University of the Philippines College of Law

Persons and Family Relations | Prof. Katrina Legarda

Case Digest

TOPIC: Bigamy
DOCTRINE: In order to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the
first marriage was null and void ab initio was essential.
CASE Number: A.M. No. 2349; July 3, 1992
CASE Name: Terre vs Terre
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS
Dorothy was previously married to her first cousin, Merlito Bercenilla. Upon advice of
Jordan that her first marriage was null and void ab initio, she agreed to marry him.
In their marriage license, Jordan placed Dorothys status as single despite her
objections.
On 14 Jun 1977, Dorothy Terre married Jordan Terre and had a son. She supported him
while he was still studying law at Lyceum. In 1981, Jordan disappeared.
On 3 May 1981, Jordan married Vilma Malicdem.
Thereafter, Dorothy filed cases against Jordan for abandonment of minor and bigamy.
She also filed an administrative case against Jordan with the Commission on Audit
but was considered closed for being moot because of Jordans separation from the
service for having gone on absence without official leave.
On 24 Dec 1981, Dorothy filed this disbarment case for gross immoral conduct. He
successfully evaded five attempts to serve a copy of the Courts resolution requiring
him to comment.
After three years and a half, the Supreme Court decided to suspend him indefinitely
until he appears or files his answer.
On 28 Sep 1985, he filed an Answer with a Motion to Set Aside the Suspension Order.
He claimed that he believed in good faith that his prior marriage with Dorothy was
void ab initio and that no action for judicial declaration of nullity was necessary.
The Court denied the motion on 6 Jan 1986. Solicitor Pio Guerrero was then
appointed as investigator and on 26 Feb 1990, submitted his report.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not Jordans marriage to Vilma bigamous

HELD
(1) Yes:
Jordans marriage with Dorothy was still subsisting when he married Vilma. No
judicial action had been 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.
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 null and void ab initio was
essential.
The moral character of Jordan was deeply flawed as shown by the other
circumstances. He convinced Dorothy that her previous marriage was void,
 abandoning his son upon passing finishing his law course after being
supported by Dorothy.
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.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent Jordan Terre and to STRIKE OUT his
name from the Roll of Attorneys. A copy of this decision shall be spread on the personal
record of respondent Jordan Terre in the Bar Confidant's Office. A copy of this resolution shall
also be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and shall be circularized to all the
courts of the land.