SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. ROSANNA H. AGUAS, JANET H. AGUAS, AND MINOR JEYLNN H. AGUAS, REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL GUARDIAN, ROSANNA H. AGUAS, RESPONDENTS.

Social Security System versus Aguas

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Social Security System against Rosanna Aguas, Janet Aguas, and the minor Jeylnn Aguas, represented by her mother Rosanna as legal guardian. The respondents claimed death benefits and monthly pension arising from the death of Pablo Aguas, a member and pensioner of the System. The System denied the claim, and the dispute travelled from the Social Security Commission to the Court of Appeals and finally to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it fixes who counts as a primary beneficiary under the Social Security Law: the legitimate spouse who is actually dependent for support, and the legitimate, legitimated, or legally adopted child. It also teaches how the presumption of legitimacy operates, and how much evidence an administrative claimant must present.

Procedural History

Rosanna filed her claim with the Social Security System in December 1996, and her monthly pension was settled in February 1997. After a sister of the deceased contested the claim, the System suspended the pension in September 1997, investigated, denied the request to resume payment, and demanded a refund. Rosanna and Jeylnn then filed a claim for restoration and payment of pensions with the Social Security Commission, and Janet later joined as claimant. The Commission rendered a decision denying the claims for lack of merit, ordering Rosanna to refund the amount erroneously paid, and directing the System to pay the death benefit to qualified secondary beneficiaries or legal heirs. The claimants moved for reconsideration, but the Commission denied the motion for lack of merit and for having been filed out of time. The claimants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals reversed the Commission and declared the petitioners entitled to the benefits, remanding the case for computation of the amounts withheld since September 1997. The System moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and so it came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Pablo Aguas, a member and pensioner of the Social Security System, died on December 8, 1996. His surviving spouse, Rosanna, filed a claim for death benefits, stating that Pablo was survived by his minor child Jeylnn, born on October 29, 1991. The monthly pension was settled in February 1997.

In April 1997, the System received a sworn letter from Leticia Aguas-Macapinlac, Pablo's sister, contesting the claim. She alleged that Rosanna had abandoned the family home some six years earlier and lived with another man, and that Pablo had no legal children with Rosanna. She enclosed the birth certificate of Jefren dela Peña, born in November 1996 to Rosanna and Romeo dela Peña, who were married in November 1990. The System suspended the pension and investigated. Its officer reported that Rosanna had left the deceased six years before his death and lived with Romeo, and that Pablo was under treatment and not capable of having a child. The System denied the claim and demanded a refund of ten thousand three hundred fifty pesos, representing benefits released from December 1996 to August 1997.

Before the Commission, the claimants presented the marriage certificate of Pablo and Rosanna, the birth certificates of Janet and Jeylnn, and Pablo's death certificate. The System secured confirmation reports from the civil registers. It also verified that the signature on Jeylnn's birth certificate matched Pablo's specimen signatures in his membership records. Neighbors testified for both sides. Vivencia Turla and Carmelita Yangu said the spouses lived together until Pablo's death. Leticia testified that Janet was merely taken in by the spouses without legal adoption, and that Pablo drove Rosanna away after Jeylnn's baptism, when Romeo dela Peña claimed to be the child's father. The Commission denied the claims, and the Court of Appeals reversed.

Issues

• Whether or not Rosanna is a dependent spouse entitled to death benefits as a primary beneficiary under the Social Security Law.
• Whether or not Jeylnn is a legitimate child of the deceased entitled to the monthly pension.
• Whether or not Janet is a dependent child of the deceased entitled to the same benefits.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, provides:

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.

This is the source of the benefit itself, and it makes entitlement depend on who qualifies as primary beneficiary.

Section 8, paragraph (e) of the same law defines a dependent:

(e) Dependent. – The legitimate, legitimated, or legally adopted child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed, and not over twenty-one years of age provided that he is congenitally incapacitated and incapable of self-support physically or mentally; the legitimate spouse dependent for support upon the employee; and the legitimate parents wholly dependent upon the covered employee for regular support.

This provision supplies the two qualifying factors for the spouse and the requirement of legal adoption for a child.

Section 8, paragraph (k) defines beneficiaries:

(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 designated by the covered employee as secondary beneficiary.

This fixes the order of preference among claimants to the death benefit.

Article 164 of the Family Code provides:

Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.

This is the presumption on which Jeylnn's claim rests.

Ruling

The petition is partly meritorious. The Court first notes that under Rule 45 only questions of law may ordinarily be raised, but it may review findings of fact when the judgment rests on a misapprehension of facts or when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contradicted by the evidence on record, and it finds those instances present.

On Rosanna, the Court holds that to qualify as a primary beneficiary she must establish two things: that she is the legitimate spouse, and that she is dependent upon the member for support. She proved the marriage, but not the dependency. A husband and wife are obliged to support each other, yet actual dependency must be shown and cannot be presumed from the fact of marriage alone. A wife who is separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be dependent for support upon him, absent contrary proof; conversely, if the spouses were still living together at his death, dependency may be presumed. The affidavits and testimony of Vivencia and Carmelita do not prevail over the categorical testimony that Rosanna and Pablo had separated almost six years before his death. The Court is convinced by Leticia's account of the commotion at Jeylnn's baptism, and by the Commission's observation that Jeylnn and Jenelyn are one and the same person, since it is physically impossible for Rosanna to have given birth to two children only three months apart. Rosanna therefore failed to discharge her burden.

On Jeylnn, the Court holds that she sufficiently established her right. She was born on October 29, 1991, during the marriage of Rosanna and Pablo, which subsisted until his death. Under Article 164 she is presumed legitimate, and that presumption becomes conclusive absent proof of physical impossibility of access. Impugning legitimacy is a strictly personal right of the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs, and Pablo never challenged it in his lifetime. Her birth certificate, bearing Pablo's signature verified against his specimen signatures, is competent evidence of paternity.

On Janet, the Court holds that the presumption cannot extend to her because her date of birth was not substantially proven. Her birth certificate was a mere photocopy, never verified with the civil register, and a record of birth is only prima facie evidence of its contents. The witnesses were unanimous that Janet was not the real child but merely taken in by the spouses, and no legal adoption was shown. Since the law counts only legally adopted children as dependents, she is not a primary beneficiary.

Doctrine

First, a surviving spouse claiming death benefits as a primary beneficiary must prove two qualifying factors: that she is the legitimate spouse, and that she was actually dependent for support upon the member at the time of his death. Dependency is not presumed from the fact of marriage alone; a spouse separated de facto cannot be considered dependent absent contrary proof, while spouses living together at the time of death enjoy a presumption of dependency unless shown capable of self-support.

Second, a child conceived or born during the marriage is legitimate under Article 164 of the Family Code, and that status may be impugned only in a timely action brought by the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs. A birth certificate signed by the father is competent evidence of paternity.

Third, only legitimate, legitimated, or legally adopted children are dependent children under Section 8, paragraph (e); a child merely taken into the household without legal adoption does not qualify. Fourth, a claimant before an administrative or quasi-judicial body must establish entitlement by substantial evidence, that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Disposition

The petition was granted in part: Jeylnn was declared entitled to the monthly pension, while the claims of Rosanna and Janet were denied.

Remember This

Memorize the two-factor test: the spouse must be both legitimate and actually dependent for support, for marriage alone raises no presumption of dependency. Examiners use this case to test the dependent spouse requirement under the Social Security Law and the conclusiveness of the Article 164 presumption of legitimacy against administrative findings.