A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070 - Apiag vs. Cantero

Bonifacio S. Dycaico became a member of the Social Security System (SSS) on January 24, 1980.
In his SSS registration (SSS Form RS-1), he listed Elena P. Dycaico (petitioner) and their eight children as his beneficiaries, although at that time, Bonifacio and Elena lived together as husband and wife without a formal marriage.

Bonifacio was considered retired in June 1989 and began receiving monthly retirement pension payments from the SSS.
On January 6, 1997, a few months before his death, Bonifacio married Elena legally.
Bonifacio died on June 19, 1997.

After Bonifacio’s death, Elena filed for a survivor’s pension from the SSS.
The SSS denied her claim on the ground that under Section 12-B(d) of Republic Act No. 8282 (Social Security Law), survivor’s pension entitlement is limited to primary beneficiaries as of the date of retirement, and since Elena was not married to Bonifacio during his retirement, she was disqualified.
The petitioner filed a formal petition with the Social Security Commission (SSC) arguing that:

Bonifacio designated her and their children as beneficiaries, without restriction to legitimacy.
The law does not require primary beneficiaries to be legitimate family members.
Rep. Act No. 8282 should be liberally construed in favor of claimants.

The SSC upheld the denial, interpreting “primary beneficiaries” as legal spouse and qualified children existing as of retirement date, thus excluding Elena as she was only married in 1997, after retirement.
The SSC also deemed Bonifacio’s designation of Elena and their children in 1980 as void for misrepresentation and moral grounds.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the SSC decision.
The CA held that since petitioner was a common-law wife at retirement, her designation as beneficiary was void.
It also found that their children had aged out of primary beneficiary eligibility.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45, seeking to reverse the CA’s decision.
Petitioner contended that:

The term “primary beneficiaries” in Section 12-B(d) was unqualified; legitimacy should not restrict rights.
The proviso “as of the date of retirement” was wrongly applied and should not restrict benefits.
The statute should be liberally interpreted in favor of social security claimants.
Her subsequent marriage to Bonifacio was bona fide and not meant to defraud.

Section 12-B(d) must be read with definitions in Section 8 of the law, which require legitimate relations.
The designation of a common-law spouse as beneficiary is void against public policy and morals.
The proviso “as of the date of retirement” is clear and not unconstitutional.

The Office of the Solicitor General supported the SSS and SSC positions regarding the constitutionality and application of the proviso.

The Court, in its resolution, raised the constitutional question whether the proviso “as of the date of his retirement” violates equal protection and due process clauses.
Parties submitted comments on this constitutional issue.

Whether the proviso “as of the date of his retirement” in Section 12-B(d) of Republic Act No. 8282 (Social Security Law) violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by unjustly classifying surviving spouses into those married before retirement and those married after retirement, thereby disqualifying the latter from survivor’s pension.

Whether the same proviso violates the due process clause by depriving surviving spouses who married retired members after retirement of their right to a survivor’s pension without affording them an opportunity to be heard or prove the bona fides of their marriage.

Whether the designation by a retired member in the SSS Form RS-1 of a common-law spouse and illegitimate children as primary beneficiaries is valid under the Social Security Law.