Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Social Security System vs. Candelaria D. Davac, Et Al. G.R. No. L-21642, July 30, 1966 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Nicole Deocaris
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security Commission acted correctly in declaring respondent Candelaria Davac as the person entitled to receive death benefits from her deceased husband Petronilo Davac's membership in the Social Security System. While Petronilo had two marriages, there was no proof Candelaria knew of the first marriage, so she was not guilty of concubinage. Additionally, benefits from SSS membership are not part of the conjugal partnership and are intended to go to the named beneficiary rather than the deceased's heirs according to the laws of succession, as long as the designation of beneficiary is valid. Therefore, the Commission's resolution declaring Candelaria the beneficiary was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Social Security System vs. Candelaria D. Davac, Et Al. G.R. No. L-21642, July 30, 1966 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Nicole Deocaris
    42 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security Commission acted correctly in declaring respondent Candelaria Davac as the person entitled to receive death benefits from her deceased husband Petronilo Davac's membership in the Social Security System. While Petronilo had two marriages, there was no proof Candelaria knew of the first marriage, so she was not guilty of concubinage. Additionally, benefits from SSS membership are not part of the conjugal partnership and are intended to go to the named beneficiary rather than the deceased's heirs according to the laws of succession, as long as the designation of beneficiary is valid. Therefore, the Commission's resolution declaring Candelaria the beneficiary was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security Commission acted correctly in declaring respondent Candelaria Davac as the person entitled to receive death benefits from her deceased husband Petronilo Davac's membership in the Social Security System. While Petronilo had two marriages, there was no proof Candelaria knew of the first marriage, so she was not guilty of concubinage. Additionally, benefits from SSS membership are not part of the conjugal partnership and are intended to go to the named beneficiary rather than the deceased's heirs according to the laws of succession, as long as the designation of beneficiary is valid. Therefore, the Commission's resolution declaring Candelaria the beneficiary was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views2 pages

    Social Security System vs. Candelaria D. Davac, Et Al. G.R. No. L-21642, July 30, 1966 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Nicole Deocaris
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security Commission acted correctly in declaring respondent Candelaria Davac as the person entitled to receive death benefits from her deceased husband Petronilo Davac's membership in the Social Security System. While Petronilo had two marriages, there was no proof Candelaria knew of the first marriage, so she was not guilty of concubinage. Additionally, benefits from SSS membership are not part of the conjugal partnership and are intended to go to the named beneficiary rather than the deceased's heirs according to the laws of succession, as long as the designation of beneficiary is valid. Therefore, the Commission's resolution declaring Candelaria the beneficiary was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Deocaris, Nicole Anne C. Social Security Act of 2008 (RA No.

    11199)
    Agrarian Law and Social Legislation/ 2E Sec. 13 of RA No. 1161
    Case Digest SSS vs. Davac

    SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM vs. CANDELARIA D. DAVAC, ET AL.


    G.R. No. L-21642, July 30, 1966
    FACTS:
    The facts of the case as found by the Social Security Commission, briefly are: The late Petronilo
    Davac, a former employee of Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. became a member of the Social
    Security System (SSS for short). He designated respondent Candelaria Davac as his
    beneficiary and indicated his relationship to her as that of "wife". He died on April 5, 1959 and,
    thereupon, each of the respondents (Candelaria Davac and Lourdes Tuplano) filed their claims
    for death benefit with the SSS. It appears from their respective claims and the documents
    submitted in support thereof, that the deceased contracted two marriages, the first, with
    claimant Lourdes Tuplano who bore him a child, Romeo Davac, and the second, with
    Candelaria Davac with whom he had a minor daughter Elizabeth Davac. Due to their conflicting
    claims, the processing thereof was held in abeyance, whereupon the SSS filed this petition
    praying that respondents be required to interpose and litigate between themselves their
    conflicting claims over the death benefits in question.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Social Security Commission acted correctly in declaring respondent
    Candelaria Davac as the person entitled to receive the death benefits in question.
    RULING:
    Yes, without deciding whether the naming of a beneficiary of the benefits accruing from
    membership in the Social Security System is a donation, or that it creates a situation analogous
    to the relation of an insured and the beneficiary under a life insurance policy, it is enough, for
    the purpose of the instant case, to state that the disqualification is not applicable to herein
    appellee Candelaria Davac because she was not guilty of concubinage, there being no proof
    that she had knowledge of the previous marriage of her husband Petronilo.
    Regarding the second point raised by appellant, the benefits accruing from membership in the
    Social Security System do not form part of the properties of the conjugal partnership of the
    covered member. The benefits receivable under the Act is in the nature of a special privilege or
    an arrangement secured by the law, pursuant to the policy of the State to provide social security
    to the workingmen. The amounts that may thus be received cannot be considered as property
    earned by the member during his lifetime. His contribution to the fund, it may be noted,
    constitutes only an insignificant portion thereof. Then, the benefits are specifically declared not
    transferable, and exempted from tax legal processes, and lien. Furthermore, in the settlement of
    claims thereunder the procedure to be observed is governed not by the general provisions of
    law, but by rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission. Thus, if the money is payable
    to the estate of a deceased member, it is the Commission, not the probate or regular court that
    determines the person or persons to whom it is payable. The benefits under the Social Security
    Act are not intended by the lawmaking body to form part of the estate of the covered members.
    In short, if there is a named beneficiary and the designation is not invalid (as it is not so in this
    case), it is not the heirs of the employee who are entitled to receive the benefits (unless they are
    the designated beneficiaries themselves). It is only when there are no designated beneficiaries
    or when the designation is void, that the laws of succession are applicable. And we have
    already held that the Social Security Act is not a law of succession.
    DISPOSITION:
    Wherefore, in view of the foregoing considerations, the resolution of the Social Security
    Commission appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

    You might also like