TERRE VS.

TERRE
A.M. NO. 2349, JULY 3, 1992
DIGESTED BY: CHARDANE P. LABISTE
TOPIC: EFFECTS OF FINAL JUDGMENT DECLARING NULLITY

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 Dorothy, while
his prior marriage with Dorothy remained to subsist No judicial action having been
initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of such prior marriage of
Jordan with Dorothy.

Jordan was charged with abandonment of a minor and bigamy by Dorothy. Dorothy
Terre was then married to a certain Merlito Bercenillo her first cousin, with this fact, Atty.
Jordan Terre successfully convinced Dorothy 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 Dorothy 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:
Whether or not a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a subsequent
marriage

RULING:
Yes. The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre as a
spurious defense. In the first place, Jordan has not rebutted Dorothy’s evidence as to
the basic fact which underscores that bad faith of Jordan. In the second place, the
pretended defense is the same argument by which he inveigled Dorothy 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 Jordan. 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.
SSS V. DE LOS SANTOS
G.R. NO. 164790, AUGUST 29, 2008
DIGESTED BY: CHARDANE P. LABISTE
TOPIC: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SPOUSES

FACTS:
Antonio de Los Santos and respondent Gloria de Los Santos, both Filipinos, were
married on April 29, 1964, in Manila. Less than one year after, Gloria left Antonio and
contracted another marriage with a certain Domingo Talens in Nueva Ecija. Sometime
in 1969, Gloria went back to Antonio and lived with him until 1983. They had three
children: Alain Vincent, Arlene, and Armine.

In 1983, Gloria left Antonio and went to the United States. Later on, she filed for divorce
against Antonio in California and executed a document waiving all her rights to their
conjugal properties and other matters. The divorce was granted on November 5, 1986.

In 1987, Antonio married Cirila de Los Santos in Camalig, Albay. Their union produced
one child, May-Ann N. de Los Santos. On the other hand, Gloria married Larry Thomas
Constant, an American citizen, on July 11, 1987, in the US.

In 1989, Antonio amended his records at SSS and changed his beneficiaries from Mrs.
Margarita Delos Santos to Cirila de Los Santos; from Gloria de Los Santos to May-Ann
de Los Santos; and from Erlindade Los Santos to Armine de Los Santos. Antonio retired
from his employment in 1996, and from then on began receiving a monthly pension.
Antonio died of respiratory failure on May 15, 1999. Upon his death, Cirila applied for
and began receiving his SSS pension benefit, beginning in December 1999. On
December 21, 1999, Gloria filed a claim for Antonio’s death benefits with the
SSS. Her claim was denied because she was not a qualified beneficiary of Antonio.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Gloria de Los Santos is still qualified as a primary beneficiary of the
deceased SSS member Antonio?

RULING:
As found by both the SSC and the CA, the divorce obtained by Gloria de Los Santos
against the deceased Antonio was not binding in this jurisdiction. Under Philippine law,
only aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their
national law. The divorce was obtained by Gloria while she was still a Filipino citizen
and thus covered by the policy against absolute divorces. It did not ever her marriage
ties with Antonio. However, although Gloria de Los Santos was the legal spouse of the
deceased, the court find that she is still Disqualified to be his primary beneficiary under
the SS Law.

She fails to fulfill the requirement of dependency upon her deceased husband Antonio.
An estranged wife who was not dependent upon her deceased husband for support is
not qualified tobe his beneficiary.