TERRE v.

TERRE
July 3, 1992 (A.M. No. 2349)

FACTS:

On December 24, 1981, complainant Dorothy B. Terre charged respondent Jordan Terre, a member of the
Philippine Bar with grossly immoral conduct, consisting of contracting a second marriage and living
with another woman other than complainant, while his prior marriage with complainant remained
subsisting No judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of
such prior marriage of respondent with complainant.
Respondent was charged with abandonment of minor and bigamy by complainant. Dorothy Terre was
then married to a certain Merlito Bercenillo her first cousin, with this fact, Atty. Jordan Terre succesfully
convinced complainant that her marriage was void ab initio and they are free to contract marriage. In their
marriage license, despite her objection, he wrote single as her status. After getting the complainant
pregnant, Atty. Terre abandoned them and subsequently contracted another marriage to Helina Malicdem
believing again that her previous marriage was also void ab initio.

ISSUE:

(1) WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a subsequent marriage
HELD:

Yes. The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In the
first place, respondent has not rebutted complainants evidence as to the basic fact which underscores that
bad faith of respondent Terre. In the second place, the pretended defense is the same argument by which
he inveigled complainant into believing that her prior marriage or 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 the supreme 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.

DOCTRINE:

1. LEGAL ETHICS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT;

PENALTY OF DISBARMENT IMPOSED IN CASE AT BAR. We believe and so hold that the
conduct of respondent Jordan Terre in inveigling complainant Dorothy Terre to contract a second
marriage with him; in abandoning complainant Dorothy Terre after she had cared for him and supported
him through law school, leaving her without means for the safe delivery of his own child; in contracting a
second marriage with Helina Malicdem while his first marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre was
subsisting, constituted "grossly immoral conduct" under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
affording more than sufficient basis for disbarment of respondent Jordan Terre. He was unworthy of
admission to the Bar in the first place. The Court will correct this error forthwith.