8/1/2016

G.R.No.209741

TodayisMonday,August01,2016

SocialSecurityCommissionv.EdnaA.Azote,G.R.No.209741,April15,2015
Decision,Mendoza[J]
DissentingOpinion,Leonen[J]

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
BaguioCity
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.209741April15,2015
SOCIALSECURITYCOMMISSION,Petitioner,
vs.
EDNAA.AZOTE,Respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:
This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Social Security
Commission(SSC)assailstheAugust13,2013Decision2oftheCourtofAppeals(CA),anditsOctober29,2013
Resolution3inCAG.R.SPNo.122933,allowingrespondentEdnaA.Azote(Edna)toclaimthedeathbenefitsof
herlatehusband,EdgardoAzote(Edgardo).
TheAntecedents:
OnJune19,1992,respondentEdnaandEdgardo,amemberoftheSocialSecuritySystem(SSS),weremarried
incivilritesattheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch9,LegazpiCity,Albay(RTC).TheirunionproducedsixChildren4
bornfrom1985to1999.OnApril27,1994,EdgardosubmittedFormE4totheSSSwithEdnaandtheirthree
olderchildrenasdesignatedbeneficiaries.ThereafteroronSeptember7,2001,EdgardosubmittedanotherForm
E4totheSSSdesignatinghisthreeyoungerchildrenasadditionalbeneficiaries.5
OnJanuary13,2005,Edgardopassedaway.Shortlythereafter,Ednafiledherclaimfordeathbenefitswiththe
SSS as the wife of a deceasedmember. It appeared, however, from the SSS records that Edgardo had earlier
submittedanotherFormE4onNovember5,1982withadifferentsetofbeneficiaries,namely:RosemarieAzote
(Rosemarie), as his spouse and Elmer Azote (Elmer),as dependent, born on October 9, 1982. Consequently,
Ednas claim was denied. Her children were adjudged as beneficiaries and she was considered as the legal
guardianofherminorchildren.Thebenefits,however,wouldbestoppedonceachildwouldattaintheageof21.6
OnMarch13,2007,EdnafiledapetitionwiththeSSCtoclaimthedeathbenefits,lumpsumandmonthlypension
ofEdgardo.7SheinsistedthatshewasthelegitimatewifeofEdgardo.Initsanswer,theSSSaverredthatthere
wasaconflictinginformationintheformssubmittedbythedeceased.Summonswaspublishedinanewspaperof
general circulation directing Rosemarie to file her answer. Despite the publication, no answer was filed and
Rosemariewassubsequentlydeclaredindefault.8
In the Resolution,9 dated December 8, 2010,the SSC dismissed Ednas petition for lack of merit. Citing Section
24(c)oftheSSLaw,itexplainedthatalthoughEdgardofiledtheFormE4designatingEdnaandtheirsixchildren
asbeneficiaries,hedidnotrevokethedesignationofRosemarieashiswifebeneficiary,andRosemariewasstill
presumedtobehislegalwife.
TheSSCfurtherwrotethattheNationalStatisticsOffice(NSO)recordsrevealedthatthemarriageofEdgardoto
oneRosemarieTeodoraSinowasregisteredonJuly28,1982.Consequently,itopinedthatEdgardosmarriage
toEdnawasnotvalidastherewasnoshowingthathisfirstmarriagehadbeenannulledordissolved.TheSSC
statedthattheremustbeajudicialdeterminationofnullityofapreviousmarriagebeforeapartycouldenterintoa
secondmarriage.10
In an order,11 dated June 8, 2011, the SSC denied Ednas motion for reconsideration. It explained that it was
incumbent upon Edna to prove that her marriage to the deceased was valid, which she failed to do. It further
opinedthatRosemariecouldnotbemerelypresumeddead,andthatdeathbenefitsundertheSSScouldnotbe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_209741_2015.html

1/6

8/1/2016

G.R.No.209741

consideredpropertieswhichmaybedisposedofinaholographicwill.12
IntheassailedAugust13,2013Decision,theCAreversedandsetasidetheresolutionandtheorderoftheSSC.
ItheldthattheSSCcouldnotmakeadeterminationofthevalidityorinvalidityofthemarriageofEdnatoEdgardo
consideringthatnocontestcamefromeitherRosemarieorElmer.13
The CA explained that Edna had established her right to the benefits by substantial evidence, namely, her
marriage certificate and the baptismal certificates of her children.14 It ruled that Edgardo made a deliberate
changeofhiswifebeneficiaryinhis1994E4form,assuchwasclearlyhisvoluntaryactmanifestinghisintention
to revoke his former declaration in the 1982 E4 form.15 The 1994 E4 form submitted by Edgardo, designating
Ednaashiswife,supersededhisformerdeclarationinhis1982E4form.16
It further opined that the Davac case cited by the SSC was not applicable because there were two conflicting
claimantsinthatcase,bothclaimingtobewivesofthedeceased,whileinthiscase,Ednawasthesoleclaimant
forthedeathbenefits,andthatherdesignationaswifebeneficiaryremainedvalidandunchallenged.Itwasofthe
viewthatRosemariesnonappearancedespitenoticecouldbedeemedawaivertoclaimdeathbenefitsfromthe
SSS,therebylosingwhateverstandingshemighthavehadtodisputeEdnasclaim.17
IntheassailedOctober29,2013Resolution,18theCAdeniedtheSSCsmotionforreconsideration.19
Hence,thepresentpetition.
GROUNDS
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE COMMISSION IS BEREFT OF
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE PRIVATE
RESPONDENT AND MEMBER EDGARDO AZOTE. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
GRANTING THE PETITION OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND FINDING HER ENTITLED TO THE SS
BENEFITS.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DESIGNATION OF THE
PRIVATERESPONDENTASWIFEBENEFICIARYISVALID.20
The SSC argues that the findings of fact of the CA were not supported by the records. It submits that under
Section 5 of the SS Law, it is called upon to determine the rightful beneficiary in the performance of its quasi
judicialfunctionofadjudicatingSSbenefits.Infact,itcitedanumberofcases,21wheretheSSChadpassedupon
thevalidityofmarriagesforthepurposeofdeterminingwhowereentitledtoSSbenefits.22
The SSC contends that Edna was not the legitimate spouse of deceased member Edgardo as the CA failed to
consider the NSO certification showing that Edgardo was previously married to Rosemarie. With the death
certificateofRosemarieshowingthatshediedonlyonNovember6,2004,itprovedthatshewasaliveatthetime
Edna and Edgardo were married, and, therefore, there existed a legal impediment to his second marriage,
renderingitvoid.Ednais,therefore,notalegitimatespousewhoisentitledtothedeathbenefitsofEdgardo.23
The SSC claims that the right to designate a beneficiary is subject to the SS Law. The designation of a wife
beneficiary merely creates a disputable presumption that they are legally married and may be overthrown by
evidence to the contrary. Ednas designation became invalid with the determination of the subsistence of a
previousmarriage.TheSSCpositsthateventhoughEdgardorevokedandsupersededhisearlierdesignationof
Rosemarie as beneficiary, his designation of Edna was still not valid considering that only a legitimate spouse
couldqualifyasaprimarybeneficiary.24
TheCourtsRuling
Thepetitionismeritorious.
ThelawinforceatthetimeofEdgardosdeathwasRepublicAct(R.A.)No.8282,25theamendatorylawofR.A.
No.1161orthe"SocialSecurityLaw."Itisataxexemptsocialsecurityservicedesignedtopromotesocialjustice
andprovidemeaningfulprotectiontomembersandtheirbeneficiariesagainstthehazardsofdisability,sickness,
maternity, old age, death, and other contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial burden.26 As a social
security program of the government, Section 8 (e) and (k) of the said law expressly provides who would be
entitledtoreceivebenefitsfromitsdeceasedmember,towit:
SEC. 8. Terms Defined. For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall, unless the context indicates
otherwise,havethefollowingmeanings:
xxxx
(e)DependentsThedependentsshallbethefollowing:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_209741_2015.html

2/6

8/1/2016

G.R.No.209741

(1)Thelegalspouseentitledbylawtoreceivesupportfromthemember
(2)Thelegitimate,legitimatedorlegallyadopted,andillegitimatechildwhoisunmarried,notgainfully
employed, and has not reached twentyone (21) years of age, or if over twentyone (21) years of
age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of
selfsupport,physicallyormentallyand
(3)Theparentwhoisreceivingregularsupportfromthemember.
xxxx
(k)BeneficiariesThedependentspouseuntilheorsheremarries,thedependentlegitimate,legitimatedor
legallyadopted,andillegitimatechildren,whoshallbetheprimarybeneficiariesofthemember:Provided,
Thatthedependentillegitimatechildrenshallbeentitledtofiftypercent(50%)oftheshareofthelegitimate,
legitimatedorlegallyadoptedchildren:Provided,further,Thatintheabsenceofthedependentlegitimate,
legitimatedchildrenofthemember,his/herdependentillegitimatechildrenshallbeentitledtoonehundred
percent (100%) of the benefits. In their absence, the dependent parents who shall be the secondary
beneficiaries of the member. In the absence of all the foregoing, any other person designated by the
memberashis/hersecondarybeneficiary.(Emphasissupplied)
ApplyingSection8(e)and(k)ofR.A.No.8282,itisclearthatonlythelegalspouseofthedeceasedmemberis
qualified to be the beneficiary of the latters 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
acknowledgedhismarriedstatuswhenhefilledoutthe1982FormE4designatingRosemarieashisspouse.27
ItisundisputedthatthesecondmarriageofEdgardowithEdnawascelebratedatthetimewhentheFamilyCode
wasalreadyinforce. Article41oftheFamilyCodeexpresslystates:
1 w p h i1

Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void,
unlessbeforethecelebrationofthesubsequentmarriage,thepriorspousehadbeenabsentforfourconsecutive
years and the spouse present has a wellfounded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of
disappearancewherethereisdangerunderthecircumstancessetforthintheprovisionsofArticle391oftheCivil
Code,anabsenceofonlytwoyearsshallbesufficient.
Forthepurposeofcontractingasubsequentmarriageundertheprecedingparagraph,thespousepresentmust
instituteasummaryproceedingasprovidedinthisCodeforthedeclarationofpresumptivedeathoftheabsentee,
withoutprejudicetotheeffectofreappearanceoftheabsentspouse.(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
UsingtheparametersoutlinedinArticle41oftheFamilyCode,Edna,withoutdoubt,failedtoestablishthatthere
wasnoimpedimentorthattheimpedimentwasalreadyremovedatthetimeofthecelebrationofhermarriageto
Edgardo.Settledistherulethat"whoeverclaimsentitlementtothebenefitsprovidedbylawshouldestablishhis
orherrighttheretobysubstantialevidence."28Ednacouldnotadduceevidencetoprovethattheearliermarriage
of Edgardo was either annulled or dissolved or whether there was a declaration of Rosemaries presumptive
death before her marriage to Edgardo. What is apparent is that Edna was the second wife of Edgardo.
ConsideringthatEdnawasnotabletoshowthatshewasthelegalspouseofadeceasedmember,shewouldnot
qualifyunderthelawtobethebeneficiaryofthedeathbenefitsofEdgardo.
The Court does not subscribe to the disquisition of the CA that the updated Form E4 of Edgardo was
determinativeofEdnasstatusandeligibilitytoclaimthedeathbenefitsofdeceasedmember.AlthoughanSSS
memberisfreetodesignateabeneficiary,thedesignationmustalwaysconformtothestatute.Toblindlyrelyon
the form submitted by the deceasedmember would subject the entire social security system to the whims and
capricesofitsmembersandwouldrendertheSSLawinutile.
Although the SSC is not intrinsically empowered to determine the validity of marriages, it is required by Section
4(b)(7)ofR.A.No.828229toexamineavailablestatisticalandeconomicdatatoensurethatthebenefitsfallinto
the rightful beneficiaries. As held in Social Security Commission vs. Favila,30 SSS, as the primary institution in
chargeofextendingsocialsecurityprotectiontoworkersandtheirbeneficiariesismandatedbySection4(b)(7)of
RA 8282 to require reports, compilations and analyses of statistical and economic data and to make an
investigation as may be needed for its proper administration and development. Precisely, the investigations
conductedbySSSareappropriateinordertoensurethatthebenefitsprovidedundertheSSLawarereceivedby
the rightful beneficiaries. It is not hard to see that such measure is necessary for the systems proper
administration, otherwise, it will be swamped with bogus claims that will pointlessly deplete its funds. Such
scenario will certainly frustrate the purpose of the law which is to provide covered employees and their families
protectionagainstthehazardsofdisability,sickness,oldageanddeath,withaviewtopromotingtheirwellbeing
in the spirit of social justice. Moreover and as correctly pointed out by SSC, such investigations are likewise
necessarytocarryoutthemandateofSection15oftheSSLawwhichprovidesinpart,viz:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_209741_2015.html

3/6

8/1/2016

G.R.No.209741

Sec. 15. Nontransferability of Benefits. The SSS shall pay the benefits provided for in this Act to such [x x xj
personsasmaybeentitledtheretoinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisActxxx.(Emphasissupplied.)
TheexistenceoftwoFormE4sdesignating,ontwodifferentdates,twodifferentwomenashisspouseisalready
anindicationthatonlyoneofthemcanbethelegalspouse.Ascanbegleanedfromthecertificationissuedbythe
NSO,31 there is no doubt that Edgardo married Rosemarie in 1982. Edna cannot be considered as the legal
spouse of Edgardo as their marriage took place during the existence of a previously contracted marriage. For
saidreason,thedenialofEdna'sclaimbytheSSCwascorrect.ItshouldbeemphasizedthattheSSCdetermined
Edna'seligibilityonthebasisofavailablestatisticaldataanddocumentsontheirdatabaseasexpresslypermitted
bySection4(b)(7)ofR.A.No.8282.
It is of no moment that the first wife, Rosemarie, did not participate or oppose Edna's claim. Rosemarie's non
participationorhersubsequentdeathonNovember11,200432didnotcureorlegitimizethestatusofEdna.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheAugust13,2013DecisionandtheOctober29,2013Resolutionof
the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 122933 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the petition for
entitlementofSSdeathbenefitsfiledbyrespondentEdnaAzoteisDENIEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ *
AssociateJustice

Seeseparatedissentingopinion
MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*

Designated Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 1977,
datedApril15,2015.
1

Rollo,pp.3256.

Id.at5874.PennedbyAssociateJusticeApolinarioD.Bruselas,Jr.,withAssociateJusticeRebeccaDe
GuiaSalvadorandAssociateJusticeSamuelH.Gaerlan,concurring.
3

Id.at7576.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_209741_2015.html

4/6

8/1/2016

G.R.No.209741
4

(1)JoannaReaA.Azote(September15,1985)(2)EdgardoA.Azote,Jr.(May20,1987)(3)EdgarAllan
A. Azote (June 30, 1988) (4) Erwin John A. Azote (February 11, 1995) (5) Edgardo A. Azote, Jr. II
(February27,1998)and(6)JhoaenneEdrailyneeA.Azote(June24,1999).id.at12.
5

Id.at3637.

Id.at7879.

Id.at60.

Id.at79.

Id.at7881.

10

Id.at81.

11

Id.at8284.

12

Id.at83.

13

Id.at64.

14

Id.at65.

15

Id.at70.

16

Id.at70.

17

Id.at72.

18

Id.at7576.

19

Id.at8589.

20

Id.at39.

21

SSSv.DeLosSantos,585Phil.684(2008)andSigneyv.SSS,566Phil.617(2008).

22

Rollo,pp.4042.

23

Id.at4849.

24

Id.at5051.

25

AN ACT FURTHER STRENGTHENING THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM THEREBY AMENDING FOR
THIS PURPOSE, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1161, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE SOCIAL
SECURITYLAW
26

Section2,R.A.No.8282.

27

Rollo,p.67.

28

Signeyv.SocialSecuritySystem,566Phil.617,627(2008).

29

SEC.4.PowersandDutiesoftheCommissionandSSS.(a)TheCommission.Fortheattainmentofits
main objectives as set forth in Section 2 hereof, the Commission shall have the following powers and
duties:
xxx
(b) The Social Security System. Subject to the provision of Section four (4), paragraph seven (7)
hereof,theSSSshallhavethefollowingpowersandduties:
xxx
(7) To require reports, compilations and analyses of statistical and economic data and to make
investigationasmaybeneededfortheproperadministrationanddevelopmentoftheSSS
30

G.R.No.170195,March28,2011,646SCRA462,480.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_209741_2015.html

5/6

8/1/2016

G.R.No.209741
31

Rollo,p.101.

32

Id.at98.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_209741_2015.html

6/6