SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. EDNA A.
AZOTE, respondent
G.R. No. 209741 | April 15, 2015
FACTS:
Respondent Edna and Edgardo got married on
June 19, 1992. Their union produced 6 children which were all designated
beneficiaries of Edgardo’s SSS. Edna filed her claim for death benefits with
the SSS shortly after Edgardo passed away on Jan. 13, 2005. However, on the SSS
records it appeared that Edgardo had earlier submitted another Form e-4 on Nov.
5, 1982 with a different set of beneficiaries, namely: Rosemarie Azote, as his
spouse; and Elmer Azote as dependent.
Consequently, Edna’s claim was denied. On
March 13, 2007, Edna filed a petition with the SSC to claim the death benefits,
lump sum and monthly pension of Edgardo. She insisted that she was the
legitimate wife of Edgardo. In its answer, the SSS averred that there was a
conflicting information in the forms submitted by the deceased.
The SSC dismissed Edna’s petition for lack
of merit. Citing Section 24(c) of the SS Law, it explained that although
Edgardo filed the Form E-4 designating Edna and their six children as
beneficiaries, he did not revoke the designation of Rosemarie as his
wife-beneficiary, and Rosemarie was still presumed to be his legal wife.
Furthermore, the NSO records revealed that
Edgardo’s marriage to Rosemarie was registered on July 28, 1982. Hence, Edna
and Edgardo’s marriage is void, there being no showing that the first marriage
has been annulled.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is the
wife-beneficiary of the deceased, thus entitling her to claim death benefits
RULING:
Applying Section 8(e) and (k) of R.A. No.
8282, it is clear that only the legal spouse of the deceased member is
qualified to be the beneficiary of the latter’s SS benefits. In this case,
there is a concrete proof that Edgardo contracted an earlier marriage with
another individual as evidenced by their marriage contract. Edgardo even
acknowledged his married status when he filled out the 1982 Form E-4
designating Rosemarie as his spouse.
Using the parameters outlined in Article 41
of the Family Code, Edna, without doubt, failed to establish that there was no
impediment or that the impediment was already removed at the time of the
celebration of her marriage to Edgardo. Settled is the rule that “whoever claims
entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right
thereto by substantial evidence.” Edna could not adduce evidence to prove that
the earlier marriage of Edgardo was either annulled or dissolved or whether
there was a declaration of Rosemarie’s presumptive death before her marriage to
Edgardo. What is apparent is that Edna was the second wife of Edgardo.
Considering that Edna was not able to show that she was the legal spouse of a
deceased member, she would not qualify under the law to be the beneficiary of
the death benefits of Edgardo.
Although the SSC is not intrinsically
empowered to determine the validity of marriages, it is required by Section
4(b)(7) of R.A. No. 828229 to examine available statistical and economic data
to ensure that the benefits fall into the rightful beneficiaries.
Comments
Post a Comment