Consuegra V GSIS G

Consuegra v GSIS G.R. No.
L-28093 January 30, 1971

J. Zaldivar
Facts:
Appeal on purely questions of law from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Surigao del Norte, dated March 7, 1967, in its Special Proceeding No. 1720.
The late Jose Consuegra was employed as a shop foreman in the province of Surigao del
Norte. He contracted two marriages, the first with Rosario Diaz and the second, which
was contracted in good faith while the first marriage was subsisting, with Basilia Berdin.
Consuegra died, while the proceeds of his GSIS life insurance were paid to petitioner
Basilia Berdin and her children who were the beneficiaries named in the policy. They
received Php 6,000.
Consuegra did not designate any beneficiary who would receive the retirement insurance
benefits due to him. Respondent Rosario Diaz, the widow by the first marriage, filed a
claim with the GSIS asking that the retirement insurance benefits be paid to her as the
only legal heir of Consuegra, considering that the deceased did not designate
any beneficiary with respect to his retirement insurance benefits.
Petitioner Berdin and her children, likewise, filed a similar claim with the GSIS, asserting
that being the beneficiaries named in the life insurance policy of Consuegra, they are the
only ones entitled to receive the retirement insurance benefits due the deceased
Consuegra.
The GSIS ruled that the legal heirs of the late Jose Consuegra were Rosario Diaz, his
widow by his first marriage who isentitled to one-half, or 8/16, of the retirement
insurance benefits, on the one hand; and Basilia Berdin, his widow by the second
marriage and their seven children, on the other hand, who are entitled to the remaining
one-half, or 8/16.
Basilia Berdin didnt agree. She filed a petition declaring her and her children to be the
legal heirs and exclusive beneficiaries of the retirement insurance.
The trial court affirmed stating that: "when two women innocently and in good faith are
legally united in holy matrimony to the same man, they and their children, born of said
wedlock, will be regarded as legitimate children and each family beentitled to one half of
the estate.
Hence the present appeal by Basilia Berdin and her children.
Issue: To whom should this retirement insurance benefits of Jose Consuegra be paid,
because he did not designate thebeneficiary of his retirement insurance?
Held: No. Petition denied.
Ratio:
Berdin averred that because the deceased Jose Consuegra failed to designate the
beneficiaries in his retirement insurance, the appellants who were the beneficiaries named
in the life insurance should automatically be considered the beneficiaries to receive the
retirement insurance benefits.
The GSIS offers two separate and distinct systems of benefits to its members one is
the life insurance and the other is the retirement insurance. These two distinct systems of
benefits are paid out from two distinct and separate funds that are maintained by the
GSIS.
In the case of the proceeds of a life insurance, the same are paid to whoever is named
the beneficiary in the life insurance policy. As in the case of a life insurance provided for
in the Insurance Act, the beneficiary in a life insurance under the GSIS may not
necessarily be a heir of the insured. The insured in a life insurance may designate any
person asbeneficiary unless disqualified to be so under the provisions of the Civil Code.
And in the absence of any beneficiarynamed in the life insurance policy, the proceeds of
the insurance will go to the estate of the insured.
Retirement insurance is primarily intended for the benefit of the employee, to provide for
his old age, or incapacity, after rendering service in the government for a required
number of years. If the employee reaches the age of retirement, he gets the retirement
benefits even to the exclusion of the beneficiary or beneficiaries named in
his application for retirement insurance. The beneficiary of the retirement insurance can
only claim the proceeds of the retirement insurance if the employee dies before
retirement. If the employee failed or overlooked to state the beneficiary of his retirement
insurance, the retirement benefits will accrue to his estate and will be given to his legal
heirs in accordance with law, as in the case of a life insurance if no beneficiary is named
in the insurance policy.
GSIS had correctly acted when it ruled that the proceeds should be divided equally
between his first living wife and his second. The lower court has correctly applied the
ruling of this Court in the case of Lao v Dee.
Gomez vs. Lipana- in construing the rights of two women who were married to the same
man, held "that since the defendant's first marriage has not been dissolved or declared
void the conjugal partnership established by that marriage has not ceased. Nor has the
first wife lost or relinquished her status as putative heir of her husband under the new
Civil Code, entitled to share in his estate upon his death should she survive him.
Consequently, whether as conjugal partner in a still subsisting marriage or as such
putative heir she has an interest in the husband's share in the property here in dispute....
With respect to the right of the second wife, although the second marriage can be
presumed to be void ab initio as it was celebrated while the first marriage was still
subsisting, still there is need for judicial declaration of such nullity. And inasmuch as
the conjugal partnership formed by the second marriage was dissolved before judicial
declaration of its nullity, "the only lust and equitable solution in this case would be to
recognize the right of the second wife to her share of one-halfin the property acquired by
her and her husband and consider the other half as pertaining to the conjugal partnership
of the first marriage."

Consuegra V GSIS G

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consuegra V GSIS G

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consuegra v GSIS G.R. No.

L-28093 January 30, 1971

You might also like