SSS Vs Aguas

Cabitac, Juan Reino C. Jr.
Social Security System Law

Social Legislation / 2C RA 1161
Case Digest SSS vs. Aguas
SSS vs. Aguas

G.R. No. 165546, 27 February 2006
FACTS:
Pablo Aguas, a member of the Social Security System (SSS) and a pensioner, died on
December 8, 1996. Pablo's surviving spouse, Rosanna Aguas, filed a claim with the SSS for
death benefits on December 13, 1996. Rosanna indicated in her claim that Pablo was likewise
survived by his minor child, Jeylnn, who was born on October 29, 1991. The SSS paid her the
monthly pension.
Sometime in April 1997, the SSS received a sworn letter from Leticia Aguas-Macapinlac,
Pablo's sister, contesting Rosanna's claim for death benefits. She alleged that Rosanna
abandoned the family abode approximately more than six years before and that Pablo had no
legal children with Rosanna, but that Rosanna had several children with Romeo dela Peña.
Leticia presented an enclosed notarized copy of the original birth certificate of one Jefren H.
dela Peña, showing that the latter was born on November 15, 1996 to Rosanna Y. Hernandez
and Romeo C. dela Peña, who were married on November 1, 1990.
The SSS suspended the payment of Rosanna and Jeylnn's monthly pension. SSS affirmed
Leticia's claims and learned that Pablo was not capable of having a child as he was infertile.
The SSS demanded that Rosanna refund within 30 days the amount of P10,350 representing
the total death benefits released to her.
The claimants averred that Jeylnn was a legitimate child of Pablo as evidenced by her birth
certificate bearing Pablo's signature as Jeylnn's father. As to the alleged infertility of Pablo, the
claimants averred that Dr. Macapinlac denied giving the opinion precisely because he was not
an expert on such matters, and that he treated the deceased only for tuberculosis.
Janet Aguas, who also claimed to be the child of Pablo and Rosanna, also joined as claimant.
However, according to Leticia, Janet was adopted because for a long time they could not have
children. Moreover, there were no legal papers on Janet's adoption.
During the hearing conducted by the Commission, photocopies of two baptismal certificates
were produced: that of Jeylnn Aguas, child of Pablo Aguas and Rosanna Hernandez born on
October 29, 1991, and that of Jenelyn H. dela Peña, child of Romeo dela Peña and Rosanna
Hernandez, born on January 29, 1992.
The Commission ruled that Rosanna was no longer qualified as primary beneficiary; it appears
that she had contracted marriage with Romeo dela Peña during the subsistence of her marriage
to Pablo. The Commission based its conclusion on the birth certificate of Jefren dela Peña
stating that his mother, Rosanna, and father, Romeo dela Peña, were married on November 1,
1990. The Commission declared that Rosanna had a child with Romeo dela Peña while she
was still married to Pablo as evidenced by the baptismal certificate of Jenelyn H. dela Peña
showing that she was the child of Rosanna Hernandez and Romeo dela Peña and that she was
born on January 29, 1992.
However, CA reversed the ruling of the Commission and declared Rosanna entitled to the
pension benefits. The CA relied on the birth certificates of Janet and Jeylnn showing that they
were the children of the deceased Pablo. The CA also ruled that even if Rosanna married
Romeo dela Peña during her marriage to Pablo, the same would have been a void marriage; it
Cabitac, Juan Reino C. Jr. Social Security System Law
would not have ipso facto made her not dependent for support upon Pablo and negate the
presumption that, as the surviving spouse, she is entitled to support from her husband.
SSS assailed the CA decision in the Supreme Court. SSS invokes Section 8 of Republic Act No.
1161, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 735, which defines a dependent spouse as "the
legitimate spouse dependent for support upon the employee." According to SSS, Rosanna
forfeited her right to be supported by Pablo when she married Romeo dela Peña during her
marriage to Pablo. Such act constitutes abandonment, which divested her of the right to receive
support from her husband. As for Janet and Jeylnn, SSS maintains that they are not entitled to
the pension because, based on the evidence on record, they are not the legitimate children of
Pablo.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Rosanna, Jeylnn and Janet are entitled to the SSS death benefits accruing from
the death of Pablo
RULING:
Beneficiaries entitled to death benefits under the law
At the time of Pablo's death, the prevailing law was Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 735. Section 13 of the law enumerates those who are entitled to death
benefits:
Sec.13. Death benefits. - Effective July 1, 1975, upon the covered employee's death, (a)
his primary beneficiaries shall be entitled to the basic monthly pension, and his dependents to
the dependent's pension: Provided, That he has paid at least thirty-six monthly contributions
prior to the semester of death: Provided, further, That if the foregoing condition is not satisfied,
or if he has no primary beneficiaries, his secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum
benefit equivalent to thirty times the basic monthly pension.
Section 8(k) and (e), in turn, defines dependents and primary beneficiaries of an SSS member
as follows:
Dependent. - The legitimate, legitimated, or legally adopted child who is unmarried, not
gainfully employed, and not over twenty-one years of age provided that he is congenitally
incapacitated and incapable of self-support physically or mentally; the legitimate spouse
dependent for support upon the employee; and the legitimate parents wholly dependent upon
the covered employee for regular support.
Beneficiaries. - The dependent spouse until he remarries and dependent children, who
shall be the primary beneficiaries. In their absence, the dependent parents and, subject to the
restrictions imposed on dependent children, the legitimate descendants and illegitimate children
who shall be the secondary beneficiaries. In the absence of any of the foregoing, any other
person designated by the covered employee as secondary beneficiary.
It
bears stressing that under Article 164 of the Family Code, children conceived or born during
the marriage of the parents are legitimate.
Jeylnn’s claim is justified by the photocopy of her birth certificate which bears the signature of
Pablo. Petitioner was able to authenticate the certification from the Civil Registry showing that
she was born on October 29, 1991. The records show that Rosanna and Pablo were married on
Cabitac, Juan Reino C. Jr. Social Security System Law
December 4, 1977 and the marriage subsisted until the latter’s death on December 8, 1996. It is
therefore evident that Jeylnn was born during Rosanna and Pablo’s marriage.
The presumption that Jeylnn is a legitimate child is buttressed by her birth certificate bearing
Pablo’s signature, which was verified from his specimen signature on file with petitioner. A birth
certificate signed by the father is a competent evidence of paternity.
For Rosanna, to qualify as a primary beneficiary, she must establish 2 qualifying factors: (1) that
she is the legitimate spouse, and (2) that she is dependent upon the member for support.
A wife who is already separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be "dependent for
support" upon the husband, absent any showing to the contrary. If it is proved that they
were still living together at the time of his death, it is presumed that she was dependent on the
husband for support, unless it is shown that she is capable of providing for herself.
Only Jeylnn is entitled to the SSS death benefits as it was established that she is his legitimate
child. Records show that Janet was merely "adopted" by the spouses, but there are no legal
papers to prove it. Rosanna was the legitimate wife of Pablo, she is likewise not qualified as a
primary beneficiary since she failed to present any proof to show that at the time of his death,
she was still dependent on him for support even if they were already living separately.
Legitimacy cannot be extended to other siblings.
DISPOSITION:
The petition is partially granted. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
are affirmed with modification. Only Jeylnn H. Aguas is declared entitled to the SSS death
benefits accruing from the death of Pablo Aguas.

SSS Vs Aguas

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

SSS Vs Aguas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabitac, Juan Reino C. Jr.

Social Security System Law

SSS vs. Aguas

You might also like