G.R. No. 146494 - Government Service Insurance System vs. Montesclaros

Nicolas Montesclaros, a Sangguniang Bayan member, married Milagros Orbiso Montesclaros on July 10, 1983.

At the time of their marriage, Nicolas was a 72-year-old widower and Milagros was 43 years old.

On January 4, 1985, Nicolas filed an application with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for retirement benefits effective February 18, 1985, under Presidential Decree No. 1146 (PD 1146).

In his retirement application, Nicolas designated his wife, Milagros, as his sole beneficiary.

Nicolas’s last day of actual service was February 17, 1985, and GSIS approved his retirement application on January 31, 1986, with benefits commencing retroactively.

Following his death, Milagros filed a claim with GSIS for a survivorship pension pursuant to PD 1146.

The denial was based on Section 18 of PD 1146, which provides that a dependent spouse is disqualified from receiving the pension if the marriage with the pensioner was contracted within three years before the pensioner qualified for the pension.

On October 2, 1992, Milagros filed a special civil action for declaratory relief challenging the validity of Section 18’s proviso that disqualified her from receiving the survivorship benefit.

On November 9, 1994, the Regional Trial Court (Branch 21, Cebu City) issued a judgment declaring Milagros eligible for the survivorship pension and ordered GSIS to pay the benefits along with interest.

The Court of Appeals later affirmed this decision, holding that retirement benefits are earned through labor, constitute an onerous acquisition, and are part of the conjugal property.

On January 10, 2003, Milagros informed the Court via letter that she had accepted GSIS’s decision disqualifying her from the pension and was no longer pursuing the case.

Notwithstanding her withdrawal, GSIS maintained that the case must be resolved on its merits due to its broader implications for other similarly situated surviving spouses.

The Court acknowledged the social justice and public interest dimensions inherent in resolving the constitutionality of the controversial proviso.

Whether Milagros is entitled to a survivorship pension under Section 16 of PD 1146 despite the timing of her marriage to the pensioner.
Whether retirement benefits, which are earned through mandatory salary deductions, form part of conjugal property and are not mere gratuities.
Whether the provisions of the Family Code (specifically Articles 115 and 117) effectively repeal or override the disqualifying proviso in Section 18 of PD 1146.
Whether the three-year marriage requirement to bar the survivorship pension violates the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.