SSS v. Aguas: Presumption of Legitimacy Does NOT Cover The Contention That The

6. SSS v. Aguas, G.R. No.
165546, February 27, 2006- Buere
SSS v. Aguas
GR No. 165546, February 27, 2006
Callejo, Sr., J.:
TOPIC: RULE 131, Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy after 300 DAYS
FOLLOWING the dissolution of marriage OR separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the
legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove to his allegation.
DOCTRINE: Presumption of legitimacy does NOT cover the contention that the
child is a legitimate child of the father and mother, whose signature appear on
the birth certificate, if such document was not authenticated and certified by
the Civil Register. Such date indicated thereon cannot be given probative
value, compared to that which was certified.
FACTS: Pablo and Rosanna were married on 1977. They have children: Janet (date of birth was
not substantially proved/authenticated during the initial proceedings), Jelynn (born on Oct.29,
1991) and Jefren (born on Nov. 15, 1966). They initially adopted Janet, since Pablo was infertile.
Later, Jelynn and Jefren were born while they are married. Pablo died on Dec. 8, 1996. Rosanna
filed claim for monthly pension to SSS. It was initially granted. Rosanna and Jelynn were
provided with monthly pension as primary beneficiaries. It was later suspended when there was
Sworn Letter filed by secondary beneficiaries of Pablo. They claim that Rosanna already lived
with another man six years before Pablo’s death and been dependent to that man, instead of
Pablo. Also, that Janet was just an adopted child and they claim that Jelyn and Jefren were not
Pablo’s children since Pablo was infertile. They claim Jelynn and Jefren are of Romeo’s.
Security Commission ruled that Rosanna and Jelyn are not entitled to such pension (as primacry
beneficiaries). CA reversed this ruling. According to CA, the birth certificate of Janet and Jelyn
was able to show that they were born during the subsistence of valid marriage. As for Rosanna,
she is a primary beneficiary as well. She was outright disqualified, given arguendo, that she
married Romeo while she was still married to Pablo. It does not conclude that she is not a
beneficiary since the subsequent marriage is void.
ISSUE: Whether Janet and Jelynn are legitimate child of Pablo, to entitle them for monthly
pension.
RULING: Yes. The petition is partially granted. It was only Jelynn who was proved to be a
legitimate child of Pablo, thus, shall be entitled to monthly SSS pension as primary
beneficiary.
In Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, Court explained that impugning the legitimacy of a

child is strictly a personal right of the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs. In this case,
there is no showing that Pablo challenged the legitimacy of Jeylnn during his lifetime. Hence,
Jeylnn’s status as a legitimate child of Pablo can no longer be contested.
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.
The presumption of legitimacy under Article 164, however, cannot extend to Janet
because her date of birth was not substantially proven. Such presumption may be availed
only upon convincing proof of the factual basis therefor, i.e., that the child’s parents were legally
married and that his/her conception or birth occurred during the subsistence of that marriage.
(Angeles v. Maglay) It should be noted that respondents likewise submitted a photocopy of
Janet’s alleged birth certificate. However, the Court cannot give said birth certificate the
same probative weight as Jeylnn’s because it was not verified in any way by the civil
register. It stands as a mere photocopy, without probative weight. Unlike Jeylnn, there was no
confirmation by the civil register of the fact of Janet’s birth on the date stated in the certificate.
In any case, a record of birth is merely prima facie evidence of the facts contained
therein. (Concepcion v. Court of Appeals) Here, the witnesses were unanimous in saying that
Janet was not the real child but merely adopted by Rosanna and Pablo. Leticia also testified that
Janet’s adoption did not undergo any legal proceedings; hence, there were no papers to prove it.
Under Section 8(e) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, only "legally adopted" children are
considered dependent children. Absent any proof that the family has legally adopted Janet, the
Court cannot consider her a dependent child of Pablo, hence, not a primary beneficiary.
In conclusion, the Court finds that, among respondents, only Jeylnn is entitled to the
SSS death benefits accruing from the death of Pablo, as it was established that she is his
legitimate child. On the other hand, the records show that Janet was merely "adopted" by the
spouses, but there are no legal papers to prove it; hence, she cannot qualify as a primary
beneficiary. Finally, while 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.

SSS v. Aguas: Presumption of Legitimacy Does NOT Cover The Contention That The

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 v. Aguas: Presumption of Legitimacy Does NOT Cover The Contention That The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6. SSS v. Aguas, G.R. No.

165546, February 27, 2006- Buere

In Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, Court explained that impugning the legitimacy of a

You might also like