585 Phil. 684
REYES, R.T., J.:
We regret to inform you that your claim is denied for the following reason/s:We received documents showing that you have remarried in the United States to one Larry T. Constant. You were also the one who filed for petition for dissolution of your marriage with the deceased member, which was in fact granted by the Superior Court of California, County of Orange.
These circumstances are sufficient ground for denial as the SSS law specifically defines beneficiaries as "the dependent spouse, until he or she remarries, the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted and illegitimate children who shall be the primary beneficiary." x x x[2]
WHEREFORE, this Commission finds, and so holds, that May-Ann de los Santos, daughter of Antonio and private respondent Cirila de los Santos is the secondary beneficiary of the former and as such, she is entitled to the balance of her father's five-year guaranteed pension.The SSC deemed that Gloria abandoned Antonio when she obtained a divorce against him abroad and subsequently married another man. She thus failed to satisfy the requirement of dependency required of primary beneficiaries under the law. The Commission likewise rejected her efforts to use the invalidity of the divorce, which she herself obtained, to claim benefits from the SSS for her personal profit.
Accordingly, the SSS is hereby ordered to compute the balance of the five-year guaranteed pension less the amount of P21,200 representing the total of the monthly pensions and dependent's pension previously received by private respondent Cirila Nimo and minor May-Ann de los Santos, respectively, and to pay the latter, through her natural guardian Cirila Nimo, the difference between the two amounts, if any. If there was overpayment of pension, the private respondent is hereby ordered to forthwith refund the amount thereof to the SSS.
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[6]
However, despite all the sophistry with which petitioner, through her counsel, sought to justify her acts in the USA, the petition must fail. The petitioner, who was primarily responsible for obtaining the decree of marital dissolution from an American court, now wishes to invoke the very invalidity of her divorce and subsequent marriage in order to lay hands on the benefit she seeks. It is sheer folly, if not downright reprehensible, for the petitioner to seek to profit from committing an act considered as unlawful under Philippine law. This Commission will not allow itself to be used as an instrument to subvert the policies laid down in the SS Law which it has sworn to uphold at all times. x x x[7] (Emphasis added)The SSC added that since the marriage of Antonio to Cirila was void, the latter was likewise not a qualified beneficiary. The fruit of their union, May-Ann, was considered as an illegitimate child and qualified as a secondary beneficiary. May-Ann was entitled to 50% of the share of the legitimate children of Antonio in accordance with Section 8(k) of the SS Law.[8] However, considering that the legitimate children of Antonio have reached the age of majority, May-Ann is the only remaining qualified beneficiary and was thus entitled to 100% of the benefit.
R.A. No. 8282, which is the law in force at the time of retiree Antonio's death on May 15, 1999, provides as follows:"Section 12-B. Retirement Benefits. x x xSince Antonio de los Santos retired on March 1, 1996, and began receiving monthly pension since then, the determination of who his primary beneficiaries were at that times should be based on the relevant provisions of the applicable prevailing law then, R.A. No. 1161, as amended, which is quoted hereunder:
(d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary beneficiaries as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension. Provided, That if he has no primary beneficiaries and he dies within sixty (60) months from the start of his monthly pension, his secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to the total monthly pensions corresponding to the balance of the five-year guaranteed period, excluding the dependents' pension." (Emphasis supplied)
"Section 8. Terms Defined. x x xx x x x(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 designed by the covered employee as secondary beneficiary." (Emphasis supplied)Applying these provisions to the case at hand, May-Ann de los Santos as the illegitimate child of Antonio and Cirila is considered her father's secondary beneficiary who, in the absence of a primary beneficiary x x x, becomes entitled to the balance of the five-year guaranteed pension as Antonio died just three (3) years after he began receiving his retirement pension, pursuant to Section 12-B par. (d) of the SS Law, as amended.[9]
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Petition for Review is GRANTED and the appealed Resolution dated February 13, 2003, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent SSS is DIRECTED to compute the amount of benefits to which petitioner is entitled under the law.[10]
SECTION 12-B. Retirement Benefits. - (a) A member who has paid at least one hundred twenty (120) monthly contributions prior to the semester of retirement and who (1) has reached the age of sixty (60) years and is already separated from employment or has ceased to be self-employed or (2) has reached the age of sixty-five (65) years, shall be entitled for as long as he lives to the monthly pension; Provided, That he shall have the option to receive his first eighteen (18) monthly pensions in lump sum discounted at a preferential rate of interest to be determined by the SSS.In deciding that death benefits should not be denied to the wife who was married to the deceased retiree only after the latter's retirement, this Court in Dycaico reasoned:x x x x
(d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary beneficiaries as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension; Provided, That if he has no primary beneficiaries and he dies within sixty (60) months from the start of his monthly pension, his secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to the total monthly pensions corresponding to the balance of the five-year guaranteed period, excluding the dependents' pension. (Emphasis added)
x x x In particular, the proviso was apparently intended to prevent sham marriages or those contracted by persons solely to enable one spouse to claim benefits upon the anticipated death of the other spouse.That said, the reckoning point in determining the beneficiaries of the deceased Antonio should be the time of his death. There is no need to look into the time of his retirement, as was the course followed by the SSC in resolving the claim of respondent. We note, however, that considering the circumstances of this case, the Dycaico ruling does not substantially affect the determination of Antonio's beneficiaries.
x x x However, classifying dependent spouses and determining their entitlement to survivor's pension based on whether the marriage was contracted before or after the retirement of the other spouse, regardless of the duration of the said marriage, bears no relation to the achievement of the policy objective of the law, i.e., "provide meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries against the hazard of disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death and other contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial burden." x x x[14]
As found by both the SSC and the CA, the divorce obtained by respondent against the deceased Antonio was not binding in this jurisdiction. Under Philippine law, only aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.[15] The divorce was obtained by respondent Gloria while she was still a Filipino citizen and thus covered by the policy against absolute divorces. It did not sever her marriage ties with Antonio."Section 8. Terms Defined. - For the purposes of this Act, the following terms shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings:x x x x
(e) Dependents - The dependents shall be the following:(1) The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the member;
(2) The legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed and has not reached twenty-one years (21) of age, or if over twenty-one (21) years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally; and
(3) The parent who is receiving regular support from the member.x x x x
(k) Beneficiaries - The dependent spouse until he or she remarries, the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate children, who shall be the primary beneficiaries of the member: Provided, That the dependent illegitimate children shall be entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the share of the legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted children: Provided, further, That in the absence of the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted children of the member, his/her dependent illegitimate children shall be entitled to one hundred 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 of the foregoing, any other person designated by the member as his/her secondary beneficiary.
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." It should be noted that 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.Respondent herself admits that she left the conjugal abode on two (2) separate occasions, to live with two different men. The first was in 1965, less than one year after their marriage, when she contracted a second
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.[18]