SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. EDNA A. AZOTE, RESPONDENT.

Social Security Commission versus Azote

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Social Security Commission against Edna Azote, the woman who claimed the death benefits of her late husband, Edgardo Azote, a member of the Social Security System. Edna's claim was denied by the Commission because its records showed that Edgardo had an earlier marriage to another woman, Rosemarie, whom he had designated as his spouse-beneficiary in an earlier form. The case matters because it settles two questions every reviewee must know: who qualifies as a beneficiary under the Social Security Law, and whether the Commission may look behind a member's designation of beneficiary to verify that the claimant is truly the legal spouse.

Procedural History

Edna first filed her claim for death benefits with the Social Security System, and it was denied. She then filed a petition with the Social Security Commission to claim the death benefits, the lump sum, and the monthly pension. The Commission dismissed her petition for lack of merit and later denied her motion for reconsideration. Edna went up to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and set aside the Commission's rulings, holding that the Commission could not determine the validity of her marriage because neither Rosemarie nor Elmer contested her claim, and that Edgardo's later designation of Edna superseded his earlier one. The Court of Appeals denied the Commission's motion for reconsideration. The Commission then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

On July 28, 1982, the marriage of Edgardo to Rosemarie was registered. On November 5, 1982, Edgardo submitted a form to the Social Security System designating Rosemarie as his spouse and Elmer as his dependent. On June 19, 1992, Edgardo married Edna in civil rites, and their union produced six children born from 1985 to 1999. On April 27, 1994, Edgardo submitted a new form designating Edna and their three older children as beneficiaries, and in 2001 he submitted another form adding his three younger children as additional beneficiaries.

Edgardo died on January 13, 2005. Edna filed her claim for death benefits as the wife of a deceased member, but her claim was denied because of the earlier 1982 form naming Rosemarie. Her children were adjudged beneficiaries, with Edna treated as their legal guardian, and the benefits would stop once a child reached twenty-one years of age.

Edna then petitioned the Social Security Commission, insisting she was Edgardo's legitimate wife. Summons was published directing Rosemarie to answer, but no answer was filed and she was declared in default. The Commission dismissed the petition, noting that Edgardo never revoked Rosemarie's designation, that the records showed his 1982 marriage, and that there was no showing his first marriage had been annulled or dissolved. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Social Security Commission has the authority to determine the validity or invalidity of the marriage of Edna and Edgardo for the purpose of adjudicating social security benefits.
• Whether or not Edna is entitled to the death benefits of Edgardo as his legal spouse-beneficiary.
• Whether or not Edgardo's later designation of Edna as wife-beneficiary in his updated form is valid and determinative of her eligibility.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8, paragraph (e) of Republic Act Number 8282, the Social Security Law, defines dependents:

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 (21) years 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.

This provision limits the spouse-beneficiary to the legal spouse, which is the very qualification Edna failed to establish.

Section 8, paragraph (k) of the same law defines beneficiaries:

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 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 the foregoing, any other person designated by the member as his/her secondary beneficiary.

This provision confirms that only the dependent spouse and dependent children are primary beneficiaries, so a designation contrary to the statute cannot prevail.

Article 41 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

This provision governs whether Edgardo's second marriage to Edna was valid, and Edna failed to show that any impediment had been removed.

Section 15 of Republic Act Number 8282 provides in part:

Non-transferability of Benefits. – The SSS shall pay the benefits provided for in this Act to such persons as may be entitled thereto in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

This provision requires that benefits be paid only to persons entitled under the law, which justifies the Commission's investigation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that although the Commission is not intrinsically empowered to determine the validity of marriages, it is required by Section 4, paragraph (b), subparagraph (7) of Republic Act Number 8282 to require reports, compilations, and analyses of statistical and economic data and to make investigations as may be needed for the proper administration of the System. Such investigations are appropriate to ensure that benefits are received by the rightful beneficiaries, otherwise the System would be swamped with bogus claims that would deplete its funds.

On the second issue, the Court held that Edna was not the legal spouse of Edgardo. There was concrete proof of Edgardo's earlier marriage to Rosemarie, evidenced by their marriage contract, and Edgardo himself acknowledged his married status in his 1982 form. Edna failed to establish that the earlier marriage was annulled or dissolved, or that there was a declaration of Rosemarie's presumptive death before her marriage to Edgardo. The Court stressed that whoever claims entitlement to benefits provided by law must establish the right by substantial evidence. Since Edna was the second wife, she did not qualify as a beneficiary.

On the third issue, the Court held that the updated form designating Edna was not determinative of her eligibility. Although a member is free to designate a beneficiary, the designation must always conform to the statute. To blindly rely on the form would subject the entire social security system to the whims and caprices of its members and render the law inutile. The Court added that Rosemarie's non-participation, or her subsequent death, did not cure or legitimize Edna's status.

Doctrine

Only the legal spouse of a deceased member qualifies as a spouse-beneficiary under the Social Security Law, and a member's designation of beneficiary, while an exercise of his prerogative, must always conform to the statute. A designation that names a person who is not a legal spouse cannot create eligibility.

A marriage contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage is void under Article 41 of the Family Code unless the prior spouse had been absent for the required period and a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death had been instituted. The burden rests on the claimant to prove that no impediment existed or that it had been removed.

The Social Security Commission may investigate and examine statistical data to ensure that benefits reach the rightful beneficiaries, and it may deny a claim where the claimant fails to establish the right by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals decision and resolution, and denied Edna Azote's petition for entitlement to social security death benefits for lack of merit.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a designation of beneficiary must always conform to the statute, and only the legal spouse qualifies as a spouse-beneficiary. Examiners use this case to test the conflict between a member's freedom to designate and the statutory definition of beneficiaries, and to test the application of Article 41 of the Family Code to a second marriage contracted without a declaration of presumptive death.