ILUMINADA PONCE BERCILES, ILONA BERCILES ALVAREZ, ELLERY P. BERCILES, ENGLAND P. BERCILES AND IONE P. BERCILES, PETITIONERS, VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PASCUAL VOL…

The disposition made by respondent GSIS of the retirement benefits
under Republic Act 910, as amended, due the heirs of the late Judge of
Court of First Instance Pascual G. Berciles whereby the GSIS considered
said retirement benefits in the total amount of P311,460.00 as partly
conjugal and partly exclusive in nature and thus divided the same in the
following proportion:

is erroneous in view of the rule We laid down in Re: Claims for
Benefits of the Heirs of the Late Mario V. Chanliongco, et al., 79 SCRA
364; Vda. de Consuegra, et al. vs. GSIS, 37 SCRA 315 that retirement
benefits shall accrue to his estate and will be distributed among his
legal heirs in accordance with the law on intestate succession, as in
the case of a life insurance if no beneficiary is named in the insurance
policy, and that the money value of the unused vacation and sick leave,
and unpaid salary form part of the conjugal estate of the married
employee.

Moreover, We find grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent
GSIS, acting through its Board of Trustees, in resolving under its
Resolution No. 431 to approve the recommendation of the Committee on
Claims Settlement that private respondent Pascual Voltaire Berciles is
an acknowledged natural child and that the other private respondents
Maria Luisa Berciles Villareal, Mercy Berciles Patacsil and Rhoda
Berciles are illegitimate children of the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles
in the absence of substantial evidence through competent and admissible
proof of acknow­ledgment by and filiation with said deceased parent as
required under the law.

Judge Pascual G. Berciles of the Court of First Ins­tance of Cebu died
in office on August 21, 1979 at the age of sixty-six years, death caused
by “cardiac arrest due to cerebral vascular accident.” Having served
the govern­ment for more than thirty-four (34) years, twenty-six (26)
years in the judiciary, the late Judge Berciles was eli­gible for
retirement under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Act No.
5095 so that his heirs were entitled to survivors benefits amounting to
P311,460.00 under Section 2 of said Act. Other benefits accruing to the
heirs of the deceased consist of the unpaid salary, the money value of
his terminal leave and representation and trans­portation allowances,
computed at P60,817.52, all of which are to be paid by this Court as the
deceased’s last employer, and the return of retirement premiums paid by
the retiree in the amount of P9,700.00 to be paid by the GSIS. Such
benefits are now being claimed by two families, both of whom claim to be
the deceased’s lawful heirs.

Iluminada Ponce of Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, and her four children, Ilona,
Ellery, England and Ione, filed with Us an application for survivors
benefits under Republic Act 910, as amended by R.A. No. 5095 effective
August 21, 1979 as the legal spouse and legitimate children of the late
Judge Pascual G. Berciles, duly supported by the required documents.

The other set of claimants are Flor Fuentebella, and her four children,
namely Pascual Voltaire, Maria Luisa, Mercy and Rhoda, all surnamed
Berciles, the latter filing her family’s claim by means of a letter
dated November 10, 1979 and supporting documents were also submitted
with their claim. The matter of these two (2) conflicting claims was
first docketed before this Court as Administrative Matter No. 1337-Ret,
and in a Resolution of the Court En Banc dated April 10, 1980, We
resolved to APPROVE the application of Ms. Iluminada P. Berciles for
survivor’s benefits under the above-cited law, effective August 21,
1979, subject to (a) the proper determination of the rightful
beneficiaries and their corresponding shares in accordance with law, it
appearing that there are two claimant families thereto, and (b) the
usual clearance requirements.

In pursuance to the foregoing resolution, the Office of the Court
Administrator recommended in a memorandum report dated November 11, 1980
that (a) the transmittal to the GSIS of the retirement papers of the
late Judge Pascual Berciles be held in abeyance until the payment to the
rightful heirs of the unpaid salary, money value of terminal leave and
representation and transportation allowances of the deceased Judge, and
(b) that an investigator be desig­nated to determine the respective
claims of the supposed heirs of the late Judge. The aforesaid
recommendation was approved by the Chief Justice on November 27, 1980
and Atty. Reinato G. Quilala of the Office of the Court Admi­nistrator
was designated on December 15, 1980 as Court Investigator to help
determine the rightful beneficiaries of the subject benefits.

Thereupon, Atty. Quilala sent on December 22, 1980 to all the alleged
heirs a notice of hearing set for January 26, 1981 and the following
days thereafter for the reception of evidence in support of their
respective claims. None of the parties, however, appeared. Records
from the Retirement Section, Administrative Services Office of this
Court show that the claim of Iluminada Ponce and her chil­dren was
already approved by the GSIS as of October 9, 1980 and that in fact, the
five years lump sum equivalent to P301,760.00 (gratuity less the
retirement premiums paid under R.A. 910, as amended, which was to be
returned to the retiree by the GSIS) under Check No. 04824308 as
retirement gratuity of the deceased had been remitted by the Budget and
Finance Office of this Court to the GSIS for payment to the
heir-beneficiaries on October 15, 1980.

On February 4, 1981, Atty. Cecilia T. Berciles, daughter-in-law of the
deceased Judge, and Mrs. Iluminada Ponce Berciles submitted to the Court
Investigator addi­tional documents in support of the claim of Mrs.
Iluminada P. Berciles and her children, consisting of (A) Evaluation
Report, as approved by the GSIS, under P.D. No. 626 with the following
recommendations, to wit:

“1. It is recommended that the death benefits under PD 626 due to
the death of the deceased of a compensable contingency, be awarded to
Iluminada Ponce having established her marriage to the deceased and had
been living with the deceased up to the time of the latter’s death.

“2. In the same light, the claim of Flor Fuentebella be denied
for two reasons: (a) She has not clearly established her legitimate
relationship with the deceased and, (b) She was not living with the
de­ceased at the time of his death as required by the rules and
regulation of P.D. 626, as amended. (Rule XIV, Section 1(b), No. 1 the
legitimate spouse living with the employee at the time of employee’s
death x x x).”

and (B) Certified Xerox copies of the late Judge Berciles’ Income Tax
Returns for 1975, 1976 and 1979 where he listed Mrs. Iluminada P.
Berciles as his wife or spouse; also submitted in addition to the
foregoing documents, is a certified xerox copy of the application for
optional insurance filed with the GSIS by the late Judge Berciles, dated
November 19, 1956, wherein the deceased listed as his bene­ficiaries
therein the following persons:

ILONA BERCILES – 11 years old – daughter;

ELLERY BERCILES – 10 years old – son;

ENGLAND BERCILES – 8 years old – son;

IONE BERCILES – 1 year old – daughter; and

ILUMINADA P. BERCILES – 33 years old – wife.

The above documents were noted in the Memorandum to the Chief Justice
dated March 11, 1981 by the Deputy Court Administrator. And
notwithstanding the telegram sent to them on February 5, 1981 requiring
them to submit their evidence of filiation with the deceased Judge
Berciles, no such evidence was submitted by the Fuentebellas.
Accordingly, it was recommended in said Memorandum that “the alleged
marital relationship between the late Judge Berciles and Ms. Flor
Fuentebella Berciles has no leg to stand on. It should be stated in
this connection that there was no marriage contract submitted by Miss
Rhoda F. Berciles in her claim-letter, dated October 29, 1979, nor was
there any certification from the Local Civil Registrar certifying to the
fact that the deceased Judge was actually married to Miss Flor
Fuentebella. It can, therefore, be assumed that Miss Flor Fuentebella
was not legally married to the late Judge Pascual Berciles.
Necessarily, it follows that the innocent children that came into being
out of the alleged marital union of the deceased Judge and Ms. Flor
Fuentebella Berciles are spurious and have no established family
filiation with the said Judge. We can, therefore, rule that the
attached papers/documents in the letter of Miss Rhoda F. Berciles, dated
October 29, 1979 relative to their claim as the surviving heirs of the
late CFI Judge Pascual Berciles are mere scrap of papers unworthy of
credence, there being no substantiating evidence to corroborate the
same, especially so in the face of the adverse claim of Mrs. Iluminada
Ponce Berciles as the rightful surviving spouse and with whom the
deceased Judge was living with at the time of his untimely demise.”

The same memorandum, therefore, recommended that since “(a)ll the
documents presented amply corroborate and fully substantiate what were
previously submitted to the office by Mrs. Iluminada Ponce Berciles and
her children. We find, therefore, the evidence presented and submitted
in favor of Mrs. Iluminada Ponce Berciles as sufficient to establish the
fact that she is the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Judge
Berciles. This finding is fully supported by the certification issued
by the Local Civil Registrar of Bocaue, Bulacan, dated August 24, 1977,
attesting to the marriage between the deceased Judge and Iluminada Ponce
which took place on January 20, 1941 before the then Justice of the
Peace of the place. This being the case, the four (4) children (ILONA,
ELLERY, ENGLAND and IONE) begotten by the said spouses during their
marital union are all legitimate, x x x that the unpaid salary, money
value of terminal leave and representation and transportation allowances
of the late District Judge Pascual G. Bercils be awarded and
correspondingly distributed to his lawful heirs, namely, MRS. ILUMINADA
PONCE BERCILES (surviving spouse); MRS. ILONA BERCILES ALVAREZ,
(daughter); ELLERY BERCILES (son); ENGLAND P. BERCILES (son); and IOM E
P. BERCILES, (daughter).”

As recommended in the said memorandum, We approved the following Resolution dated March 17, 1981:

“Re: Claim of the heirs of the late Pascual G. Berciles, former
District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Cebu City, for
the unpaid salary, money value of terminal leave and representation and
transportation allowances of the deceased Judge. – Considering the
memorandum of Deputy Court Administrator Leo D. Medialdea, recommending
that the unpaid salary, money value of terminal leave and representation
and transportation allowances of the late District Judge Pascual G.
Berciles be awarded and correspondingly distributed to his lawful heirs,
the Court Resolved to AWARD and CORRESPONDINGLY DISTRIBUTE aforesaid
benefits to his lawful heirs, namely: Mrs. Iluminada Ponce Berciles,
surviving spouse; Mrs. Ilona Berciles Alvarez, daughter; Ellery
Berciles, son; England P. Berciles, son; and Ione P. Berciles,
daughter.”

Pursuant to the above Resolution, the amount of P60,817.52 was paid to Iluminada Ponce and her four children on April 2, 1981.

On April 23, 1981, Flor Fuentebella and her four children, Pascual
Voltaire, Ma. Luisa, Mercy, and Rhoda, through counsel, filed a Motion
for Reconsideration praying that the resolution of March 17, 1981 be set
aside; that they be allowed to present their evidence; and that, after
due hearing, the benefits be awarded and distributed to them as lawful
heirs. In support of their motion, the movants alleged that they did
not receive the Resolution of March 17, 1981 nor the letter or notice of
hearing sent by Atty. Quilala on December 22, 1980, the same having
been sent to their old address at 6069-B, Palma St., Makati; that all of
the movants have left the Philippines to reside in the United States of
America and that the aunts and cousins residing at the old address
moved to a new address at GSIS Village, Project 8, Quezon City; that
before they moved to the new address, these relatives left a forwarding
address at the Makati Post Office; and, that they did not receive the
aforementioned mail. The fact of non-receipt was confirmed by one
Domingo P. Raiz, letter carrier of the Post Office of Makati, who
executed an affidavit to that effect, which affidavit We admitted in Our
resolution of July 9, 1981. The matter of the Fuentebella Motion for
Reconsideration is docketed before Us as Administrative Matter No.
10468-CFI.

Acting on the aforesaid motion for reconsideration, We adopted the following resolution dated July 2, 1981, to wit:

“Administrative Matter No. 10468-CFI – Re Terminal Leave Pay,
Unpaid Salary and Allowance of the late CFI judge Pascual G. Berciles:
Flor Fuentebella and her four children, all surnamed Berciles vs.
Ilu­minada Ponce and her four children, all surnamed Berciles. – Judge
Pascual G. Berciles of the Court of First Instance of Cebu died in
office on August 21, 1979 at the age of sixty-six years. He was a
native of Lapuz Norte, La Paz, Iloilo City.

Iluminada Ponce of Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, who claimed to be the
decedent’s widow, and her four children, Ilona, Ellery, England and
Ione, filed a claim dated May 2, 1980 for survivors’ benefits.
Iluminada executed an affidavit of heirship dated September 19, 1979.

On the other hand, Rhoda F. Berciles, 6069-B Palma Street, Makati,
Rizal in a verified statement dated November 19, 1979, claimed that the
deceased judge was survived by Flor Fuentebella, as widow, and their
four children named Voltaire, Luisa, Mercy and Rhoda. Judge Berciles
allegedly married Flor Fuentebella on March 28, 1937 in Iloilo City
before City Judge Vicente Mapa.

Rhoda, in a letter to the Judicial Administrator dated October 29,
1979, reques­ted the Judicial Administrator to hold the processing of
the claim filed by Iluminada Pence and her four children pending the of
Rhoda’s formal complaint.

Iluminada Ponce claimed that she was married to Judge Berciles at Bocaue, Bulacan on January 20, 1941.

This Court in its resolution of April 10, 1980 approved the grant of
survivors’ benefits subject to the proper determination of the rightful
beneficiaries and their corresponding shares in accordance with law, it
appearing that there are two claimant families. (Adm. Matter No.
1337-Ret. re Gratuity of Judge Berciles).

Pursuant to that resolution, the five-year lump sum gratuity amounting
to P301,760 due to the heirs of Judge Berciles was remitted to the GSIS
on October 15, 1980. The said amount up to this time has not yet been
distributed in view of the controversy between the families of Flor
Fuentebella and Iluminada Ponce as to who are the legal heirs of Judge
Berciles.

In a letter dated October 9, 1980, Ellery P. Berciles requested the
Chief Justice for the payment to Iluminada Ponce of the terminal leave
pay of Judge Berciles, which, together with his unpaid salary and
allowance, amounted to P74,884.52, or to P60,817.52 after deducting the
withholding tax of P14,067.

Upon the recommendation of Court Ad­ministrator Lorenzo Relova and
Deputy Court Administrator Leo D. Medialdea, the said amount of
P60,817.52 was paid to Iluminada Ponce and her four children on April 2,
1981 pursuant to this Court’s resolution of March 17, 1981. Payment
was made to them on the assumption that they are the only legal heirs of
Judge Berciles.

Atty. Luzel D. Demasu-ay, counsel for Flor Fuentebella and her four
children, in his motion for reconsideration dated April 21, 1981,
alleged that his clients were not heard before that payment was made.
He said that the payment was being capitalized upon by Iluminada Ponce
and her children in the GSIS as the basis for the payment to them of the
retirement gratuity of Judge Berciles.

Considering that the issue as to who are the legal heirs of Judge
Berciles is still being litigated in the Social Security Services of the
GSIS (according to Atty. Felicisimo Fernandez of that unit), and the
sur­vivors’ benefits have not yet been paid to Iluminada Ponce and her
children, and consi­dering that the children of Flor Fuentebella, even
as illegitimate children of Judge Ber­ciles, would be entitled to a
share in his terminal leave pay, allowance and unpaid salary (In re
Chanliongco, Adm. Matter No. 190-Ret., October 18, 1977, 79 SCRA 364),
the Court Resolved (1) to require Iluminada Ponce and her children, c/o
Ione P. Berciles, 9 Jersey Street, Toro Hills, Project 8, Quezon City,
to COMMENT on the said motion for recon­sideration within ten (10) days
from notice and (2) to direct Atty. Juan P. Enriquez, Jr., Deputy Clerk
of Court and Chief of the GSIS administrative Division, to advise the
GSIS that, should Flor Fuentebella and her children be ultimately
adjudged as legal heirs of Judge Berciles, their share in the sum of
P60,817.50 (terminal leave pay, etc.) would be taken from the survivors’
benefits amounting to P301,760, already remitted to the GSIS and,
consequently, the shares of Iluminada Ponce and her children in the
said, gratuity would answer for the portions due to Flor Fuentebella, et
al. in the terminal leave pay, etc., if adjudged entitled thereto.

A copy of this resolution should be furnished the GSIS.”

In a subsequent Resolution dated July 21, 1981, We noted the Comment
filed by Iluminada Ponce and in the same resolution, clarified Our
resolution of April 10, 1980 in Administrative Matter No. 1337-Ret., to
wit:

“As may be seen from this Court’s resolution of April 10, 1980 in
Administrative Matter No. 1337-Ret. regarding the gratuity of Judge
Berciles, this Court has not finally and conclusively decided that the
children of Flor Fuentebella are not the heirs of the late Judge
Berciles.

The question of whether the four child­ren of Flor Fuentebella should
share in the gratuity amounting to P301,760.00 is still being litigated
in the GSIS. Should it be finally decided by the GSIS that the children
of Flor Fuentebella are entitled to share in that gratuity or
survivors’ benefits, then they are also entitled to share in the
terminal leave pay, unpaid salary and allowances and their share should
be deducted from the shares in the said gratuity of Iluminada Ponce and
her four children.

This incident should, therefore, await the outcome of a final decision
of competent authority on who are the heirs of Judge Ber­ciles, as
contemplated in this Court’s reso­lution of April 10, 1980 in
Administrative Matter. No. 1337-Ret.”

In the meantime, pursuant to Our Resolution of April 10, 1980, the
papers were transmitted to the GSIS under the advisement that the
approval of the application of Iluminada Ponce was subject to the proper
determination of the rightful beneficiaries.

The records of this Court, as adverted to earlier, disclose that on
October 9, 1980, the GSIS approved the claim of Iluminada Ponce and so,
the five (5) years lump sum retirement gratuity of the deceased Judge,
in the net amount of P301,760.00, was remitted by our Budget and Finance
Office to the GSIS on October 15, 1980 under Check No. 04824308 for
payment to Iluminada and her four children. The GSIS, however, in its
Memorandum dated June 25, 1982 in G.R. No. 57257 denied having approved
the claim of Iluminada Ponce Berciles and her children saying that no
such approval was made. The records in G.R No. 57257 disclose Annex “A”
attached to the petition on pp. 14-15 of the Rollo the following
evaluation report eva­luated by Carmelo C. Garcia, Legal Evaluator;
reviewed by Lorenzo Sanchez, Legal Evaluator; approved by Felicisimo A.
Fernandez, Manager, Survivorship Benefits Dept.; and confirmed by
Juanito S. Santamaria, Vice President, SSS-II, to wit:

ANNEX “A”

“PASCUAL G. BERCILES
Judge, CFI, Branch XV, Cebu City

Died – August 21, 1979, Cause: CVA

Evaluation on compensability under PD 626, as amended.

I – Medical Evaluation –

Medically compensable for payment of death benefits as per Medical evaluation dated December 24, 1979.

II – Legal Evaluation –

A. Documents Submitted:

It appears that there are two claimants – both surviving spouse
namely FLOR FUENTEBELLA and ILUMINADA PONCE, who alleged to have been
married to the deceased.

(1.) Documents submitted by Flor Fuentebella:

(a) Cert. from Census and Statistics of no record of marriage
of Flor Fuentebella and Pascual Berciles alleged to have been solemnized
on March 28, 1937.

(b) Affidavit of Pascual Berciles dated May 22, 1972 that he and Flor were married by the late Judge J. Vicente Mapa.

(c) Affidavit of Coronacion Berciles, sister-in-law of Pascual Berciles as to the marriage of Flor and Pascual.

(d) Affidavit of Judge Rafael Lavente as to his being invited in the wedding of Flor and Pascual.

(e) Birth certificate of Pascual Voltaire Berciles – Aug. 30,
1938; Maria Luisa, June 27; 1943; Mercy, July 23, 1947; Rhoda, Feb. 7,
1949.

(f) Xerox copy of Income Tax Return for 1972 of Pascual showing Flor as the wife.

(2.) Documents submitted by Iluminada Ponce –

(a) Marriage certificate from Bocaue, Bulacan, showing marriage of Iluminada and Paquito Berciles on January 20, 1941.

(b) Birth certificate of Ilona – May 15, 1945; Ellery – Sept.
21, 1946; England – Nov. 14, 1948; Ione Ainee – Aug. 25, 1955.

(c) GSIS IMI on C-20297 dated Dec. 1, 1956 of Pascual Berciles.

(d) IMI on 0-26030 dated Jan. 1, 1957

(e) Affidavit of Pascual Berciles dated April 21, 1978
mentioning Ione and Iluminada as his daughter and wife respectively.

(f) Affidavit of four (4) relatives of Pascual as to their
personal knowledge of the marriage of Iluminada and Pascual.

(g) Affidavit of Santiago Medina (former Fiscal), denying of
having notarized an affidavit of Pascual the latter’s marriage to Flor.

(3.) Clarifying documents –

(a) Affidavit dated Feb. 14, 1980, of City Judge Rafael
Lavente rectifying his previous affidavit that he was not present in the
wedding of Flor and Pascual.

(b) Certification dated Feb. 4, 1980, from Ministry of Justice
that there is no record of one J. Mapa as Municipal Judge of Iloilo
from 1935 to 1945.

B. Findings –

After a careful study and appraisal of the documents above
enumerated we cannot find merit on the claim of Flor Fuentebella because

1. Flor has been living abroad since 1972.

2. Iluminada and the deceased were living together at the time of the latter’s death (August 21, 1979).

Recommendation –

1. It is recommended that the death benefits under PD 626 due
to the death of the deceased of a compensable contingency, be awarded to
Iluminada Ponce for having established her marriage to the deceased and
had been living with the deceased up to the time of the latter’s death.

2. In the same light, the claim of Flor Fuentebella be denied for two reasons:

(a) She has not clearly established her legitimate relationship with the deceased and,

(b) She was not living with the deceased at the time of his
death as required by the rules and regu­lation of PD 626, as amended.
(Rule XIV, Section 1(b), No. 1 the legi­timate spouse living with the
employee at the time of employee’s death x x x).

EVALUATED BY:	REVIEWED BY:
S/T CARMELO C. GARCIA	S/T LORENZO SANCHEZ
Legal Evaluator	Legal Evaluator
APPROVED:
S/T FELICISIMO A. FERNANDEZ
Manager, Survivorship Benefits Dept.
CONFIRMED:
S/T JUANITO A. SANTAMARIA
Vice President, SSS – II”

In denying the above approval, the GSIS in its Memorandum claims that
the matter was elevated sometime in October 1980 to the Committee on
Claims Settlement for the proper determination of the legal heirs of the
late Judge Berciles. The two sets of claimants having failed to reach
an amicable settlement, the GSIS advised the parties to submit the
necessary documents to prove their relation­ship or filiation to the
deceased.

Thereafter, based on their respective documents and proofs of
filiation, the Board of Trustees approved the findings and
recommendations of the Committee on Claims Settlement under its
Resolution No. 431 adopted on June 3, 1981, the dispositive portion of
which states:

“After due deliberation, considering the foregoing, the Board
RESOLVED TO APPROVE the recommendation of the Committee on Claims
Settlement that the retirement benefits under R.A, 910, as amended, due
the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles in the total amount of P311,460.00
which is partly conjugal and partly exclusive in nature, be divided in
the following proportion:

77/ 134	for the surviving spouse, Iluminada Ponce Berciles;
10/ 134	each for the legitimate children, Ilona Berciles Alvarez, Ellery P. Berciles, England P. Berciles and Ione P. Berciles;
5/ 134	for the acknowledged natural child Pascual Voltaire Berciles;
4/134	each for the illegitimate children, namely, Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berciles and Rhoda Berciles.
	(Arts. 148 (2), 153 (2), 895, 983, 999, New Civil Code)
	x x x
	x x x
	x x x.”

Only the above dispositive portion of the aforementioned Resolution
was communicated to Iluminada Ponce Berciles by the GSIS in the letter
signed by Felicisimo A. Fernandez, Manager, Survivorship Benefits
Department, in his letter dated June 18, 1981 (Annex “D”, Petition in
G.R. No. 57257, Rollo, p. 22). Not satisfied with the disposition of
their claim, Iluminada Ponce Berciles and her four children now come to
this Court on appeal by certiorari, citing Section 25 of
Presidential Decree No. 1146, otherwise known as the “Revised Government
Service Insurance Act of 1977” which took effect on May 31, 1977, which
appeal is docketed as G.R. No. 57257.

As prayed for in the petition, We issued a temporary restraining order
on July 13, 1981 enjoining the respondents from enforcing or executing
the GSIS Board of Trustee Resolution No. 431 dated June 3, 1981 and also
required the respondents to file their respective Comments to the
Petition. Only the private respondents filed their Comment. Thereupon,
acting on the merits of the pleadings filed, We resolved to give due
course to the petition in Our Resolution of April 14, 1982. Considering
Our Resolution of July 21, 1981, the disposition of Administrative
Matter No. 1337-Ret. and Administrative Matter No. 10468-CFI rests on
Our decision in the present petition.

The primary issue raised in the herein petition for certiorari is
the validity of the GSIS decision contained in its Resolution No. 431
finding private respondent Pascual Voltaire Berciles as an acknowledged
natural child of the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles and the other
private respondents namely Maria Luisa Berciles Villareal, Mercy
Ber­ciles Patacsil and Rhoda Berciles as illegitimate children of the
deceased, and thus, upon this finding, disposed the retirement benefits
in the manner and proportion set forth in said resolution after
considering said benefits as partly conjugal and partly exclusive.
Petitioners contend that on the basis of the documents and testimony
submitted by private respondents, the conclusion of respondent GSIS is
erroneous and unfounded and that respondent GSIS erred grossly in its
resolution. The correctness of the legal conclusion drawn by the
respondent GSIS or its appreciation of the undisputed state of facts
obtaining in the present controversy is thus squarely raised by
petitioners.

We note that private respondents in their Comment dated July 27, 1981 to
the petition herein, while pointing out that the Supreme Court is not
the proper forum for the ori­ginal determination of the legal heirs of a
deceased judge who is covered by R.A. 910 as amended and that the
deter­mination of the question of heirship can be appropriately
considered only in our regular courts of justice where private
respondents actually did file a Special Civil Action No. 13966 for “Mandamus with
Prayer for a Restraining Order” in the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo, Branch III, a copy of which is attached to the Comment as Annex
“A”, raised the same issue of illegality as may be seen clearly in par. 8
of the petition as follows:

“8. That clearly from the foregoing adju­dication rendered by the
respondent Board of Trustees, petitioner Flor Fuentebella Berciles and
her children were unlawfully excluded from their lawful right to the
death benefit of the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles as his only lawful
heirs;”

And like the petitioners herein, private respondents contend that the
GSIS patently and gravely abused its dis­cretion in denying the latter’s
claim to the death benefits of the late Judge Pascual Berciles as the
legal and lawful heirs as may also be clearly seen in par. 10 of the Mandamus Petition in the aforementioned Civil Case No. 13966, which reads thus:

“10. That in denying petitioners claim on the death benefit of
the late Judge Pascual Berciles of whom petitioners are the legal and
lawful heirs and in neglecting and refusing to issue forthwith a
resolution adjudicating the death benefit amounting to P311,460.00 in
favor of the petitioners as legal heirs, the respondent Board of
Trustees of the GSIS patently and gravely abused its discretion and
unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which is specifically
enjoined upon it by Sec. 5 of R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. 1057, R.A.
1797, R.A. 2614, R.A. 4627 and R.A. 5095;”

In other words both families, raising grave abuse of discretion,
question the legality of the GSIS Resolu­tion based on the same
undisputed facts, the petitioners herein claiming they are the legal
heirs, whereas, accor­ding to private respondents, they are the ones
legally entitled to the retirement benefits. The issue here then is one
of law which the contending parties concede in their respective
pleadings and thus correctible by certiorari.

But to set the records straight, We quote hereunder the findings of the
Committee on Claims Settlement which the GSIS Board of Trustees adopted
and approved under its Resolution No. 431.

“A brief summary of the evidence submitted by the contending
parties appears necessary for the proper disposition of this case. As
proof of her marriage to Judge Pascual Berciles, claimant Iluminada
Ponce Berciles submitted a certificate of marriage (Exh. “A”) indicating
that she was married to one Paquito Berciles in Bocaue, Bulacan on
January 20, 1941 before Judge Bonifacio Enriquez, Justice of the Peace
of the said municipality. The Committee noted that the husband’s name
appearing in the certificate is ‘Paquito Berciles’ and not ‘Pascual
Berciles’.

“The discrepancy was explained in the sworn statement of Atty.
Fortunato A. Padilla (Exh. “R”) and in his deposition dated Feb­ruary
27, 1981 taken by Atty. Hilarion Palma, Branch Attorney of our GSIS
Iloilo City Branch Office. In both documents, Atty. Padilla, a high
school classmate and college companion of the late Judge Berciles,
stated that Pascual Gayta Berciles, Paquito Berciles or Paking Berciles
all refer to one and the same person who was the deceased Judge Pascual
G. Berciles. In the deposition of Concepcion M. Gonzales (Exh. “31-A”)
who was a witness for Flor Fuentebella, she also declared that Pascual
Berciles was called Paking or Paquito and that a brother Francisco was
called Pako.

“Submitted also to the Committee by Iluminada Ponce are the birth
certificates of her children: Ilona Berciles (Exh. “E”); Ellery
Berciles (Exh. “C”); England Joseph Berciles (Exh. “D-1”); Aiene
Berciles (Exh. “B”). The other documents submitted such as the
Information for Membership Insurance (Exh. “F” and Exh. “G”), Income Tax
Returns for the years 1975 (Exh. “U”) and 1976 (Exh. “V”), individual
sworn statements of persons who knew or were related to the deceased
corroborate the filial affinity of Iluminada Ponce and her children to
the late Judge Berciles.

“Based on these documents, there is no question that Iluminada
Ponce was married to Pascual Berciles, alias Paquito, on January 20,
1941 at Bocaue, Bulacan. From this union, they begot the following
children, namely: Ilona, Ellery, England and Ione.

“The evidence for claimant Flor Fuentebella Berciles and her
children may also be briefly described as follows: She claims to have
been married to the late Judge Pascual Berciles on March 28, 1937 in
Iloilo City before Justice of the Peace Jose Vicente Mapa. In other
words, she professes to be the first wife of the deceased Judge. Flor
Fuentebella, was, however, not able to present her marriage contract or
certificate of marriage. Instead she submitted a certification of the
Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City (Exh. “1”) attesting to the loss or
destruction of the records of marriage for the year 1944 and previous
years and another certification issued by the Office of Civil Registrar
General of the National Census and Statistics Office (Exh. “2”) stating
the non-availability of the record of marriage between Pascual Berciles
and Flor Fuentebella.

“In concrete support of her claim of marriage to the late Judge
Berciles, Flor Fuentebella presented to the Committee sworn statements
of several persons. Of the several sworn statements, at least two or
three deserve serious consideration. The first is the one executed by
Concepcion M. Gonzales (Exh. “31”) of 46 South Mapa, Philam Homes,
Quezon City, who stated that she knew for a fact that Flor Fuentebella
was married to Pascual Berciles in 1937 at Iloilo City. It was
represented to the Committee that she was present as a guest in the
marriage ceremony. Due to importance of her testimony, the Committee
requested her actual presence in the hearing. However, due to her
advanced age of 89 years and her other physical infirmity, her
at­tendance at the hearing was dispensed with. Instead, the Committee
directed the Manager, Survivorship Department to secure her deposition
oh questions prepared in advance by the Committee. In his report to the
Committee, the Manager stated that the old lady is already blind, quite
hard of hearing and her memory already weak. In the Answers (Exh.
“31-A”) to the questions written by the Manager, Survivorship
Department, Concepcion Gonzales declared that she was present during the
marriage ceremony of Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella which was
held in the Municipal Hall of Iloilo City. She described the wedding as
attended by only the members of the family and that after the ceremony
they went to the house of Pascual’s parents where a small party was
held.

“The Committee finds the testimony of Concepcion Gonzales quite
deficient in important detail. Flor Fuentebella had not been presented
in person for the proper identification of the witness. Was the Flor
Fuentebella who allegedly married Pascual Berciles on March 28, 1937 the
same Flor Fuentebella who is cited by Concepcion Gonzales? At any
rate, assuming that a confrontation did occur, Concepcion Gonzales would
not be able to properly identify Flor Fuentebella, by reason of her
blindness.

“The other sworn statements which merit particular discussion are
those executed by Coronacion Berciles (Exhs. “10 and 31”) a
sister-in-law of the late Judge Berciles. Coronacion was presented
before the Committee as a witness for Flor Fuentebella. In her
testimony, she stated facts and circumstances about the marital
relations between Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella. She declared
that her husband was the younger brother of the late Judge Berciles;
that even before Pascual Barciles became a lawyer in 1938, he and Flor
Fuentebella were introduced to her by her husband; that after she was
married to her husband they lived together with the family of Pascual
Berciles and his wife Flor Fuentebella; that their two families had
lived closely enough during the Japanese Occupation and even after. She
further stated that the immediate members of the family with whom the
spouses Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella had lived before and
during the war were his mother Evarista, his two aunts Luisa Berciles
and Eusebia Gayta and a sister Susana Berciles. These testimonial and
other declarations were later transcribed into a sworn statement which
Coronacion executed on December 5, 1980 and submitted to the Committee.
(Exh. “32”)

“At its best, Coronacion Berciles testified on the cohabitation as
husband and wife of Pascual Berciles and Flor Fuentebella. But
cohabitation is not solid proof that a marriage had in fact taken place,
especially in this case when such marriage is contested. Coronacion
could not state positively since she was not present in the alleged
marriage ceremony.

“The third sworn statement which deserves the Committee’s
attention is the one executed by Judge Rafael Lavente, Presiding Judge
of Branch III, City Court of Iloilo, on February 14, 1080 (Exh. “N” for
Iluminada Ponce, Exh. “35” for Flor Fuentebella). In this document,
Judge Lavente denied having been present in the wedding of Pascual
Berciles and Flor Fuentebella; although he declared that the ‘late Judge
Berciles was married here in Iloilo City and that after his marriage he
left Iloilo City. x x x.’ (Exh. “35-A”), he did not state with whom
Pascual Berciles was married.

“Of course the affidavit of Flor F. Berciles herself (Exh. “5”)
was submitted wherein she stated that she was the legal wife of the late
Pascual G. Berciles and that she was married to him in Iloilo City on
March 28, 1937. The affidavit is nothing more than a self-serving
statement. Flor Fuentebella was not presented to the Committee as a
material witness. On the other hand, the sworn statement of Pascual
Berciles (Exh. “4”) commands no evidentiary value at all. Mr. Santiago
Medina, former Provincial Fiscal of Cebu, who appears to have
administered the oath, in a subsequent sworn statement (Exh. “M”) denied
his sig­nature on the document (Exh. “4”).

“The letters written by Judge Berciles to her daughters with Flor
Fuentebella especially the one sent to daughter Mercy Berciles (Exh.
“22”) wherein he vigorously affirmed that it’s only her mother, Flor
Fuentebella, and no other woman who was recognized as his wife and loved
by her parents deserve scant consideration. Pascual Barciles could not
be expected to admit the existence of his other family. This would be
disastrous to his efforts at preventing one family from knowing the
other.

“Flor Fuentebella likewise submitted to the Committee the birth or
baptismal certificates of her children begotten with the late Judge
Berciles; the birth certificates of Pascual Voltaire Berciles (Exh.
“6”); baptismal certificate of Maria Luisa Berciles (Exh. “7-A”); birth
certificate of Mercy Berciles (Exh. “8”); birth certificates of Rhoda
Berciles (Exh. “9”). The other evidence consist of family pictures
(Exhs. “30 to 30-M”) which have been iden­tified by witness Coronacion
Berciles both in her oral testimony before the Committee and in her
affidavit. (Exh. “32”, par. 15). The pictures, however, do not
indicate that the marriage took place. If at all, the said pictures
show the presence of a family with or without the sanction of marriage.

“After a careful evaluation of these documents, the Committee
believes that there is no sufficient evidence that Pascual Berciles and
Flor Fuentebella were married to each other on March 28, 1937 in Iloilo
City; however, certain relationship did exist and from such relationship
were begotten the following children, namely: Pascual Voltaire
Berciles, Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berciles and Rhoda Berciles.

“Furthermore, the Committee entertains doubt on the authority of
the officer who solemnized the marriage between Pascual Berciles and
Flor Fuentebella. It is true that the Official Roster of Officers and
Employees in the Civil Service (Exhs. “3” and “3-A”) include the name
Jose Vicente Mapa, Justice of the Peace for Iloilo. The listings
however, do not indicate the exact date of employment of any particular
employee. The year 1935 indicated in the cover of the Roster may not be
interpreted to mean that all those listed were already in the service
in 1935. It is possible that the Roster included those appointed as
early as 1935 and those appointed at much later date. This assumption
deserves some degree of validity when considered in relation with the
record of service furnished by the Civil Service Commission (Exh. “T.”)
indicating that Jose Vicente Mapa was Acting Municipal Judge of Iloilo
City effective July 16, 1937. It further appears in the service record
that he was Acting Municipal Judge pursuant to a Designation by letter
of the Secretary to President, dated June 30, 1937. If Jose Vicente
Mapa was already a Municipal Judge prior to July 16, 1937, he could have
been assigned to a different municipality other than Iloilo, in which
case he did not have the authority to solemnize marriage in Iloilo on
March 28, 1937. At any event, a serious uncertainty did exist as to
whether Jose Vicente Mapa was already the Justice of the Peace of Iloilo
on the date the alleged marriage was contracted.

“The Committee therefore concludes that Judge Pascual Berciles was
legally married to Iluminada Ponce. His alleged marriage to Flor
Fuentebella was not sufficiently proved and therefore the children
begotten with her are either natural or illegitimate children depending
on whether they have been born before or after the marriage of Iluminada
Ponce. Consequently, the legal heirs of the late Judge Berciles
entitled to share in the distribution of his retirement benefits are the
following: Iluminada Ponce, surviving spouse; Ilona Ber­ciles Alvarez,
Ellery Berciles, England P. Berciles and Ione P. Berciles, legitimate
children; Pascual Voltaire Berciles, natural child; Maria Luisa
Berciles, Mercy Berciles, and Rhoda Berciles, illegitimate children.”

From the above recital, We can readily summarize the following three (3)
conclusions therein made and arrived at by the Committee which were
approved and adopted in toto by respondent GSIS through Board of
Trustees Resolution No. 431, to wit:

1. “(T)hat Iluminada Ponce was married to Pascual Berciles, alias
Paquito, on January 20, 1941 at Bocaue, Bulacan. From this union, they
begot the following children namely: Ilona, Ellery, England and Ione.”

2. “(T)hat there is no sufficient evidence that Pascual Berciles
and Flor Fuentebella were married to each other on March 28, 1937 in
Iloilo City.”

3. “(H)owever, certain relationship did exist and from such
relationship were begotten the following children, namely: Pascual
Voltaire Berciles, Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berciles and Rhoda
Berciles.” x x x “The children begotten with her are either natural or
illegitimate children depending on whether they have been born before or
after the marriage of Iluminada Ponce.”

As pointed out earlier, petitioners assail the validity of the third
conclusion or finding that Pascual Voltaire Berciles is an acknowledged
natural child and that Maria Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berciles and Rhoda
Berciles are illegitimate children of the late Judge Pascual Berciles,
petitioners being in complete accord and conformity with the first two
conclusions summarized above.

Petitioners contend that the evidence submitted by private respondents
with respect to the status of res­pondent Pascual Voltaire Berciles show
that he was not acknowledged by the late Judge Pascual Berciles in a
birth certificate, in a will, in a statement before a court of record,
or in any authentic writing, as required under Art. 278, New Civil Code,
or much less, in a final judgment as provided in Art. 283, New Civil
Code.

The evidence considered by the Committee on Claims Settlement as basis
of its finding that Pascual Voltaire Berciles is an acknowledged natural
child of the late Judge Pascual Berciles is the birth certificate of
said Pascual Voltaire Berciles marked Exh. “6”. We have examined
care­fully this birth certificate and We find that the same is not
signed by either the father or the mother; We find no participation or
intervention whatsoever therein by the alleged father, Judge Pascual
Berciles. Under our jurisprudence, if the alleged father did not
intervene in the birth certificate, the putting of his name by the
mother or doctor or registrar is null and void. Such registration would
no be evidence of paternity. (Joaquin P. Roces et. al, vs. Local Civil
Registrar of Manila, 102 Phil. 1050). The mere certificate by the
registrar without the signature of the father is not proof of voluntary
acknowledgment on his part (Dayrit vs. Piccio, 92 Phil. 729). A birth
certificate does not constitute recognition in a public instrument.
(Pareja vs. Pareja, et al., 95 Phil. 167). A birth certi­ficate, to
evidence acknowledgment, must, under Section 5 of Act 3753, bear the
signature under oath of the acknow­ledging parent or parents.
(Vidaurrazaga vs. Court of Appeals and Francisco Ruiz, 91 Phil. 492).
In the case of Mendoza, et al. vs. Mella, 17 SCRA 788, the Supreme Court
speaking through Justice Makalintal who later became Chief Justice,
said:

“It should be noted, however, that a Civil Registry Law was passed
in 1930 (Act No. 3753) containing provisions for the registration of
births, including those of illegitimate parentage; and the record of
birth under such law, if sufficient in contents for the purpose, would
meet the requisites for voluntary recog­nition even under Article 131.
Since Rodolfo was born in 1935, after the registry law was enacted, the
question here really is whether or not his birth certificate (Exhibit
1), which is merely a certified copy of the registry record, may be
relied upon as sufficient proof of his having been voluntarily
recognized. No such reliance, in our judgment, may be placed upon it.
While it contains the names of both parents, there is no showing that
they signed the original, let alone swore to its contents as required in
Section 5 of Act No. 3753 (Vidaurrazaga vs. Court of Appeals, 91 Phil.
493; In re Adoption of Lydia Duran, 92 Phil. 729). For all that might
have happened, it was not even they or either of them who furnished the
data to be entered in the civil register. Petitioners say that in any
event the birth certificate is in the nature of a public document
wherein voluntary recognition of a natural child may also be made,
according to the same Article 131. True enough, but in such a case
there must be a clear statement in the docu­ment that the parent
recognizes the child as his or her own (Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil.
1); and in Exhibit 1 no such statement appears. The claim of voluntary
recognition is without basis.”

With respect to the Committee’s finding that the other private
respondents are illegitimate children of the de­ceased Judge Berciles,
We find that the evidentiary basis of such finding are the baptismal
certificate of Maria Luisa Berciles, Exh. “7-A”; birth certificate of
Mercy Berciles, Exh. “8”; and birth certificate of Rhoda Berciles, Exh.
“9”. We have also examined the above exhibits and We find that Exh. “7”
is a mere certification that all the Civil Registry records of birth
filed in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar for the year 1944 and
previous years were either burned, destroyed or lost during the last war
and hence, the office could not furnish the birth certificate of Maria
Luisa Berciles who claim to have been born to the spouses Pascual
Berciles and Flor Fuentebella on June 27, 1943 at Iloilo City. The same
is true with Exh. “7-B” attesting to the non-availability of the
Register of Births for Iloilo, Iloilo in the year 1943 in the files of
the National Archives. Exh. “7-A and 7-B” are, therefore, of no value.

As to the baptismal certificate, Exh. “7-A”, the rule is that although
the baptismal record of a natural child describes her as a child of the
decedent, yet, if in the preparation of the record the decedent had no
intervention, the baptismal record cannot be held to be a voluntary
recognition of parentage. (Canales vs. Arrogante, et al., 91 Phil. 6;
Adriano vs. De Jesus, 23 Phil. 350; Samson vs. Corrales Tan, 48 Phil.
401; Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1; Malonda vs. Infante Vda. de
Malonda, 81 Phil. 149). The reason for this rule that canonical records
do not constitute the authentic document prescribed by Arts.115 and 117
to prove the legitimate filiation of a child is that such canonical
record is simply proof of the only act to which the priest may certify
by reason of his personal knowledge, an act done by himself or in his
presence, like the admi­nistration of the sacrament upon a day stated;
it is no proof of the declarations in the record with respect to the
parentage of the child baptized, or of prior and distinct facts which
require separate and concrete evidence. (Adriano vs. De Jesus, 23 Phil.
350).

In the recent case of Republic vs. Workmen’s Compen­sation Commission,
13 SCRA 272, the Supreme Court speaking again through Justice
Makalintal, held:

“This Court, construing the various pe­rtinent provisions of the
Civil Code concerning illegitimate children, has held that an
illegitimate (spurious) child, to be entitled to support and
successional rights from his parents, must prove his filiation and that
this may be done by means of voluntary or compulsory recog­nition of the
relationship. For this purpose, the provisions concerning natural
children are held applicable, thus, recognition is voluntary when made
in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or
in any authentic writing (Article 278); and compulsory when made by
means of a court action in the cases enumerated in Articles 283 and 284
(Paulino vs. Paulino, L-15091, Dec. 28, 1961).

Discrediting the above certificates (birth and bap­tismal) of the
illegitimate spurious children which do not constitute proof of
filiation with the deceased Judge Berciles, what remains are the sworn
statements of Coronacion Berciles, Exh. 10 and 31, sister-in-law of the
late Judge Berciles wherein she stated that after she was married to her
husband, they lived together with the family of Pascual Berciles and
his wife, Flor Fuentebella; that their two families had lived closely
enough during the Japanese Occupation and even after. These statements,
however, does not prove the filiation of the children to the late Judge
Pascual Berciles.

Neither are the family pictures, Exhs. 30 to 30-M, which, according to
the Committee, do not indicate that the marriage (between Judge Berciles
and Flor Fuentebella) took place and that if at all, the said pictures
show the presence of a family with or without the sanction of marriage.
We agree and We add that said pictures do not constitute proof of
filiation.

We also agree with the finding of the Committee that “(t)he letters
written by Judge Berciles to her daughters with Flor Fuentebella
especially the one sent to daughter Mercy Berciles (Exh. “22”) wherein
he vigorously affirmed that it’s only her mother, Flor Fuentebella, and
no other woman who was recognized as his wife and loved by her parents
deserve scant consideration. Pascual Berciles could not be expected to
admit the existence of his other family. This would be disastrous to
his efforts at preventing one family from knowing the other.” Not only
do they deserve scant consideration but also, there is jurisprudence
that a type­written letter signed by the father is not an authentic
writing. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of Feb. 27, 1923 and
Dc. 7, 1927 cited in 3 Castan, 6th ed., 25; see Caguioa, Comments and
Cases on Civil Law, Vol. I, p. 379).

As to the other exhibits of private respondents, We affirm the
Committee’s finding that the Flor Fuentebella Affidavit (Exh. “5”) is
self-serving; that the testimony of Concepcion Gonzales (Exh. “31-A”),
being blind, is deficient; and that the affidavit of Judge Rafael
Lavente (Exh. “35”) has been repudiated. Indeed, the above evidence
are, to Our view, very insignificant, insufficient, and unsubstantial to
prove the filiation of private respondents to the alleged father, Judge
Pascual Berciles.

The records disclose that all the private respondents have left the
Philippines and are now residing in the United States. They have not
appeared at the hearing before the Committee on Claims Settlement to
testify in support of their claim of filiation and acknowledgment. And
We find no clear and competent proof, no positive and substantial
evidence presented by private respondents that their alleged father had
admitted or recognized his pater­nity of the private respondents Maria
Luisa Berciles, Mercy Berciles and Rhoda Berciles.

Under the law, Article 287, New Civil Code, illegitimate children other
than natural in accordance with Art. 269 are entitled to support and
such successional rights as are granted in the Code, but for this
Article to be applicable, there must be admission or recognition of the
paternity of the illegitimate child. (Paterno, et al. vs. Paterno, 20
SCRA 585, citing Noble vs. Noble, G.R. No. L-17742, Dec. 17, 1966, 18
SCRA 1104; Paulino vs. Paulino, G.R. No. L-15091, Dec. 28, 1961, 113
Phil. 697). Article 887, N.C.C., defining who are compulsory heirs, is
clear and specific that “(i)n all cases of illegitimate children, their
filiation must be duly proved.” And in the Noble case, supra, the Supreme Court laid down this ruling:

“The filiation of illegitimate children, other than natural,
must not only be proven, but it must be shown that such filiation was
acknowledged by the presumed parent. If the mere fact of paternity
is all that needs to be proven, that interpretation would pave the way
to unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of the death of the
presumed parent, who would no longer be in a position to deny the
allegation, to present even fictitious claims and expose the life of the
deceased to inquiries affecting his character.” (Italics supplied).

In fine, We hold and rule that the respondent GSIS committed grave abuse
of discretion in approving Resolu­tion No. 431 which adopted the
erroneous recommendation of the Committee on Claims Settlement, a
recommendation which has no legal or factual basis to stand on.
Accordingly, the disposition made by respondent GSIS of the retirement
benefits due the heirs of the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles is
consequently erroneous and not in accordance with law. Petitioners are
the lawful heirs entitled to the distribution of the benefits which
shall accrue to the estate of the deceased Judge Berciles and will be
distri­buted among the petitioners as his legal heirs in accordance with
the law on intestate succession. (Re: Mario vs. Chanliongco, 79 SCRA
364; Vda. de Consuegra vs. GSIS, 37 SCRA 325).

According to Article 996 of the New Civil Code which provides that “If a
widow or Widower and legitimate child­ren or descendants are left, the
surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of
the children,” and Article 980 which provides that “The child­ren of
the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, dividing
the inheritance in equal shares,” the retirement benefits shall be
distributed equally to the five (5) heirs: Iluminada Ponce Berciles,
Ilona Berciles Alvarez, Ellery P. Berciles, England P. Berciles and Ione
P. Berciles.

As to the retirement premiums totalling P9,700.00, the same is presumed
conjugal property, there being no proof that the premiums were paid from
the exclusive funds of the deceased Judge (Article 160, New Civil
Code). Such being the case, one-half of the amount belongs to the wife
as her property in the conjugal partnership and the other half shall go
to the estate of the deceased Judge which shall in turn be distributed
to his legal heirs.

With respect to the terminal leave pay, unpaid salary and allowances
accruing to the deceased, since petitioners are the only lawful heirs of
the deceased Judge, only they are entitled to share thereto. There is
no need to disturb Our Resolution of March 17, 1981.

One final point, the issue raised by respondents that Section 25 of P.D.
1146, otherwise known as “The Revised Government Service Insurance Act
of 1977”, cannot be invoked by petitioners in taking the present appeal
for the reason that the dispute between the parties have arisen under
the Judiciary Retirement Law, Republic Act No. 910, as amended and not
under P.D. 1146, and that the determination of the legal heirs of a
deceased judge covered by Republic Act 910 as amended, is vested in the
regular courts of justice.

Section 25 of P.D. 1146 provides:

“Sec. 25. Appeals – Within fifteen days from receipt of notice of
decision or award, the aggrieved party may appeal the same to the Court
of Appeals on questions of law and facts following the procedures for
appeals from the Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals as far
as practicable and consistent with the purposes of this Act. If the
appeal is only on questions of law, the same shall be brought directly
to the Supreme Court on certiorari. No appeal bond shall be
required. The appeal shall take precedence over all other cases except
criminal cases wherein the penalty of life imprisonment or death has
been imposed by the trial court. Appeal shall not stay the decision of
the Board unless so ordered by the Board, by the Court of Appeals, or by
the Supreme Court.”

Respondents’ position is untenable. We hold that Sec. 25 of P.D. 1146 quoted above may be availed of by petitioners.

Republic Act 910, as amended, is a special statute governing and
granting retirement benefits to members of the judiciary. While Section
5 of the Act provides that the GSIS shall take charge of the
enforcement and operation of the Act, there is no provision therein
setting forth the procedure or remedy for the final determination of the
legal heirs of the deceased Judge in case a dispute arises between the
opposing claimants. Even under the old GSIS Act. Commonwealth Act No.
186 as amended, there is no express provision on appeal from the award
or decisions of the GSIS. In both cases, the decision or the award made
by the GSIS which affects property rights as well as the legitimate or
illegitimate status of the claimants is brought to and assailed in the
regular courts of justice under the general power and jurisdiction of
the courts to re­view decisions of administrative bodies and this is
where the litigation becomes not only delayed or protracted but also
expensive and cumbersome, to the great prejudice and detriment of the
parties.

As may be gleaned from the “whereas clauses” of P.D. 1146 which, among
others, recognize that “provisions of existing laws x x x have
prejudiced, rather than benefited, the government employee; restricted
rather than broadened, his benefits, prolonged, rather than facilitated
the payment of benefits, must now yield to his paramount welfare,” P.D.
1146 is a remedial legislation, which are “those which afford a remedy,
or improve or facilitate remedies already existing for the enforcement
of rights and the redress of injuries, and statutes intended for the
correction of de­fects, mistakes and omissions in the civil institutions
and the administration of the state.” (Sutherland, Statutory
Construction, Vol. III, 31). And being remedial statutes relating to
procedure as distinguished from those relating to substantive rights,
they are given a liberal interpretation (SutherIand, supra, p. 39).

Accordingly, We hold and rule that Section 25 of P.D. 1146 specifically
Laying down the procedure whereby the party aggrieved by the decision of
the GSIS may appeal the same to the Court of Appeals, now the
Intermediate Appellate Court, on questions of law and facts following
the procedures for appeals from the Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) to the I.A.C. and if the appeal only on questions
of law, the same shall be brought directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari,
which abbreviated procedure was designed to facilitate, and not to
prolong, the payment of benefits, may be invoked by the petitioners.

That P.D. 1146, Sec, 35 is applicable to disputes arising under the
Judiciary Retirement Act and all other acts administered by the GSIS may
also be construed from Sec. 23 of the Decree which provides that the
“System shall prescribe such ruIes and regulations to facilitate payment
of benefits, proceeds and claims under the Act and any other laws
administered by the System.”

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, We AFFIRM the finding in
Resolution No. 431 that petitioner Iluminada Ponce Berciles is the
surviving spouse of the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles and that
petitioners Ilona Berciles Alvarez, Ellery P. Berciles, England P.
Berciles, and Ione P. Berciles are the legitimate children of the said
deceased Judge. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE its finding that Pascual
Voltaire Berciles is an acknowledged natural child and that Maria Luisa
Berciles, Mercy Berciles, and Rhoda Berciles are illegitimate children
of the deceased CFI Judge Pascual G. Berciles. The claims of the
petitioners as legal heirs are hereby APPROVED and the GSIS is hereby
ordered to pay immediately to each and every petitioner the various sums
hereunder indicated opposite their names, as follows:

The temporary restraining order issued herein per Our Resolution dated July 13, 1981 is hereby made permanent.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Acting C.J., Concepcion, Jr., De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., reserves his vote.

Aquino, J., no part.

Fernando, C.J., and Teehankee, J., on leave (Abroad).