DOROTHY B. TERRE, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JORDAN TERRE, respondent
Adm. Case No. 2349 July 3, 1992
FACTS: Dorot Dorothy hy Terre erre frst frst met Jord Jordan an Terre erre hen hen they they ere ere 4th 4th year year hi!h hi!h scho school ol classmates in Cadi" City #i!h $chool. $he as then married to %erlito &ercenilla. Jordan courted her and this continued continued hen they mo'ed to %anila to pursue their education. education. Jordan, then a (reshman (reshman la student, student, told Dorothy Dorothy that her marria!e ith &ercenilla as 'oid a) initio )ecause they are frst cousins. &elie'in! in Jordan and ith the consent o( her mother and e*+in+las, she married Jordan on June 14, 19. Jordan rote -sin!le as Dorothy/s ci'il status despite latter/s protests. Jordan said it didn/t matter )ecause marria!e as 'oid to )e!in ith. A(ter their marria!e, Dorothy supported Jordan )ecause he as still studyin! then. They had a son, Jason, ho as )orn on June 20, 191. $hortly a(ter she !a'e )irth, Jordan disappeared. $he learned that he married ilma %alicdem. Dorothy fled char!es (or a)andonment o( minor, )i!amy and !rossly immoral conduct. Jordan as already a mem)er o( the &ar then. Jordan claimed that he as unaare unaare o( Dorothy/s frst marria!e marria!e and that she sent her out o( the house hen he con(ronted her a)out it. #e contracted the second marria!e, )elie'in! that his marria!e to Dorothy as 'oid a) initio )ecause o( her prior su)sistin! marria!e. hether or not a udicial declaration declaration o( nullity is needed to enter into a ISSUE: hether su)se5uent marria!e.
HELD: 6es, 6es, a udicial declaration o( nullity is needed to enter into a su)se5uent marria!e. The Court considered the claim o( Jordan Terre as spurious de(ense. 7n the frst place, respondent has not re)utted complainant/s e'idence as to the )asic (act hich hich underscore underscores s that (ormer as in )ad (aith. (aith. 7n the second place, place, the pretended de(ense is the same ar!ument )y hich he in'ei!led complainant into )elie'in! that the complainant/s prior marria!e on %erlito &ercenilla )ein! incestuous and 'oid a) initio, she as (ree to contract a second marria!e ith the respondent. Applyin! Article 48 o( the amily amily Code - the absolute nullit o! "#e$ious %a##ia&e %a be in$o'e( !o# "u#"oses o! #e%a##ia&e on the basis solel o! a )nal *u(&%ent (e+la#in& su+h "#e$ious %a##ia&e $oi(, (or purposes o( determinin! hether a person is le!ally (ree to contract a second marria!e, a udicial declaration that the frst marria!e as null and 'oid a) initio is essential. $ince respondent Jordan Terre is a layer he is )ound to :no that the a(orem a(orement ention ioned ed ar!umen ar!umentt ran counte counterr to the pre'a pre'ailin ilin! ! case case la o( the $upreme Court. 7n this case, )e(ore enterin! to a su)se5uent marria!e, udicial declaration o( nullity must )e o)tain in accordance ith Article 48 o( the amily Code.
