Title
Social Security Commission vs. Favila
Case
G.R. No. 170195
Decision Date
Mar 28, 2011
Teresa, Florante's surviving legal spouse, denied SSS death benefits due to failure to prove dependency during their 17-year separation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170195)

Applicable Law

The relevant law governing this case is Republic Act (RA) No. 1161, also known as the Social Security Law, which defines the rights and qualifications of beneficiaries under the system.

Factual Antecedents

On August 5, 2002, Teresa G. Favila filed a petition with the SSC claiming her entitlement to death benefits as the legitimate wife of Florante Favila, who had designated her as his beneficiary. Despite receiving minor pension benefits for their son, the SSS denied her claim based on allegations of marital infidelity and the couple's de facto separation. The SSS's investigation into Teresa's lifestyle revealed rumors of an affair, leading them to conclude that she was not dependent on Florante for support, thus disqualifying her from the benefits.

Ruling of the Social Security Commission

The SSC concluded that for a surviving spouse to qualify for death benefits, two conditions must be met: (1) the marital relationship must be legitimate, and (2) the spouse must be dependent on the member for support at the time of death. The SSC asserted that Teresa's alleged infidelity and the couple's separation led to her disqualification, emphasizing that marital infidelity negates dependency for support.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals reversed the SSC decision, focusing on Teresa's legal status as the surviving spouse and beneficiary. The court emphasized that the absence of a legal separation or annulment invalidated the SSC's additional requirements regarding dependency, arguing that benefits should not be contingent upon further investigations into personal conduct.

Issues Presented

The critical issue was whether Teresa, as the surviving spouse, was a primary beneficiary entitled to death benefits under the SS Law, given the claims of non-dependency.

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners, SSC and SSS, argued that the definition of a "dependent spouse" necessitates actual dependency for support, which they claimed Teresa lacked due to the 17 years of separation and alleged marital infidelity. They provided evidence from family members and neighborhood interviews to substantiate their claims.

Respondent's Arguments

Teresa countered that as Florante's legal wife, she was presumed to be dependent for support and that allegations of infidelity were not sufficiently proven. She contended that no formal withdrawal of her status as a beneficiary occurred, asserting her entitlement to the benefits.

Our Ruling

The Supreme Co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.