Iluminada Ponce Berciles vs.

GSIS 128
SCRA 53
ILUMINADA PONCE BERCILES, ILONA BERCILES ALVAREZ, ELLERY P.
BERCILES, ENGLAND P. BERCILES and IONE P. BERCILES, petitioners, vs.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PASCUAL VOLTAIRE
BERCILES, MARIA LUISA BERCILES VILLAREAL, MERCY BERCILES
PATACSIL and RHO DA BERCILES, respondents.

G . R . N o . L - 57 2 57 | 1 98 4 - 0 3 - 05

Related keyword

o Conjugal partnership of gains, excluded from CPG, brought as

exclusive property

D E C I S I O N

GUERRERO, J p:

The disposition made by respondent GSIS of the retirement benefits

under Republic Act 910, as amended, due the heirs of the late Judge
of Court of First Instance Pascual G. Berciles whereby the GSIS
considered said retirement benefits in the total amount o f
P311,460.00 as partly conjugal and partly exclusive in nature and
thus divided the same in the following proportion:

77/ for the surviving spouse, Iluminada Ponce

134 Berciles;
 each for the legitimate children, Ilona Berciles

10/ Alvarez, Ellery P. Berciles, England P. Berciles

134 and Ione P. Berciles;

5/ for the acknowledged natural child Pascual

134 Voltaire Berciles;

each for the illegitimate children, namely, Maria

4/ Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berciles and Rhoda

134 Berciles

is erroneous in view of the rule We laid down in Re: Claims for

Benefits of the Heirs of the Late Mario V. Chanliongco, et al., 79
SCRA 364; Vda. de Consuegra, et al. vs. GSIS, 37 SCRA 315 that
retirement benefits shall accrue to his estate and will be distributed
among his legal heirs in accordance w ith the law on intestate
succession, as in the case of a life insurance if no beneficiary is
named in the insurance policy, and that the money value of the
unused vacation and sick leave, and unpaid salary form part of the
conjugal estate of the married em ployee.

Moreover, We find grave abuse of discretion on the part of

respondent GSIS, acting through its Board of Trustees, in resolving
under its Resolution No. 431 to approve the recommendation of the
Committee on Claims Settlement that private respondent Pascual
Voltaire Berciles is an acknowledged natural child and that the other
private respondents Maria Luisa Berciles Villareal, Mercy Berciles
Patacsil and Rhoda Berciles are illegitimate children of the late
Judge Pascual G. Berciles in the absence of substantial evidence
through competent and admissible proof of acknowledgment by and
filiation with said deceased parent as required under the law.

Judge Pascual G. Berciles of the Court of First Instance of Cebu died

in office on August 21, 1979 at the age of sixty -six years, death
caused by "cardiac arrest due to cerebral vascular accident." Having
served the government for more than thirty -four (34) years, twenty-
six (26) years in the judiciary, the late Judge Berciles was eligible for
retirement under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Act
No. 5095 so that his heirs were entitled to survivors benefits
amounting to P311,460.00 under Sectio n 2 of said Act. Other
benefits accruing to the heirs of the deceased consist of the unpaid
salary, the money value of his terminal leave and representation and
transportation allowances, computed at P60,817.52, all of which are
to be paid by this Court as the deceased's last employer, and the
return of retirement premiums paid by the retiree in the amount of
P9,700.00 to be paid by the GSIS. Such benefits are now being
claimed by two families, both of whom claim to be the deceased's
lawful heirs.

Iluminada Ponce of Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, and her four children, Ilona,
Ellery, England and Ione, filed with Us an application for survivors
benefits under Republic Act 910, as amended by R.A. No. 5095
effective August 21, 1979 as the legal spouse and legiti mate children
of the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles, duly supported by the required
documents.

The other set of claimants are Flor Fuentebella, and her four
children, namely Pascual Voltaire, Maria Luisa, Mercy and Rhoda, all
surnamed Berciles, the latter filing her family's claim by means of a
letter dated November 10, 1979 and supporting documents were also
submitted with their claim. The matter of these two (2) conflicting
claims was first docketed before this Court as Administrative Matter
No. 1337-Ret. and in a Resolution of the Court En Banc dated April
10, 1980, We resolved to APPROVE the appl ication of Ms. Iluminada
P. Berciles for survivor's benefits under the above -cited law,
effective August 21, 1979, subject to (a) the proper determination of
the rightful beneficiaries and their corresponding shares in
accordance with law, it appearing that there are two claimant
families thereto, and (b) the usual clearance requirements.

In pursuance to the foregoing resolution, the Office of the Court

Administrator recommended in a memorandum report dated
November 11, 1980 that (a) the transmittal to the GSIS of the
retirement papers of the late Judge Pascual Berciles be held in
abeyance until the payment to the rightful heirs of the unpaid salary,
money value of terminal leave and representation and transportation
allowances of the deceased Judge, and (b) that an investigator be
designated to determine the respective claims of the suppose d heirs
of the late Judge. The aforesaid recommendation was approved by
the Chief Justice on November 27, 1980 and Atty. Renato G. Quilala
of the Office of the Court Administrator was designated on December
15, 1980 as Court Investigator to help determine the rightful
beneficiaries of the subject benefits.

Thereupon, Atty. Quilala sent on December 22, 1980 to all the alleged
heirs a notice of hearing set for January 26, 1981 and the following
days thereafter for the reception of evidence in support of their
respective claims. None of the parties, however, ap peared. Records
from the Retirement Section, Administrative Services Office of this
Court show that the claim of Iluminada Ponce and her children was
already approved by the GSIS as of October 9, 1980 and that in fact,
the five years lump sum equivalent to P301,760.00 (gratuity less the
retirement premiums paid under R.A. 910, as amended, which was to
be returned to the retiree by the GSIS) under Check No. 04824308 as
retirement gratuity of the deceased had been remitted by the Budget
and Finance Office of this Court to the GSIS for payment to the heir -
beneficiaries on October 15, 1980.

On February 4, 1981, Atty. Cecilia T. Berciles, daughter -in-law of the

deceased Judge, and Mrs. Iluminada Ponce Berciles submitted to the
Court Investigator additional documents in support of the claim of
Mrs. Iluminada P. Berciles and her children, consisting of (A)
Evaluation Report, as approved by the GSIS, under P.D No. 626 with
the following recommendations, to wit:

"1. It is recommended that the death benefits under PD 626 due to

the death of the deceased of a compensable contingency, be
awarded to Iluminada Ponce having established her marriage to the
deceased and had been living with the deceased up to the time of the
latter's death.

"2. In the same light, the claim of Flor Fuentebella be denied for two
reasons: (a) She has not clearly established her legitimate
relationship with the deceased and, (b) She was not living with the
deceased at the time of his death as required by the rule s and
regulation of P.D. 626, as amended. (Rule XIV, Section 1(b), No. 1 the
legitimate spouse living with the employee at the time of employee's
death . . .)."

and (B) Certified Xerox copies of the late Judge Berciles' Income Tax
Returns for 1975, 1976 and 1979 where he listed Mrs. Iluminada P.
Berciles as his wife or spouse; also submitted in addition to the
foregoing documents, is a certified xerox copy of the application for
optional insurance filed with the GSIS by the late Judge Berciles,
dated November 19, 1956, wherein the deceased listed as his
beneficiaries therein the following persons:.

ILONA BERCILES 11 years old daughter;

ELLERY BERCILES 10 years old son;

ENGLAND BERCILES 8 years old son;

IONE BERCILES 1 year old - daughter; and

ILUMINADA P. BERCILES 33 years old wife.

The above documents were noted in the Memorandum to the Chief
Justice dated March 11, 1981 by the Deputy Court Administrator. And
notwithstanding the telegram sent to them on February 5, 1981
requiring them to submit their evidence of filiation with the de ceased
Judge Berciles, no such evidence was submitted by the Fuentebellas.

Accordingly, it was recommended in said Memorandum that

"the alleged marital relationship between the late Judge Berciles and
Ms. Flor Fuentebella Berciles has no leg to stand on. It should be
stated in this connection that there was no marriage contract
submitted by Miss Rhoda F. Berciles in her claim -letter, dated
October 29, 1979, nor was there any certification from the Local Civil
Registrar certifying to the fact that the deceased Judge was actually
married to Miss Flor Fuentebella. It can, therefore, be assumed that
Miss Flor Fuentebella was not legally ma rried to the late Judge
Pascual Berciles. Necessarily, it follows that the innocent children
that came into being out of the alleged marital union of the deceased
Judge and Ms. Flor Fuentebella Berciles are spurious and have no
established family filiation with the said Judge. We can, therefore,
rule that the attached papers/documents in the letter of Miss Rhoda
F. Berciles, dated October 29, 1979 relative to their claim as the
surviving heirs of the late CFI Judge Pascual Berciles are mere scrap
of papers unworthy of credence, there being no substantiating
evidence to corroborate the same, especially so in the face of the
adverse claim of Mrs. Iluminada Ponce Berciles as the rightful
surviving spouse and with whom the deceased Judge was living with
at the time of his untimely demise."

The same memorandum, therefore, recommended that since "(a)ll the

documents presented amply corroborate and fully substantiate what
were previously submitted to the office by Mrs. Iluminada Ponce
Berciles and her children. We find, therefore, the evidence presented
and submitted in favor of Mrs. Iluminada Ponce Berciles as sufficient
to establish the fact that she is the lawfully wedded wife of the
deceased Judge Berciles. This finding is fully supported by the
certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar of Bocaue, Bulacan,
dated August 24, 1977, attesting to the marriage between the
deceased Judge and Iluminada Ponce which took place on Januar y
20, 1941 before the then Justice of the Peace of the place. This
being the case, the four (4) children (ILONA, ELLERY, ENGLAND and
IONE) begotten by the said spouses during their marital union are all
legitimate, . . . that the unpaid salary, money value of terminal leave
and representation and transportation allowances of the late District
Judge Pascual G. Berciles be awarded and correspondingly
distributed to his lawful heirs, namely, MRS. ILUMINADA PONCE
BERCILES (surviving spouse); MRS. ILONA BERCILES ALVAREZ
(daughter); ELLERY BERCILES (son); ENGLAND P. BERCILES (son);
and IONE P. BERCILES (daughter)."

As recommended in the said memorandum. We approved the

following Resolution dated March 17, 1981:

"Re: Claim of the heirs of the late Pascual G. Berciles, former District
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Cebu City, for the
unpaid salary, money value of terminal leave and representation and
transportation allowances of the deceased Judge. - Considering the
memorandum of Deputy Court Administrator Leo D. Medialdea,
recommending that the unpaid salary, money value of terminal leave
and representation and transportation allowances of the late District
Judge Pascual G. Berciles be awarded and co rrespondingly
distributed to his lawful heirs, the Court Resolved to AWARD and
CORRESPONDINGLY DISTRIBUTE aforesaid benefits to his lawful
heirs, namely: Mrs. Iluminada Ponce Berciles, surviving spouse; Mrs.
Ilona Berciles Alvarez, daughter; Ellery Bercile s, son; England P.
Berciles, son; and Ione P. Berciles, daughter."

Pursuant to the above Resolution, the amount of P60,817.52 was

paid to Iluminada Ponce and her four children on April 2, 1981.
On April 23, 1981, Flor Fuentebella and her four children, Pascual
Voltaire, Ma. Luisa, Mercy, and Rhoda, through counsel, filed a
Motion for Reconsideration praying that the resolution of March 17,
1981 be set aside; that they be allowed to present their evidence;
and that, after due hearing, the benefits be awarded and distributed
to them as lawful heirs. In support of their motion, the movants
alleged that they did not receive the Resolution of March 17, 1981
nor the letter or notice of hearing sent by A tty. Quilala on December
22, 1980, the same having been sent to their old address at 6069 -B,
Palma St., Makati; that all of the movants have left the Philippines to
reside in the United States of America and that the aunts and
cousins residing at the old address moved to a new address at GSIS
Village, Project 8, Quezon City; that before they moved to the new
address, these relatives left a forwarding address at the Makati Post
Office; and, that they did not receive the aforementioned mail. The
fact of non-receipt was confirmed by one Domingo P. Raiz, letter
carrier of the Post Office of Makati, who executed an affidavit to that
effect, which affidavit We admitted in Our resolution of July 9, 1981.
The matter of the Fuentebella Motion for Reconsideration is
docketed before Us as Administrative Matter No. 10468 -CFI.

Acting on the aforesaid motion for reconsideration, We adopted the

following resolution dated July 2, 1981, to wit:

"Administrative Matter No. 10468 -CFI Re Terminal Leave Pay, Unpaid

Salary and Allowance of the late CFI Judge Pascual G. Berciles: Flor
Fuentebella and her four children, all surnamed Berciles vs.
Iluminada Ponce and her four children, all surnamed Bercile s. -
Judge Pascual G. Berciles of the Court of First Instance of Cebu died
in office on August 21, 1979 at the age of sixty -six years. He was a
native of Lapuz Norte, La Paz, Iloilo City.

Iluminada Ponce of Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, who claimed to be the

decedent's widow, and her four children, Ilona, Ellery, England and
Ione, filed a claim dated May 2, 1980 for survivors' benefits.
Iluminada executed an affidavit of heir ship dated September 19,
1979.

On the other hand, Rhoda F. Berciles, 6069 -B Palma Street, Makati,

Rizal in a verified statement dated November 19, 1979, claimed that
the deceased judge was survived by Flor Fuentebella, as widow, and
their four children named Voltaire, Luisa, Mercy and R hoda. Judge
Berciles allegedly married Flor Fuentebella on March 28, 1937 in
Iloilo City before City Judge Vicente Mapa.

Rhoda, in a letter to the Judicial Administrator dated October 29,

1979, requested the Judicial Administrator to hold the processing of
the claim filed by Iluminada Ponce and her four children pending the
filing of Rhoda's formal complaint.

Iluminada Ponce claimed that she was married to Judge Berciles at

Bocaue, Bulacan on January 20, 1941.

This Court in its resolution of April 10, 1980 approved the grant of
survivors' benefits subject to the proper determination of the rightful
beneficiaries and their corresponding shares in accordance with law,
it appearing that there are two claimant famil ies. (Adm. Matter No.
1337 - Ret. re Gratuity of Judge Berciles).

Pursuant to that resolution, the five -year lump sum gratuity

amounting to P301,760 due to the heirs of Judge Berciles was
remitted to the GSIS on October 15, 1980. The said amount up to this
time has not yet been distributed in view of the controversy betw een
the families of Flor Fuentebella and Iluminada Ponce as to who are
the legal heirs of Judge Berciles.

In a letter dated October 9, 1980, Ellery P. Berciles requested the

Chief Justice for the payment to Iluminada Ponce of the terminal
leave pay of Judge Berciles, which, together with his unpaid salary
and allowance, amounted to P74,884.52, or to P60,817.52 after
deducting the withholding tax of P14,067.
Upon the recommendation of Court Administrator Lorenzo Relova and
Deputy Court Administrator Leo D. Medialdea, the said amount of
P60,817.52 was paid to Iluminada Ponce and her four children on
April 2, 1981 pursuant to this Court's resolution of March 17, 1981.
Payment was made to them on the assumption that they are the only
legal heirs of Judge Berciles.

Atty. Luzel D. Demasu-ay, counsel for Flor Fuentebella and her four
children, in his motion for reconsideration dated April 21, 1981,
alleged that his clients were not heard before that payment was
made. He said that the payment was being capitalized upon by
Iluminada Ponce and her children in the GSIS as the basis for the
payment to them of the retirement gratuity of Judge Berciles.

Considering that the issue as to who are the legal heirs of Judge
Berciles is still being litigated in the Social Security Services of the
GSIS (according to Atty. Felicisimo Fernandez of that unit), and the
survivors' benefits have not yet been paid to Il uminada Ponce and
her children, and considering that the children of Flor Fuentebella,
even as illegitimate children of Judge Berciles, would be entitled to a
share in his terminal leave pay, allowance and unpaid salary (In re
Chanliongco, Adm. Matter No. 190-Ret., October 18, 1977, 79 SCRA
364), the Court Resolved (1) to require Iluminada Ponce and her
children, c/o Ione P. Berciles, 9 Jersey Street, Toro Hills, Project 8,
Quezon City, to COMMENT on the said motion for reconsideration
within ten (10) days from notice and (2) to direct Atty. Juan P.
Enriquez, Jr., Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief of the Administrative
Division, to advise the GSIS that, should Flor Fuentebella and her
children be ultimately adjudged as legal heirs of Judge Berciles, their
share in the sum of P60,817.50 (terminal leave pay, etc.) would be
taken from the survivors' benefits amounting to P301,760, already
remitted to the GSIS and, consequently, the shares of Iluminada
Ponce and her children in the said gratuity would answer for th e
portions due to Flor Fuentebella, et al. in the terminal leave pay, etc.,
if adjudged entitled thereto.
A copy of this resolution should be furnished the GSIS."

In a subsequent Resolution dated July 21, 1981, We noted the

Comment filed by Iluminada Ponce and in the same resolution,
clarified Our resolution of April 10, 1980 in Administrative Matter No.
1337-Ret., to wit:

"As may be seen from this Court's resolution of April 10, 1980 in
Administrative Matter No. 1337-Ret. regarding the gratuity of Judge
Berciles, this Court has not finally and conclusively decided that the
children of Flor Fuentebella are not the heirs of t he late Judge
Berciles.

The question of whether the four children of Flor Fuentebella should

share in the gratuity amounting to P301,760.00 is still being litigated
in the GSIS. Should it be finally decided by the GSIS that the children
of Flor Fuentebella are entitled to share i n that gratuity or survivors'
benefits, then they are also entitled to share in the terminal leave
pay, unpaid salary and allowances and their share should be
deducted from the shares in the said gratuity of Iluminada Ponce and
her four children.

This incident should, therefore, await the outcome of a final decision

of competent authority on who are the heirs of Judge Berciles, as
contemplated in this Court's resolution of April 10, 1980 in
Administrative Matter No. 1337-Ret."

In the meantime, pursuant to Our Resolution of April 10, 1980, the

papers were transmitted to the GSIS under the advertisement that the
approval of the application of Iluminada Ponce was subject to the
proper determination of the rightful beneficiaries.

The records of this Court, as adverted to earlier, disclose that on

October 9, 1980, the GSIS approved the claim of Iluminada Ponce and
so, the five (5) years lump sum retirement gratuity of the deceased
Judge, in the net amount of P301,760.00, was remitted by our Budget
and Finance Office to the GSIS on October 15, 1980 under Check No.
04824308 for payment to Iluminada and her four children. The GSIS,
however, in its Memorandum dated June 25, 1982 in G.R. No. 57257
denied having approved the claim of Iluminada Ponce Berciles and
her children saying that no such approval was made. The records in
G.R. No. 57257 disclose Annex "A" attached to the petition on pp. 14 -
15 of the Rollo the following evaluation rep ort evaluated by Carmelo
C. Garcia, Legal Evaluator; reviewed by Lorenzo Sanchez, Legal
Evaluator; approved by Felicisimo A. Fernandez, Manager,
Survivorship Benefits Dept.; and confirmed by Juanito S. Santamaria,
Vice President, SSS-II, to wit:

"PASCUAL G. BERCILES ANNEX "A"

Judge, CFI, Branch XV, Cebu City

Died August 21, 1979, Cause: CVA.

Evaluation on compensability under

PD 626, as amended.

I Medical Evaluation -.

Medically compensable for payment of such benefits as per

Medical evaluation dated December 24, 1979.

II Legal Evaluation

A. Documents Submitted:

It appears that there are two claimants - both surviving spouse

namely FLOR FUENTEBELLA and ILUMINADA PONCE, who alleged to
have been married to the deceased.
(1.) Documents submitted by Flor Fuentebella:

(a) Cert. from Census and Statistics of no record of marriage of Flor

Fuentebella and Pascual Berciles alleged to have been solemnized on
March 28, 1937.

(b) Affidavit of Pascual Berciles dated May 22, 1972 that he and Flor
were married by the late Judge J. Vicente Mapa.

(c) Affidavit of Coronacion Berciles, sister -in-law of Pascual Berciles

as to the marriage of Flor and Pascual.

(d) Affidavit of Judge Rafael Lavente as to his being invited in the

wedding of Flor and Pascual.

(e) Birth certificate of Pascual Voltaire Berciles - Aug. 30, 1938;

Maria Luisa, June 27, 1943; Mercy, July 23, 1947; Rhoda, Feb. 7,
1949.

(f) Xerox copy of Income Tax Return for 1972 of Pascual showing
Flor as the wife.

(2) Documents submitted by Iluminada Ponce

(a) Marriage certificate from Bocaue, Bulacan, showing marriage of

Iluminada and Paquito Berciles on January 20, 1941.

(b) Birth certificate of Ilona May 15, 1945; Ellery - Sept. 21, 1946;
England Nov. 14, 1948; Ione Ainee Aug. 25, 1955.

(c) GSIS IMI on C-20297 dated Dec. 1, 1956 of Pascual Berciles.

(d) IMI on 0-26030 dated Jan. 1, 1957

(e) Affidavit of Pascual Berciles dated April 21, 1978 mentioning
Ione and Iluminada as his daughter and wife respectively.

(f) Affidavit of four (4) relatives of Pascual as to their personal

knowledge of the marriage of Iluminada and Pascual.

(g) Affidavit of Santiago Medina (former Fiscal), denying of having

notarized an affidavit of Pascual the latter's marriage to Flor.

(3.) Clarifying documents

(a) Affidavit dated Feb. 14, 1980, of City Judge Rafael Lavente
rectifying his previous affidavit that he was not present in the
wedding of Flor and Pascual.

(b) Certification dated Feb. 4, 1980, from Ministry of Justice that

there is no record of one J. Mapa as Municipal Judge of Iloilo from
1935 to 1945.

B. Findings

After a careful study and appraisal of the documents above

enumerated we cannot find merit on the claim of Flor Fuentebella
because.

2. Flor has been living abroad since 1972.

3. Iluminada and the deceased were living together at the time of the
latter's death (August 21, 1979).

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the death benefits under PD 626 due to the

death of the deceased of a compensable contingency, be awarded to
Iluminada Ponce for having established her marriage to the deceased
and had been living with the deceased up to the time of the latter's
death.

2. In the same light, the claim of Flor Fuentebella be denied for two
reasons:

(a) She has not clearly established her legitimate relationship with
the deceased and,

(b) She was not living with the deceased at the time of his death as
required by the rules and regulation of PD 626, as amended. (Rule
XIV, Section 1(b), No. 1 the legitimate spouse living with the
employee at the time of employee's death . . .).

EVALUATED BY: REVIEWED BY:

S/T CARMELO C. GARCIA S/T LORENZO SANCHEZ

Legal Evaluator Legal Evaluator

APPROVED:

S/T FELICISIMO A. FERNANDEZ

Manager, Survivorship Benefits Dept.

CONFIRMED:

S/T JUANITO A. SANTAMARIA

Vice-President, SSS II"

In denying the above approval, the GSIS in its Memorandum claims

that the matter was elevated sometime in October 1980 to the
Committee on Claims Settlement for the proper determination of the
legal heirs of the late Judge Berciles. The two sets of claiman ts
having failed to reach an amicable settlement, the GSIS advised the
parties to submit the necessary documents to prove their
relationship or filiation to the deceased.

Thereafter, based on their respective documents and proofs of

filiation, the Board of Trustees approved the findings and
recommendations of the Committee on Claims Settlement under its
Resolution No. 431 adopted on June 3, 1981, the dispositive portion
of which states:

"After due deliberation, considering the foregoing, the Board

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the recommendation of the Committee on
Claims Settlement that the retirement benefits under R.A. 910, as
amended, due the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles in the total amount
of P311,460.00 which is partly conjugal and partly exclusive in
nature, be divided in the following proportion:

77/ 134 for the surviving spouse, Iluminada Ponce

Berciles; \
10/ 134 each for the legitimate children, Ilona Berciles
Alvarez, Ellery P. Berciles, England P. Berciles and Ione
P. Berciles;
5/ 134 for the acknowledged natural child Pascual
Voltaire Berciles;4/134each for the illegitimate children,
namely, Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy
Berciles and Rhoda Berciles.

(Arts. 148 (2), 153 (2), 895, 983, 999, New Civil Code)
xxx xxx xxx"

Only the above dispositive portion of the aforementioned Resolution

was communicated to Iluminada Ponce Berciles by the GSIS in the
letter signed by Felicisimo A. Fernandez, Manager, Survivorship
Benefits Department, in his letter dated June 18, 1981 (Anne x "D",
Petition in G.R. No. 57257, Rollo, p. 22). Not satisfied with the
disposition of their claim, Iluminada Ponce Berciles and her four
children now come to this Court on appeal by certiorari, citing
Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 1146, otherwise known as the
"Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977" which took
effect on May 31, 1977, which appeal is docketed as G.R. No. 57 257.

As prayed for in the petition, We issued a temporary restraining order

on July 13, 1981 enjoining the respondents from enforcing or
executing the GSIS Board of Trustees Resolution No. 431 dated June
3, 1981 and also required the respondents to file their r espective
Comments to the Petition. Only the private respondents filed their
Comment. Thereupon, acting on the merits of the pleadings filed, We
resolved to give due course to the petition in Our Resolution of April
14, 1981. Considering Our Resolution of July 21, 1981, the
disposition of Administrative Matter No. 1337 -Ret. and
Administrative Matter No. 10468 -CFI rests on Our decision in the
present petition.

The primary issue raised in the herein petition for certiorari is the
validity of the GSIS decision contained in its Resolution No. 431
finding private respondent Pascual Voltaire Berciles as an
acknowledged natural child of the late Judge Pascual G. Berci les and
the other private respondents namely Maria Luisa Berciles Villareal,
Mercy Berciles Patacsil and Rhoda Berciles as illegitimate children
of the deceased, and thus, upon this finding, disposed the retirement
benefits in the manner and proportion set forth in said resolution
after considering said benefits as partly conjugal and partly
exclusive. Petitioners contend that on the basis of the documents
and testimony submitted by private respondents, the conclusion of
respondent GSIS is erroneous and unf ounded and that respondent
GSIS erred grossly in its resolution. The correctness of the legal
conclusion drawn by the respondent GSIS or its appreciation of the
undisputed state of facts obtaining in the present controversy is thus
squarely raised by petitioners.

We note that private respondents in their Comment dated July 27,

1981 to the petition herein, while pointing out that the Supreme
Court is not the proper forum for the original determination of the
legal heirs of a deceased judge who is covered by R.A. 910 as
amended and that the determination of the question of heirship can
be appropriately considered only in our regular courts of j ustice
where private respondents actually did file a Special Civil Action No.
13966 for "Mandamus with Prayer for a Restraining Order" in the
Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch III, a copy of which is
attached to the Comment as Annex "A", raised the same issue of
illegality as may be seen clearly in par. 8 of the petition as follows:

"8. That clearly from the foregoing adjudication rendered by the

respondent Board of Trustees, petitioner Flor Fuentebella Berciles
and her children were unlawfully excluded from their lawful right to
the death benefit of the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles as his only
lawful heirs;"

And like the petitioners herein, private respondents contend that the
GSIS patently and gravely abused its discretion in denying the
latter's claim to the death benefits of the late Judge Pascual
Berciles as the legal and lawful heirs as may also be clearl y seen in
par. 10 of the Mandamus Petition in the aforementioned Civil Case
No. 13966, which reads thus:

"10. That in denying petitioners claim on the death benefit of the late
Judge Pascual Berciles of whom petitioners are the legal and lawful
heirs and in neglecting and refusing to issue forthwith a resolution
adjudicating the death benefit amounting to P31 1,460.00 in favor of
the petitioners as legal heirs, the respondent Board of Trustees of
the GSIS patently and gravely abused its discretion and unlawfully
neglected the performance of an act which is specifically enjoined
upon it by Sec. 5 of R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. 1057, R.A. 1797,
R.A. 2614, R.A. 4627 and R.A. 5095;

In other words, both families, raising grave abuse of discretion,

question the legality of the GSIS Resolution based on the same
undisputed facts, the petitioners herein claiming they are the legal
heirs, whereas, according to private respondents, they are the ones
legally entitled to the retirement benefits. The issue here then is one
of law which the contending parties concede in their respective
pleadings and thus correctible by certiorari.

But to set the records straight, We quote hereunder the findings of

the Committee on Claims Settlement which the GSIS Board of
Trustees adopted and approved under its Resolution No. 431:

"A brief summary of the evidence submitted by the contending

parties appears necessary for the proper disposition of this case. As
proof of her marriage to Judge Pascual Berciles, claimant Iluminada
Ponce Berciles submitted a certificate of marriage (Exh. "A")
indicating that she was married to one Paquito Berciles in Bocaue,
Bulacan on January 20, 1941 before Judge Bonifacio Enriquez,
Justice of the Peace of the said municipality. The Committee noted
that the husband's name appearing in the certificate is 'Paquito
Berciles' and not 'Pascual Berciles'.

"The discrepancy was explained in the sworn statement of Atty.

Fortunato A. Padilla (Exh. "R") and in his deposition dated February
27, 1981 taken by Atty. Hilarion Palma, Branch Attorney of our GSIS
Iloilo City Branch Office. In both documents, Atty. Padi lla, a high
school classmate and college companion of the late Judge Berciles,
stated that Pascual Gayta Berciles, Paquito Berciles or Paking
Berciles all refer to one and the same person who was the deceased
Judge Pascual G. Berciles. In the deposition of Concepcion M.
Gonzales (Exh. "31-A") who was a witness for Flor Fuentebella, she
also declared that Pascual Berciles was called Paking or Paquito and
that a brother Francisco was called Pako.

"Submitted also to the Committee by Iluminada Ponce are the birth

certificates of her children: Ilona Berciles (Exh. "E"); Ellery Berciles
(Exh. "C"); England Joseph Berciles (Exh. "D -1"); Aiene Berciles (Exh.
"B"). The other documents submitted such as th e Information for
Membership Insurance (Exh. "F" and Exh. "G"), Income Tax Returns
for the years 1975 (Exh. "U") and 1976 (Exh. "V"), individual sworn
statements of persons who knew or were related to the deceased
corroborate the filial affinity of Iluminada Ponce and her children to
the late Judge Berciles.

"Based on these documents, there is no question that Iluminada

Ponce was married to Pascual Berciles, alias Paquito, on January 20,
1941 at Bocaue, Bulacan. From this union, they begot the following
children, namely: Ilona, Ellery, England and Ione.

"The evidence for claimant Flor Fuentebella Berciles and her children
may also be briefly described as follows: She claims to have been
married to the late Judge Pascual Berciles on March 28, 1937 in
Iloilo City before Justice of the Peace Jose Vicente Map a. In other
words, she professes to be the first wife of the deceased Judge. Flor
Fuentebella was, however, not able to present her marriage contract
or certificate of marriage. Instead she submitted a certification of
the Local Civil Registar of Iloilo Ci ty (Exh. "1") attesting to the loss
or destruction of the records of marriage for the year 1944 and
previous years and another certification issued by the Office of Civil
Registrar General of the National Census and Statistics Office (Exh.
"2") stating the non-availability of the record of marriage between
Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella.

"In concrete support of her claim of marriage to the late Judge

Berciles, Flor Fuentebella presented to the Committee sworn
statements of several persons. Of the several sworn statements, at
least two or three deserve serious consideration. The first is th e one
executed by Concepcion M. Gonzales (Exh. "31") of 46 South Mapa,
Philam Homes, Quezon City, who stated that she knew for a fact that
Flor Fuentebella was married to Pascual Berciles in 1937 at Iloilo
City. It was represented to the Committee that she was present as a
guest in the marriage ceremony. Due to importance of her testimony,
the Committee requested her actual presence in the hearing.
However, due to her advanced age of 89 years and her other physical
infirmity, her attendance at the hearing w as dispensed with instead,
the Committee directed the Manager, Survivorship Department to
secure her deposition on questions prepared in advance by the
Committee. In his report to the Committee, the Manager stated that
the old lady is already blind, quite hard of hearing and her mem ory
already weak. In the Answers (Exh. "31 -A") to the questions written
by the Manager, Survivorship Department, Concepcion Gonzales
declared that she was present during the marriage ceremony of
Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella which was held in the
Municipal Hall of Iloilo City. She described the wedding as attended
by only the members of the family and that after the ceremony they
went to the house of Pascual's parents where a small party was
held.

"The Committee finds the testimony of Concepcion Gonzales quite

deficient in important detail. Flor Fuentebella had not been
presented in person for the proper identification of the witness. Was
the Flor Fuentebella who allegedly married Pascual Berciles o n
March 28, 1937 the same Flor Fuentebella who is cited by
Concepcion Gonzales? At any rate, assuming that a confrontation did
occur, Concepcion Gonzales would not be able to properly identify
Flor Fuentebella, by reason of her blindness.

"The other sworn statements which merit particular discussion are

those executed by Coronacion Berciles (Exhs. "10 and 31") a sister -
in-law of the late Judge Berciles. Coronacion was presented before
the Committee as a witness for Flor Fuentebella. In her testimony,
she stated facts and circumstances about the marital relations
between Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella. She declared that her
husband was the younger brother of the late Judge Berciles; that
even before Pascual Berciles became a lawyer in 1938, he and Flor
Fuentebella were introduced to her by her husband; that after she
was married to her husband, they lived together with the family of
Pascual Berciles and his wife Flor Fuentebella; that their two
families had lived closely enough during t he Japanese Occupation
and even after. She further stated that the immediate members of the
family with whom the spouses Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella
had lived before and during the war were his mother Evarista, his two
aunts Luisa Berciles and Eusebia Gayta and a sister Susana Berciles.
These testimonial and other declarations were latter transcribed into
a sworn statement which Coronacion executed on December 5, 1980
and submitted to the Committee. (Exh. "32").

"At its best, Coronacion Berciles testified on the cohabitation as

husband and wife of Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella. But
cohabitation is not solid proof that a marriage had in fact taken
place, especially in this case when such marriage is contest ed.
Coronacion could not state positively since she was not present in
the alleged marriage ceremony.

"The third sworn statement which deserves the Committee's

attention is the one executed by Judge Rafael Lavente, Presiding
Judge of Branch III, City Court of Iloilo, on February 14, 1980 (Exh.
"N" for Iluminada Ponce, Exh. "35" for Flor Fuentebella). In th is
document, Judge Lavente denied having been present in the wedding
of Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella; although he declared that
the 'late Judge Berciles was married here in Iloilo City and that after
his marriage he left Iloilo City. xxx.' (Exh. " 35-A"), he did not state
with whom Pascual Berciles was married.

"Of course the affidavit of Flor F. Berciles herself (Exh. "5") was
submitted wherein she stated that she was the legal wife of the late
Pascual G. Berciles and that she was married to him in Iloilo City on
March 28, 1937. The affidavit is nothing more tha n a self-serving
statement. Flor Fuentebella was not presented to the Committee as a
material witness. On the other hand, the sworn statement of Pascual
Berciles (Exh. "4") commands no evidentiary value at all. Mr.
Santiago Medina, former Provincial Fiscal of Cebu, who appears to
have administered the oath, in a subsequent sworn statement (Exh.
"M") denied his signature on the document (Exh. "4").

"The letters written by Judge Berciles to her daughters with Flor

Fuentebella especially the one sent to daughter Mercy Berciles (Exh.
"22") wherein he vigorously affirmed that it's only her mother, Flor
Fuentebella, and no other woman who was recognized as his wife and
loved by her parents deserve scant consideration. Pascual Berciles
could not be expected to admit the existence of his o ther family.
This would be disastrous to his efforts at preventing one family from
knowing the other.

"Flor Fuentebella likewise submitted to the Committee the birth or

baptismal certificates of her children begotten with the late Judge
Berciles; the birth certificates of Pascual Voltaire Berciles (Exh. "6");
baptismal certificate of Maria Luisa Berciles ( Exh. "7-A"); birth
certificate of Mercy Berciles (Exh. "8"); birth certificates of Rhoda
Berciles (Exh. "9"). The other evidence consist of family pictures
(Exhs. "30 to 30-M") which have been identified by witness
Coronacion Berciles both in her oral test imony before the Committee
and in her affidavit. (Exh. "32", par. 15). The pictures, however, do
not indicate that the marriage took place. If at all, the said pictures
show the presence of a family with or without the sanction of
marriage.

"After a careful evaluation of these documents, the Committee

believes that there is no sufficient evidence that Pascual Berciles
and Flor Fuentebella were married to each other on March 28, 1937
in Iloilo City; however, certain relationship did exist and from such
relationship were begotten the following children, namely: Pascual
Voltaire Berciles, Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berciles and Rhoda
Berciles.

"Furthermore, the Committee entertains doubt on the authority of the

officer who solemnized the marriage between Pascual Berciles and
Flor Fuentebella. It is true that the Official Roster of Officers and
Employees in the Civil Service (Exhs. "3" and "3 -A") include the name
Jose Vicente Mapa, Justice of the Peace for Iloilo. The listings,
however, do not indicate the exact date of employment of any
particular employee. The year 1935 indicated in the cover of the
Roster may not be interpreted to mean that all those listed were
already in the service in 1935. It is possible that the Roster included
those appointed as early as 1935 and those appointed at much later
date. This assumption deserves some degree of validity when
considered in relation with the record of service furnish ed by the
Civil Service Commission (Exh. "T") indicating that Jose Vicente
Mapa was Acting Municipal Judge of Iloilo City effective July 16,
1937. It further appears in the service record that he was Acting
Municipal Judge pursuant to a Designation by lett er of the Secretary
to President, dated June 30, 1937. If Jose Vicente Mapa was already
a Municipal Judge prior to July 16, 1937, he could have been
assigned to a different municipality other than Iloilo, in which case
he did not have the authority to sole mnize marriage in Iloilo on
March 28, 1937. At any event, a serious uncertainty did exist as to
whether Jose Vicente Mapa was already the Justice of the Peace of
Iloilo on the date the alleged marriage was contracted.

"The Committee therefore concludes that Judge Pascual Berciles was

legally married to Iluminada Ponce. His alleged marriage to Flor
Fuentebella was not sufficiently proved and therefore the children
begotten with her are either natural or illegitimate chil dren
depending on whether they have been born before or after the
marriage of Iluminada Ponce. Consequently, the legal heirs of the
late Judge Berciles entitled to share in the distribution of his
retirement benefits are the following: Iluminada Ponce, sur viving
spouse; Ilona Berciles Alvarez, Ellery Berciles, England P. Berciles
and Ione P. Berciles, legitimate children; Pascual Voltaire Berciles,
natural child; Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berciles, and Rhoda
Berciles, illegitimate children."

From the above recital, We can readily summarize the following three
(3) conclusions therein made and arrived at by the Committee which
were approved and adopted in toto by respondent GSIS through Board
of Trustees Resolution No. 431, to wit:

1. "(T)hat Iluminada Ponce was married to Pascual Berciles, alias

Paquito, on January 20, 1941 at Bocaue, Bulacan. From this union,
they begot the following children namely: Ilona, Ellery, England and
Ione."

2. "(T)hat there is no sufficient evidence that Pascual Berciles and

Flor Fuentebella were married to each other on March 28, 1937 in
Iloilo City."

3. "(H)owever, certain relationship did exist and from such

relationship were begotten the following children, namely: Pascual
Voltaire Berciles, Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berciles and Rhoda
Berciles." . . . " The children begotten with her are either na tural or
illegitimate children depending on whether they have been born
before or after the marriage of Iluminada Ponce."

As pointed out earlier, petitioners assail the validity of the third

conclusion or finding that Pascual Voltaire Berciles is an
acknowledged natural child and that Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy
Berciles and Rhoda Berciles are illegitimate children of the lat e
Judge Pascual Berciles, petitioners being in complete accord and
conformity with the first two conclusions summarized above.

Petitioners contend that the evidence submitted by private

respondents with respect to the status of respondent Pascual
Voltaire Berciles show that he was not acknowledged by the late
Judge Pascual Berciles in a birth certificate, in a will, in a statement
before a court of record, or in any authentic writing, as required
under Art. 278, New Civil Code, or much less, in a final judgment as
provided in Art. 283, New Civil Code.

The evidence considered by the Committee on Claims Settlement as

basis of its finding that Pascual Voltaire Berciles is an acknowledged
natural child of the late Judge Pascual Berciles is the birth
certificate of said Pascual Voltaire Berciles marked Exh. "6". We have
examined carefully this birth certificate and We find that the same is
not signed by either the father or the mother; We find no
participation or intervention whatsoever therein by the alleged
father, Judge Pascual Berciles. Under our jurisprudence, if the
alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, the putting of
his name by the mother or doctor or registrar is null and void. Such
registration would not be evidence of paternity. (Joaquin P. Roces et
al. vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, 102 Phil. 1050). The mere
certificate by the registrar without the signature of the father is not
proof of voluntary acknowledgment on his part (Dayrit vs. Piccio, 92
Phil. 729). A birth certificate does not constitute recognition in a
public instrument. (Pareja vs. Pareja, et al., 95 Phil. 167). A birth
certificate, to evidence acknowledgment, must, under Section 5 of
Act 3753, bear the signature under oath of the acknowledging parent
or parents. (Vidaurrazaga vs. Court of Appeals and Francisco Ruiz,
91 Phil. 492). In the case of Mendoza, et al. vs. Mella, 17 SCRA 788,
the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Makalintal who later
became chief Justice, said:

"It should be noted, however, that a Civil Registry Law was passed in
1930 (Act No. 3753) containing provisions for the registration of
births, including those of illegitimate parentage; and the record of
birth under such law, if sufficient in contents for the purpose, would
meet the requisites for voluntary recognition even under Article 131.
Since Rodolfo was born in 1935, after the registry law was enacted,
the question here really is whether or not his birth certificate (Exhibit
1), which is merely a certified copy of the registry record, may be
relied upon as sufficient proof of his having been voluntarily
recognized. No such reliance, in our judgment, may be placed upon
it. While it contains the names of both parents, there is no showing
that they signed the original, let alone swore to its contents as
required in Section 5 of Act No. 3753 (Vidaurrazaga vs. Court of
Appeals, 91 Phil. 493; In re Adoption of Lydia Duran, 92 Phil. 729).
For all that might have happened, it was not even they or either of
them who furnished the data to be entered in the civil register.
Petitioners say that in any event the birth certificate is in the nature
of a public document wherein voluntary recognition of a natural child
may also be made, according to the same Article 13 1. True enough,
but in such a case there must be a clear statement in the document
that the parent recognizes the child as his or her own (Madridejo vs.
De Leon, 55 Phil. 1); and in Exhibit 1 no such statement appears. The
claim of voluntary recognition is without basis."

With respect to the Committee's finding that the other private

respondents are illegitimate children of the deceased Judge Berciles,
We find that the evidentiary basis of such finding are the baptismal
certificate of Maria Luisa Berciles, Exh. "7 -A"; birth certificate of
Mercy Berciles, Exh. "8"; and birth certificate of Rhoda Berciles, Exh.
"9". We have also examined the above exhibits and We find that Exh.
"7" is a mere certification that all the Civil Registry records of birth
filed in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar for the year 1944 and
previous years were either burned, destroyed or lost during the last
war and hence, the office could not furnish the birth certificate of
Maria Luisa Berciles who claim to have been born to the spouses
Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella on June 27, 1943 at Iloilo City.
The same is true with Exh. "7-B" attesting to the non-availability of
the Register of Births for Iloilo, Iloilo in the year 1943 in the files of
the National Archives. Exh. "7-A and 7-B" are, therefore, of no value.

As to the baptismal certificate, Exh. "7 -A", the rule is that although
the baptismal record of a natural child describes her as a child of the
decedent, yet, if in the preparation of the record the decedent had no
intervention, the baptismal record cannot be held to be a voluntary
recognition of parentage. (Canales vs. Arrogante, et al., 91 Phil. 6;
Adriano vs. De Jesus, 23 Phil. 350; Samson vs. Corrales Tan, 48 Phil.
401; Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1; Malonda vs. Infante Vda. de
Malonda, 81 Phil. 149). The reason for this rule that canonical
records do not constitute the authentic document prescribed by Arts.
115 and 117 to prove the legitimate filiation of a child is that such
canonical record is simply proof of the only act to which the priest
may certify by reason of his personal knowledge, an act done by
himself or in his presence, like the administration of the sacrament
upon a day stated; it is no proof of the declarations in the record
with respect to the parentage of the child baptized, or of pr ior and
distinct facts which require separate and concrete evidence.
(Adriano vs. De Jesus, 23 Phil. 350).

In the recent case of Republic vs. Workmen's Compensation

Commission, 13 SCRA 272, the Supreme Court speaking again
through Justice Makalintal, held:

"This Court, construing the various pertinent provisions of the Civil

Code concerning illegitimate children, has held that an illegitimate
(spurious) child, to be entitled to support and successional rights
from his parents, must prove his filiation and th at this may be done
by means of voluntary or compulsory recognition of the relationship.
For this purpose, the provisions concerning natural children are held
applicable, thus, recognition is voluntary when made in the record of
birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic
writing (Article 278); and compulsory when made by means of a court
action in the cases enumerated in Articles 283 and 284 (Paulino vs.
Paulino, L-15091, Dec. 28, 1961).

Discrediting the above certificate (birth and baptismal) of the

illegitimate spurious children which do not constitute proof of
filiation with the deceased Judge Berciles, what remains are the
sworn statements of Coronacion Berciles, Exh. 10 and 31, sister -in-
law of the late Judge Berciles wherein she stated that after she was
married to her husband, they lived together with the family of
Pascual Berciles and his wife, Flor Fuentebella; that their two
families had lived closely enough during the Japanese Oc cupation
and even after. These statements, however, does not prove the
filiation of the children to the late Judge Pascual Berciles.

Neither are the family pictures, Exhs. 30 to 30 -M, which, according to

the Committee, do not indicate that the marriage (between Judge
Berciles and Flor Fuentebella) took place and that if at all, the said
pictures show the presence of a family with or wit hout the sanction
of marriage. We agree and We add that said pictures do not
constitute proof of filiation.
We also agree with the finding of the Committee that "(t)he letters
written by Judge Berciles to her daughters with Flor Fuentebella
especially the one sent to daughter Mercy Berciles (Exh. "22")
wherein he vigorously affirmed that it's only her mother, Fl or
Fuentebella, and no other woman who was recognized as his wife and
loved by her parents deserve scant consideration. Pascual Berciles
could not be expected to admit the existence of his other family.
This would be disastrous to his efforts at preventing one family from
knowing the other." Not only do they deserve scant consideration but
also, there is jurisprudence that a typewritten letter signed by the
father is not an authentic writing. (Decision of the Supreme Court of
Spain of Feb. 27, 1923 and Dec. 7, 1927 cited in 3 Castan, 6th ed.,
25; see Caguioa, Comments and Cases on Civil Law, Vol. I, p. 379).

As to the other exhibits of private respondents, We affirm the

Committee's finding that the Flor Fuentebella Affidavit (Exh. "5") is
self-serving; that the testimony of Concepcion Gonzales (Exh. "31 -
A"), being blind, is deficient; and that the affidavit of Judge Rafael
Lavente (Exh. "35") has been repudiated. Indeed, the above evidence
are, to Our view, very insignificant, insufficient, and insubstantial to
prove the filiation of private respondents to the alleged father, Judge
Pascual Berciles.

The records disclose that all the private respondents have left the
Philippines and are now residing in the United States. They have not
appeared at the hearing before the Committee on Claims Settlement
to testify in support of their claim of filiation and acknowledgment.
And We find no clear and competent proof, no positive and
substantial evidence presented by private respondents that their
alleged father had admitted or recognized his paternity of the private
respondents Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berci les and Rhoda
Berciles.

Under the law, Article 287, New Civil Code, illegitimate children other
than natural in accordance with Art. 269 are entitled to support and
such successional rights as are granted in the Code, but for this
Article to be applicable, there must be admission or recognition of
the paternity of the illegitimate child. (Paterno, et al. vs. Paterno, 20
SCRA 585, citing Noble vs. Noble, G.R. No. L -17742, Dec. 17, 1966, 18
SCRA 1104; Paulino vs. Paulino, G.R. No. L -15091, Dec. 28, 1961, 113
Phil. 697). Article 887, N.C.C., defining who are compulsory heirs, is
clear and specific that "(i)n all cases of illegitimate children, their
filiation must be duly proved." And in the Noble case, supra, the
Supreme Court laid down this ruling:

"The filiation of illegitimate children, other than natural, must not

only be proven but it must be shown that such filiation was
acknowledged by the presumed parent. If the mere fact of paternity
is all that needs to be proven, that interpretation would p ave the way
to unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of the death of the
presumed parent, who would no longer be in a position to deny the
allegation, to present even fictitious claims and expose the life of
the deceased to inquiries affecting his cha racter." (emphasis
supplied).

In fine, We hold and rule that the respondent GSIS committed grave
abuse of discretion in approving Resolution No. 431 which adopted
the erroneous recommendation of the Committee on Claims
Settlement, a recommendation which has no legal or factual basis to
stand on. Accordingly, the disposition made by respondent GSIS of
the retirement benefits due the heirs of the late Judge Pascual G.
Berciles is consequently erroneous and not in accordance with law.
Petitioners are the lawful heirs entitled to the distri bution of the
benefits which shall accrue to the estate of the deceased Judge
Berciles and will be distributed among the petitioners as his legal
heirs in accordance with the law on intestate succession. (Re: Mario
vs. Chanliongco, 79 SCRA 364; Vda. de Con suegra vs. GSIS, 37 SCRA
325).

According to Article 996 of the New Civil Code which provides that
"If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are
left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as
that of each of the children," and Article 980 which provides that
"The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their
own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares," the retirement
benefits shall be distributed equally to the five (5) heirs: Iluminada
Ponce Berciles, Ilona Berciles Alvarez, Ellery P. Berciles, England P.
Berciles and Ione P. Berciles.

As to the retirement premiums totalling P9,700.00, the same is

presumed conjugal property, there being no proof that the premiums
were paid from the exclusive funds of the deceased Judge (Article
160, New Civil Code). Such being the case, one -half of the amount
belongs to the wife as her property in the conjugal partnership and
the other half shall go to the estate of the deceased Judge which
shall in turn be distributed to his legal heirs.

With respect to the terminal leave pay, unpaid salary and allowances
accruing to the deceased, since petitioners are the only lawful heirs
of the deceased Judge, only they are entitled to share thereto. There
is no need to disturb Our Resolution of March 1 7, 1981.

One final point, the issue raised by respondents that Section 25 of

P.D. 1146, otherwise known as "The Revised Government Service
Insurance Act of 1977", cannot be invoked by petitioners in taking
the present appeal for the reason that the dispute between the
parties have arisen under the Judiciary Retirement Law, Republic Act
No. 910, as amended and not under P.D. 1146, and that the
determination of the legal heirs of a deceased judge covered by
Republic Act 910 as amended, is vested in the regular courts of
justice.

Section 25 of P.D. 1146 provides:

"Sec. 25. Appeals. Within fifteen days from receipt of notice of

decision or award, the aggrieved party may appeal the same to the
Court of Appeals on questions of law and facts following the
procedures for appeals from the Court of First Instance to the Court
of Appeals as far as practicable and consistent with the purposes of
this Act. If the appeal is only on questions of law, the same shall be
brought directly to the Supreme Court on certio rari. No appeal bond
shall be required. The appeal shall take precedence over all other
cases except criminal cases wherein the penalty of life imprisonment
or death has been imposed by the trial court. Appeal shall not stay
the decision of the Board unles s so ordered by the Board, by the
Court of Appeals, or by the Supreme Court."

Respondents' position is untenable. We hold that Sec. 25 of P.D.

1146 quoted above may be availed of by petitioners.

Republic Act 910, as amended, is a special statute governing and

granting retirement benefits to members of the judiciary. While
Section 5 of the Act provides that the GSIS shall take charge of the
enforcement and operation of the Act, there is no provisio n therein
setting forth the procedure or remedy for the final determination of
the legal heirs of the deceased Judge in case a dispute arises
between the opposing claimants. Even under the old GSIS Act,
Commonwealth Act No. 186 as amended, there is no expr ess
provision on appeal from the award or decisions of the GSIS. In both
cases, the decision or the award made by the GSIS which affects
property rights as well as the legitimate or illegitimate status of the
claimants is brought to and assailed in the reg ular courts of justice
under the general power and jurisdiction of the courts to review
decisions of administrative bodies and this is where the litigation
becomes not only delayed or protracted but also expensive and
cumbersome, to the great prejudice and detriment of the parties.

As may be gleaned from the "whereas clauses" of P.D. 1146 which,

among others, recognize that "provisions of existing laws . . . have
prejudiced, rather than benefitted, the government employee;
restricted rather than broadened, his benefits, prolonged, ra ther than
facilitated the payment of benefits, must now yield to his paramount
welfare," P.D. 1146 is a remedial legislation, which are "those which
afford a remedy, or improve or facilitate remedies already existing
for the enforcement of rights and the redress of injuries, and
statutes intended for the correction of defects, mistakes and
omissions in the civil institutions and the administration of t he
state." (Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Vol. III, p. 31). And being
remedial statutes relating to procedure as distinguished from those
relating to substantive rights, they are given a liberal interpretation.
(Sutherland, supra, p. 39).

Accordingly, We hold and rule that Section 25 of P.D. 1146

specifically laying down the procedure whereby the party aggrieved
by the decision of the GSIS may appeal the same to the Court of
Appeals, now the Intermediate Appellate Court, on questions of law
and facts following the procedures for appeals from the Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) to the I.A.C. and if the
appeal is only on questions of law, the same shall be brought directly
to the Supreme Court on certiorari, which abbreviate d procedure was
designed to facilitate, and not to prolong, the payment of benefits,
may be invoked by the petitioners.

That P.D. 1146, Sec. 35 is applicable to disputes arising under the

Judiciary Retirement Act and all other acts administered by the GSIS
may also be construed from Sec. 23 of the Decree which provides
that the "System shall prescribe such rules and regulat ions to
facilitate payment of benefits, proceeds and claims under the Act
and any other laws administered by the System.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, We AFFIRM the

finding in Resolution No. 431 that petitioner Iluminada Ponce
Berciles is the surviving spouse of the late Judge Pascual G.
Berciles and that petitioners Ilona Berciles Alvarez, Ellery P.
Berciles, England P. Berciles, and Ione P. Berciles are the
legitimate children of the said deceased Judge. We REVERSE and
SET ASIDE its finding that Pascual Voltaire Berciles is an
acknowledged natural child and that Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy
Berciles, and Rhoda Berciles are illegitimate children of the
deceased CFI Judge Pascual G. Berciles. The claims of the
petitioners as legal heirs are hereby APPROVED and the GSIS is
hereby ordered to pay immediately to each and every petitioner the
various sums hereunder indicated opposite their names, as follows:

1. ILUMINADA PONCE BERCILES.

A. Her 1/5 share of retirement

gratuity P60,352.00

B. Her share from the return of the retirement premiums

(1) as her conjugal

share 4,850.00

(2) as a legal
heir 970.00

Total Amount Due

Her P66,1172.00
====
=====

2. ILONA BERCILES ALVAREZ.

A. Her 1/5 share of

retirement Gratuity P60,352.00

B. Her share from the return of retirement

premiums 970.00

Total Amount Due

Her P61,322.00
==
======
3. ELLERY P. BERCILES.

A. His 1/15 share of

retirement Gratuity P60,352.00

B. His share from return of retirement

premiums 970.00

Total Amount Due

Him P61,322.00
===
======

4. ENGLAND P. BERCILES.

A. His 1/5 share of

retirement Gratuity P60,352.00

B. His share from return of retirement

premiums 970.00

Total Amount Due

Him P61,322.00

========

5. IONE P. BERCILES.

A. Her 1/5 share of

retirement Gratuity P60,352.00

B. Her share from return of retirement

premiums 970.00

Total Amount Due

Her P61,322.00
 ==
=======

The temporary restraining order issued herein per Our Resolution

dated July 13, 1981 is hereby made permanent.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Actg. C.J.), Concepcion, Jr., De Castro, Melencio -Herrera,

Plana, Escolin, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J. and Teehankee, J., are on leave.

Aquino, J., took no part.

Abad Santos, J., I reserve my vote.