CASE DIGEST: SSS v. Aguas

 

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. ROSANNA H. AGUAS, JANET H. AGUAS, and minor JEYLNN H. AGUAS, represented by her Legal Guardian, ROSANNA H. AGUAS, respondent
G.R. No. 165546                |              February 27, 2006

FACTS:

Rosanna H. Aguas filed a claim with the SSS for death benefits after the death of her husband, Pablo Aguas. Rosanna indicated in her claim that Pablo was likewise survived by his minor child, Jeylnn, who was born on October 29, 1991.

Sometime in April 1997, the SSS received a sworn letter from Leticia Aguas-Macapinlac, Pablo’s sister, contesting Rosanna’s claim for death benefits. 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. 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, SSS suspended the payment of Rosanna and Jeylnn’s monthly pension and conducted an investigation to verify Leticia’s allegations. The SS Officer who conducted the investigation reported that, among others: the deceased had no legal children with Rosanna; Rosanna left the deceased 6 years before his death; and that Pablo was not capable of having a child as he was under treatment.

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 also advised to refund to SSS within 30 days the amounts released to her and Jeylnn as death benefits.

SSS denied Rosanna and Jeylnn reconsideration of the said decision.

This prompted Rosanna and Jeylnn to file a claim/petition for the Restoration/Payment of Pensions with the SSC on February 20, 1998. Janet H. Aguas, who also claimed to be the child of the deceased and Rosanna, now joined them as claimant.

In its Answer, the SSS averred that, based on the sworn testimonies and documentary evidence showing the disqualification of the petitioners as primary beneficiaries, the claims were barren of factual and legal basis; as such, it was justified in denying their claims.

In their Position Paper, the claimants averred that Jeylnn was a legitimate child of Pablo as evidenced by her birth certificate bearing Pablo’s signature as Jeylnn’s father. They asserted that Rosanna never left Pablo and that they lived together as husband and wife under one roof. As to the alleged infertility of Pablo, the claimants averred that Dr. Macapinlac denied giving the opinion precisely because he was not an expert on such matters, and that he treated the deceased only for tuberculosis.

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. The SSC concluded that Rosanna was no longer entitled to support from Pablo prior to his death because of her act of adultery. As for Jeylnn, the SSC ruled that, even if her birth certificate was signed by Pablo as her father, there was more compelling evidence that Jeylnn was not his legitimate child.

The claimants filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision but their motion was denied by the SSC. Upon appeal, the CA rendered a decision in favour of petitioners.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondents are entitled to the pension benefit accruing from the death of Pablo Aguas

RULING:

Whoever claims entitlement to such benefits should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence, the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Jeylnn’s claim is justified by the photocopy of her birth certificate which bears the signature of Pablo and reflected that she was born on October 29, 1991. The records also show that Rosanna and Pablo were married on December 4, 1977 and the marriage subsisted until the latter’s death on December 8, 1996. It is therefore evident that Jeylnn was born during Rosanna and Pablo’s marriage.

On the claims of Rosanna, 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 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.

In a parallel case involving a claim for benefits under the GSIS law, the Court defined a dependent as “one who derives his or her 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.” The GSIS law likewise defines a dependent spouse as “the legitimate spouse dependent for support upon the member or pensioner.” In that case, the Court found it obvious that a wife who abandoned the family for more than 17 years until her husband died, and lived with other men, was not dependent on her husband for support, financial or otherwise, during that entire period. Hence, the Court denied her claim for death benefits.

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. Aside from her own testimony, the only evidence adduced by Rosanna to prove that she and Pablo lived together as husband and wife until his death were the affidavits of Vivencia Turla and Carmelita Yangu where they made such declaration.

On the other hand, Mariquita categorically affirmed that Rosanna was no longer living at Pablo’s house even before he died, and that she is still living with Romeo dela Peña up to the present.