Lasheras, Marry Rose S.
20140118985
G.R. No. 165546 February 27, 2006
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM vs. ROSANNA H. AGUAS, JANET H. AGUAS, and minor
JEYLNN H. AGUAS, represented by her Legal Guardian, ROSANNA H. AGUAS
FACTS:
Pablo Aguas, a member of the Social Security System (SSS) and a pensioner, died on
December 8, 1996. Pablo’s surviving spouse, Rosanna H. Aguas, filed a claim with the SSS
for death benefits. Rosanna indicated in her claim that Pablo was likewise survived by his
minor child, Jeylnn. Her claim for monthly pension was settled on February 13, 1997.
Sometime in April 1997, the SSS received a sworn letter from Leticia Aguas-Macapinlac,
Pablo’s sister, contesting Rosanna’s claim for death benefits.
Leticia Aguas-Macapinlac's Contentions:
1. She alleged that Rosanna abandoned the family abode approximately more than six
years before, and lived with another man on whom she has been dependent for
support.
2. She further averred that Pablo had no legal children with Rosanna, but that the latter
had several children with a certain Romeo dela Peña.
As a result, the SSS suspended the payment of Rosanna and Jeylnn’s monthly pension
in September 1997. On the basis of the report and an alleged confirmation by a certain Dr.
Manuel Macapinlac that Pablo was infertile, the SSS denied Rosanna’s request to resume the
payment of their pensions. She was advised to refund to the SSS within 30 days the total
death benefits released to her and Jenelyn. This prompted Rosanna and Jeylnn to file a
claim/petition for the Restoration/Payment of Pensions with the Social Security Commission
(SSC) and Janet H. Aguas, who also claimed to be the child of the deceased and Rosanna,
now joined them as claimant.
The SSC ruled that Rosanna was no longer qualified as primary beneficiary, it
appearing that she had contracted marriage with Romeo dela Peña during the subsistence of
her marriage to Pablo. It also gave credence to the testimonies of Leticia and Mariquita that
Jeylnn was the child of Rosanna and Romeo dela Peña. As for Janet, the SSC relied on
Leticia’s declaration that she was only adopted by Pablo and Rosanna. The claimants then
elevated the case to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The
CA reversed the SSC decision and favored the respondents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Rosanna, Jeylnn and Janet are entitled to the SSS death benefits accruing
from the death of Pablo
LAWS APPLICABLE:
1. Section 13 of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 735 -
enumerates those who are entitled to death benefits: (a) his primary beneficiaries xxx if the
foregoing condition is not satisfied, or if he has no primary beneficiaries, his secondary
beneficiaries shall be entitled xxx
2. Section 8(k) and (e) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Presidential Decree No.
735 - defines dependents and primary beneficiaries of an SSS member
3. 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."
4. Section 5(a) of the Social Security Act - the exercise of the commission of its quasi-
judicial authority, "Any dispute arising under this Act with respect to coverage, benefits,
contributions and penalties thereon or any other matter related thereto, shall be cognizable by
the Commission."
5. Article 164 of the Family Code - children conceived or born during the marriage of the
parents are legitimate.
6. Article 170 and 171 of the Family Code - the action to impugn the legitimacy of the child
would no longer be legally feasible and the status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed
and unassailable.
CASE HISTORY:
Upon the death of Pablo Aguas, his wife filed death benefits which was initially granted but
later on revoked by the SSC. The CA reversed the SSC decision and favored the respondents.
Thus, SSS filed a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 66531 and its Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
Petitioner seeks a reversal of the decision of the appellate court, contending that it erred in
holding that respondents are entitled to the pension benefit accruing from the death of Pablo
Aguas.
RULING:
Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
Jeylnn Aguas - GRANTED
It bears stressing that under Article 164 of the Family Code, children conceived or born
during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. Indeed, impugning the legitimacy of a child is
a strictly 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.
Janet Aguas - DENIED
The presumption of legitimacy under Article 164, however, can not extend to Janet because
her date of birth was not substantially proven. 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.
Rosanna Aguas - DENIED
On the claims of Rosanna, it bears stressing that for her to qualify as a primary
beneficiary, she must prove that she was "the legitimate spouse dependent for support from
the employee."
The claimant-spouse must therefore establish two qualifying factors:
(1) that she is the legitimate spouse, and
(2) that she is dependent upon the member for support.
In this case, Rosanna presented proof to show that she is the legitimate spouse of
Pablo, that is, a copy of their marriage certificate which was verified with the civil register by
petitioner. But whether or not Rosanna has sufficiently established that she was still dependent
on Pablo at the time of his death remains to be resolved. Indeed, a husband and wife are
obliged to support each other, but whether one is actually dependent for support upon the
other is something that has to be shown; it cannot be presumed from the fact of marriage
alone.
The obvious conclusion then is that 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. Conversely, if it is proved that the husband and wife were still living together at
the time of his death, it would be safe to presume that she was dependent on the husband for
support, unless it is shown that she is capable of providing for herself.
Rosanna had the burden to prove that all the statutory requirements have been
complied with, particularly her dependency on her husband for support at the time of his death.
Thus, Rosanna 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.
OPINION (Student):
Indeed as stated in the Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3, verses 1-2: "There is a time for
everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to
die, a time to plant and a time to uproot"
True enough that there is a time for everything, but what truly matters is that have you
treasured your time? Would you die as an asset or as a burden?
SSS is a government platform that helps employees to die as an asset and not as a
burden through its death benefits program. However, such platform is susceptible to abuse
and maybe that is the reason why the lawmakers intended to give the death benefits only to
the primary beneficiaries and if the condition was not satisfied to the secondary benificiaries.
Thus, maybe to avoid unjust enrichment, the lawmakers gave SSC the power to hear and try
death benefits claims.
In this case, the Supreme Court decided in favor of Jeylnn Aguas only as legitimate
child of the deceased. The facts of the case show that Rosanna Aguas has failed to present
any proof to show that she was still dependent on Pablo Aguas for support, making her
disqualified to be a primary beneficiary. As well as Janet Aguas is not entitled to the death
benefit of the deceased because there is no proof that the family has legally adopted Janet.
The Supreme Court indeed made a great job to battle unjust enrichment, and made a
favorable judgment to the one who is really entitled to what was planted by the deceased
during his lifetime.
