January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 161736 : February 24, 2010]

FIDELA B. MARABE, PETITIONER, V. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND CLARA VELIGANIO, RESPONDENTS.


Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 February 2010:

G.R. No. 161736: FIDELA B. MARABE, petitioner, versus SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and CLARA VELIGANIO, respondents.

Before the Court is a petition for review assailing the Decision dated 30 September 2003 and Resolution dated 11 December 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67645.

Petitioner Fidela Batiancila Marabe (Fidela) and Filomeno Marabe (Filomeno) got married on 20 November 1965 in Santa Fe, Cebu. On 20 July 1965, the couple had a son, Joemarie Marabe, who later died in his primary years.

In 1972, Filomeno left Cebu to find work in Manila. He settled in Navotas, Rizal and found employment as a laborer at F. del Rosario Fishing Company. In 1974, he became a member of public respondent Social Security System (SSS).

While living in Rizal, Filomeno cohabited with private respondent Clara Vegilanio (Clara) and had two illegitimate children, Nonie and Filmar Marabe.

On 14 October 1982, Filomeno died. Clara claimed Filomeno's death benefits with the SSS as a secondary beneficiary, being the natural guardian of Filomeno's two illegitimate minor children.

On 19 October 1998, or 16 years after Filomeno's death, Fidela filed a claim for the death benefits of her husband with the SSS's Malabon branch. Fidela allegedly had no prior knowledge of Filomeno's SSS membership.

The SSS denied Fidela's claim for death benefits. An investigation conducted by the SSS Lapu-Lapu City branch reported that Fidela cohabited with another man, Fely Asingua from 1975 to 1998 while still married to Filomeno, as disclosed by the barangay officials of Hilantagaan, Santa Fe, Cebu.

On 17 July 2000, Fidela filed a petition with the Social Security Commission (SSC) alleging that as the legitimate wife and lawful beneficiary of her husband, she is entitled to receive the benefits accruing from his death.

In a Resolution dated 1 August 2001, the SSC dismissed her petition. The dispositive portion states:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Commission finds, and so holds, that the petitioner, Fidela Marabe, is disqualified as primary beneficiary of the late Filomeno Marabe.

Accordingly, the instant case is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Fidela filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in an Order dated 10 October 2001.

Fidela then filed a petition for review with the CA. On 30 September 2003, the CA dismissed the case for lack of merit.

Fidela filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated 11 December 2003.

Hence, this petition.

The main issue is whether petitioner is entitled to the SSS death benefits of her husband Filomeno.

Petitioner Fidela submits that she is the legitimate spouse of Filomeno while Clara is merely a common-law wife. As the legal wife, petitioner is considered as the primary beneficiary of her husband and the one entitled to his SSS death benefits. With regard to the allegation that she cohabited with another man, petitioner insists that this is purely speculative and contrary to the certification by the Barangay Council of Hilantagaan, Santa Fe, Cebu, the place where she used to reside with her husband.

Respondents, on the other hand, maintain that petitioner cannot be considered a dependent spouse because she had been disqualified by law when she cohabited and entered into an adulterous relationship.

The petition lacks merit.

The Social Security (SS) law in effect at the time of Filomeno's death on 14 October 1982 was Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Republic Act No. 2458. Section 8(k) of RA 1161, as amended by RA 2458, states:

Sec. 8. Terms Defined. - For the purposes of this Act, the following terms shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings:

xxx

(k) 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.
The law is clear that the primary beneficiaries of an SSS member are his spouse and children who are dependent upon the SSS member for support.

In the present case, there is no question that petitioner married Filomeno, the deceased SSS member, on 20 November 1965 in Santa Fe, Cebu. Petitioner submitted their marriage contract as proof of such marriage. However, while petitioner's marriage to Filomeno was never dissolved prior to his death, the records show that they had been separated from 1972 when he left Cebu to find a job in Manila. It is also admitted by the parties that Filomeno, while residing and working in Rizal, had a common-law wife, Clara.

To support her claim that she was married and had never been separated from Filomeno, petitioner submitted several documents:

(1) Affidavit dated 16 May 1998 of Santos Marabe, father of Filomeno;

(2) Affidavit dated 2 March 1998 of William Marabe, brother of Filomeno;
and (3) Certification dated 28 March 2000 by the Barangay Council of
Hilantagaan, Santa Fe, Cebu.

While these documents show that petitioner was legally married and had never separated from her husband, the same do not prove that she was dependent on her legal husband for any support, whether it be financial or otherwise, during the time Filomeno was in Rizal and she remained in Cebu, in order to be considered as a primary beneficiary under the SS law.

In denying petitioner's claim for death benefits, the SSC, in its Resolution dated 1 August 2001, made these findings in the present case:

Records show that the petitioner cohabited with one Fely Asingua from 1974 to 1998 and that there is no evidence to show that the marriage of petitioner and Filomeno Marabe on November 20, 1965 was ever annulled. The petitioner has thus entered into an adulterous relationship with Fely Asingua x x x. Proof of such cohabitation is the declaration of residents of Hilantagaan, Sta. Fe, Cebu, where the petitioner used to reside, among others, Babylyn Marabe and Nita Batiancila who appear related to both the petitioner and the deceased as they carry the same surname, that the petitioner (nee Batiancila) cohabited with Fely Asingua.

The petitioner claims that she and the member never separated and that they lived together up to the latter's death in 1982, but the question why she filed her claim for death benefit only on October 19, 1998, or 16 years after the member's death, remains unanswered. This observation is further strengthened by the following circumstances: Santos Marabe, father of the deceased, even confirmed that his son and petitioner were separated; William Marabe declared under oath that petitioner lived with his brother, the deceased member, only for fourteen (14) years and reckoned from the couple's marriage in 1965, they lived together only up to 1979; per declaration of witnesses in the know, petitioner lived with Fely Asingua from 1975 up to 1998 and it was only in the latter year that she filed her claim for death benefit. All these affect the credibility of petitioner.

Such finding, thus, disqualifies petitioner as primary beneficiary of the late Filomeno Marabe since she was not legally entitled to receive support from the member during his lifetime.

ln Re: Application for Survivor's Benefits of Manlavi, a similar case involving a GSIS member, we held that "dependent" means "one who derives his main support from another. Meaning, relying on, or subject to, someone else for support; not able to exist or sustain oneself, or to perform anything without the will, power, or aid of someone else."

Petitioner did not present any evidence to show that she was dependent on her husband for support. In Social Security System v. De Los Santos we held that although a husband and wife are obliged to support each other, whether one is actually dependent for support upon the other cannot be presumed from the fact of marriage alone. A wife who is already separated from her husband cannot be said to be "dependent for support" upon the husband absent any showing to the contrary. Thus, for failing to prove that she was dependent on her husband for support during the existence of their marriage, petitioner cannot be considered as a primary beneficiary who is entitled to claim the SSS benefits of her deceased husband.

WHEREFORE, the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 30 September 2003 and Resolution dated 11 December 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67645.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 24 day of February, 2010.


Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court


Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

pp. 104-109-A. Penned by Justice Romeo A. Brawner with Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Jose Reyes, Jr., concurring.

Id. at 119.

As evidenced by a Certificate of Live Birth, id. at 52.

Id. at 55.

Docketed as SSC Case No, 7-15029-2000.

pp. 74-82.

Id. at 90-92.

An Act to Create a Social Security System Providing Sickness, Unemployment, Retirement,Disability and Death Benefits for Employees, which took effect on 18 June 1954.

An Act to Amend Certain Sections of Republic Act Numbered Eleven Hundred and Sixty One as Amended by Republic Act Numbered Seven Hundred and Ninety-Two, otherwise known as "The Social Security Act of 1954," which took effect on 18 June 1960.

As amended by Section 4, Republic Act No. 2658; Section 3, Republic Act No. 4857, which took effect on 1 August 1966; Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 177, which took effect on 23 April 1973; and Section 5, Presidential Decree No. 735, which took effect on 27 June 1975.

p. 48.

Id. at 49.

Id. at 50.

Id. at 56.

Id. at 80-82.
405 Phil. 152 (2001).

G.R.No  164790, 29 August 2008, 563 SCRA693.

Social Security System v. Aguas, G.R. No. 165546, 27 February 2006, 483 SCRA 383.

Back to Home | Back to Main