the complaint but tried to evade judgment by moving from one place to
another. After 3 years of no answer, the Court suspended him from service.
Jordan finally filed an Answer with a Motion to Set Aside and/or Lift Suspension Order. He claimed that he had
contracted marriage with complainant Dorothy and represented herself as single but learned afterwards that she
was married to another man (Bercenilla). When he confronted Dorothy about her prior marriage, she drove him
out of their conjugal residence. Also, the child Dorothy was then carrying (Jason Terre) was the son of Bercenilla.
He believed in good faith that his marriage to complainant was null and void ab initio, he contracted marriage with
Helina Malicdem at Dasol, Pangasinan.
Dorothy denied the allegations. Jordan is the father of Jason as evidenced by the birth certificate and the physical
resemblance. She explained that she was listed as dependent of Bercenilla when giving birth to Jason to avoid risk
of death because he was born in a breech position. She was already abandoned by Jordan and had no money at that
time.
The Court denied Jordans Motion to Set Aside or Lift the Suspension Order and referred the complaint to the
Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.
OSG Jordan did not appear in the hearings nor file a memorandum. Case was considered moot and academic
because at that time, Jordan resigned from COA where he was employed.
ISSUE(S): Did Jordan commit bigamy?
HELD: Yes. He was disbarred.
RATIO:
Jordans marriage with Dorothy was still subsisting when he married another woman. There was no judicial action
initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of the marriage.
His defense that he believed in good faith that his marriage with Dorothy was void ab initio and that no judicial
action was necessary was spurious. The defense was the same argument he used to Dorothy It was found that
Dorothy married Bercenilla, who was her first cousin making the marriage void. Jordan convinced Dorothy that
she can contract marriage with him because her marriage was void.
Being a lawyer, he should have known that the argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of the Court that in
order to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was void ab initio was essential.
The Court held that Jordan eloquently displayed, not only his unfitness to remain as a member of the Bar, but
likewise his inadequacy to uphold the process and responsibility of his gender. His acts constituted grossly
immoral conduct and he was thus disbarred.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):