Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2006 Social Security System v. Aguas20210424 12 Ow2dzt
2006 Social Security System v. Aguas20210424 12 Ow2dzt
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J : p
On March 14, 2001, the SSC rendered a decision denying the claims for
lack of merit and ordering Rosanna to immediately refund to the SSS the
amount of P10,350.00 erroneously paid to her and Jeylnn as primary
beneficiaries of the deceased. The SSC likewise directed the SSS to pay the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
death benefit to qualified secondary beneficiaries of the deceased, and in
their absence, to his legal heirs. 28
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 based its
conclusion on the birth certificate of Jefren dela Peña stating that his mother,
Rosanna, and father, Romeo dela Peña, were married on November 1, 1990.
The SSC declared that Rosanna had a child with Romeo dela Peña while she
was still married to Pablo (as evidenced by the baptismal certificate of
Jenelyn H. dela Peña showing that she was the child of Rosanna Hernandez
and Romeo dela Peña and that she was born on January 29, 1992). 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 SSC
deduced from the records that Jeylnn and Jenelyn was one and the same
person and concluded, based on the latter's baptismal certificate, that she
was the daughter of Rosanna and Romeo dela Peña. It also gave credence to
the testimonies of Leticia and Mariquita that Jeylnn was the child of Rosanna
and Romeo dela Peña. As for Janet, the SSC relied on Leticia's declaration
that she was only adopted by Pablo and Rosanna. 29
The claimants filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision
but their motion was denied by the SSC for lack of merit and for having been
filed out of time. 30 The claimants then elevated the case to the CA via a
petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
On September 9, 2003, the CA rendered a decision in favor of
petitioners. The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the resolution and order appealed from are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is entered
DECLARING petitioners as ENTITLED to the SSS benefits accruing
from the death of Pablo Aguas. The case is hereby REMANDED to
public respondent for purposes of computing the benefits that may
have accrued in favor of petitioners after the same was cut and
suspended in September 1997.
SO ORDERED. 31
At the time of Pablo's death, the prevailing law was Republic Act No.
1161, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 735. Section 13 of the law
enumerates those who are entitled to death benefits:
Sec. 13. Death benefits. — Effective July 1, 1975, upon the
covered employee's death, (a) his primary beneficiaries shall be
entitled to the basic monthly pension, and his dependents to the
dependent's pension: Provided, That he has paid at least thirty-six
monthly contributions prior to the semester of death: Provided, further,
That if the foregoing condition is not satisfied, or if he has no primary
beneficiaries, his secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump
sum benefit equivalent to thirty times the basic monthly pension:
Provided, however, That the death benefit shall not be less than the
total contributions paid by him and his employer on his behalf nor less
than five hundred pesos: Provided, finally, That the covered employee
who dies in the month of coverage shall be entitled to the minimum
benefit. TCEaDI
1996.
Hearing Officer:
Noong bago mamatay si Pablo?
Mrs. Dizon:
Nagsasama na sila Romeo at Rosanna noon.
Hearing Officer:
So, buhay pa si Pablo . . .
Mrs. Dizon:
. . . nagsasama na sila ni Romeo.
Hearing Officer:
Kailan nagkahiwalay si Romeo at Rosanna?
Mrs. Dizon:
Hindi na sila nagkahiwalay.
Hearing Officer:
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Ynares-Santiago and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.
Chico-Nazario, J., is on leave.
Footnotes
3. Id. at 98.
4. Id. at 31.
5. Id. at 32.
6. Id. at 33.
7. Referring to Jeylnn.
8. Records, p. 34.
9. Id. at 12.
10. Id. at 17.
11. Id. at 3-4.
12. Id. at 29.
13. Id. at 51.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
14. Id. at 47-49.
15. Id. at 55-58.
16. Id. at 59-60.
17. Id. at 236.
18. Id. at 59.
19. Id. at 67-70.
20. Id. at 72-74.
21. Id. at 11.
22. Id. at 18.
23. Id. at 12.
24. Id. at 27-28.
25. Id. at 187.
26. Id. at 233.
27. Id. at 232.
28. Rollo , pp. 49-50.
29. Id. at 47-49.
30. Id. at 52.
31. Id. at 28.
32. Id. at 26-27.
33. Id. at 33.
34. Id. at 9.
35. Id. at 10-13.
36. Id. at 14-16.
37. Id. at 68-70.
38. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160890,
November 10, 2004, 441 SCRA 637.
39. Siasat v. Court of Appeals, 425 Phil. 139, 144 (2002).
40. Asia Trust Development Bank v. Concepts Trading Corporation, 452 Phil.
552, 567 (2003).
41. Tugade, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 455 Phil. 258 (2003).
42. Anflo Management & Investment Corp. v. Bolanio, 439 Phil. 309, 316
(2002).
43. 418 Phil. 768 (2001).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
44. Article 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be
brought within one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in
the civil register, if the husband or, in proper case, any of his heirs, should
reside in the city or municipality where the birth took place or was recorded.
If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of
birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period
shall be two years if they reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad.
If the birth of the child has been concealed from or was unknown to the
husband or his heirs, the period shall be counted from the discovery or
knowledge of the birth of the child or of the fact of registration of said birth,
whichever is earlier.
45. Article 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child
within the period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following
cases:
(1) If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for
bringing his action;
(2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having
desisted therefrom; or
(3) If the child was born after the death of the husband.
46. De Jesus v. Estate of Decedent Juan Gamboa Dizon, supra note 43, at 773-
774.
47. Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005.
48. See Angeles v. Maglaya , G.R. No. 153798, September 2, 2005; Reyes v.
Court of Appeals, 220 Phil. 116 (1985).
49. Angeles v. Maglaya, supra.
50. Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, supra note 47.
51. Article 195, Family Code.
52. Re: Application for Survivor's Benefits of Ms. Maylenne G. Manlavi, Daughter
of the Late Ernesto R. Manlavi, A.M. No. 10019-Ret., February 22, 2001, 352
SCRA 518.