Case Summary (G.R. No. 165545)
Facts: SSS benefits paid and ensuing controversies
Respondent filed for and received P12,000 funeral benefits and, subsequently, monthly death pension benefits awarded by the SSS (payments from February 1998 to May 1999 totaling P24,000). Bailon’s daughter Cecilia and other relatives contested respondent’s entitlement, alleging Bailon had contracted three marriages (first to Alice, second to Elisa Jayona — mother of Cecilia — and third to respondent), that the documents respondent submitted were spurious, and that the first wife Alice was still alive. Affidavits were submitted by Cecilia, Norma (sister), and later an affidavit by one claiming kin of Alice asserting Alice never disappeared and had remained at her parents’ home.
Administrative fact‑finding and SSS legal opinion
The SSS Legal Unit (Bicol Cluster) recommended cancellation of respondent’s pension payments and refund of amounts paid, concluding that Alice never disappeared and that the CFI order declaring her presumptively dead was obtained by artifice or otherwise lacked finality in effect. The Legal Unit characterized Bailon as the deserting spouse and deemed the subsequent marriage to respondent bigamous and void. The SSS Branch directed respondent to return funeral benefits and cancelled her monthly pension, advising her of the right to petition the SSC.
SSC Resolution and reasoning
By Resolution dated April 2, 2003 the SSC found respondent was not the legitimate spouse or primary beneficiary. The SSC concluded, after its investigation, that the first wife (Alice/Aliz Diaz) never disappeared and that the December 10, 1970 CFI Order had been procured by fraud or was otherwise without effect. The SSC declared respondent a common‑law wife only, ordered her to refund P24,000 (death benefits) and P12,000 (funeral benefit), and directed SSS to pay Alice the appropriate death benefit under Sections 8 and 13 of the SS Law and prevailing rules.
Court of Appeals reversal: due process and limits on administrative review of court judgments
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the SSC Resolution, holding that (1) the SSC and SSS could not validly review, re‑weigh, or declare void a judgment of a regular court (the CFI/RTC) declaring presumptive death, and (2) the SSC’s procedure was defective and violated principles of fair play because respondent was not given adequate opportunity to present evidence. The CA emphasized that while a judgment of presumptive death is a presumption juris tantum and not absolutely final, the second marriage contracted under that presumption endures until annulled by a competent court pursuant to Article 87 of the Civil Code, and nowhere does law authorize the SSS/SSC to declare a court decision bereft of basis and, on that ground alone, nullify the subsequent marriage.
Legal framework: Civil Code, Family Code and principles on subsequent marriages
The Court’s discussion reiterated provisions of the Civil Code (Article 83) that a subsequent marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is illegal and void ab initio unless one of specified exceptions obtains, and that such subsequent marriage is valid “until declared null and void by a competent court.” The Court cited the burden of proof on the party attacking a subsequent marriage and prominent commentary (Tolentino) that a presumption arises favoring the validity of the second marriage. The decision distinguished the Family Code’s later regime: Article 42 of the Family Code allows termination of the subsequent marriage by an affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, but the Family Code was not applicable retroactively to prejudice vested rights where marriages were solemnized before its effectivity; moreover, under Civil Code rules a voidable subsequent marriage can be annulled only by proper judicial action within the lifetime of the parties.
Application to the case facts and effect of death on collateral attack
Applying those principles, the Court observed that Bailon’s se
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 165545)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court challenges:
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated June 23, 2004 and Resolution dated September 28, 2004, which reversed:
- Social Security Commission (SSC) Resolution dated April 2, 2003 and Order dated June 4, 2003 in SSC Case No. 4-15149-01.
- The SSS filed the present petition after its Motions for Reconsideration before the CA were denied.
- The CA had reversed the SSC and ordered the SSS to pay respondent all pension benefits due her; the SSS sought review in the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court denied the SSS petition, thereby leaving the CA decision in place (final disposition: "WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs. SO ORDERED.").
Facts — Marriages, Death and SSS Benefits
- Clemente G. Bailon (Bailon) and Alice P. Diaz (Alice) were married on April 25, 1955 in Barcelona, Sorsogon.
- On October 9, 1970, Bailon filed a petition before the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Sorsogon to declare Alice presumptively dead.
- By Order dated December 10, 1970, the CFI granted the petition, declaring Alice presumptively dead "to all legal intents and purposes, except for those of succession."
- On August 8, 1983, Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita Jarque (respondent) in Casiguran, Sorsogon.
- Bailon had been an SSS member since 1960, was a retiree pensioner effective July 1994, and died on January 30, 1998.
- Respondent filed a claim for funeral benefits and was granted P12,000 by the SSS.
- On March 11, 1998 respondent filed an additional claim for death benefits, which the SSS granted on April 6, 1998.
Facts — Contesting Claims and Affidavits
- Cecilia Bailon-Yap (Cecilia) and one Elisa Jayona (Elisa) contested release of benefits to respondent, asserting:
- Bailon contracted three marriages: first with Alice, second with Elisa (mother of Cecilia), and third with respondent, all still alive.
- Cecilia and her siblings paid for Bailon's medical and funeral expenses.
- Documents submitted by respondent to the SSS were spurious.
- Cecilia and Norma Bailon Chavez submitted an Affidavit dated February 13, 1999 stating:
- They were two of nine children of Bailon and Elisa who cohabited as husband and wife as early as 1958.
- They reserved the right to file court action to contest respondent's marriage to Bailon and averred that Alice was "still very much alive."
- On April 5, 1999, Hermes P. Diaz, claiming to be brother and guardian of "Aliz P. Diaz," filed a claim for death benefits and attested that Norma defrayed Bailon's funeral expenses.
- Elisa and seven of her children subsequently filed claims for death benefits as Bailon's beneficiaries before the SSS.
SSS Legal Unit Findings and Administrative Actions
- Atty. Marites C. de la Torre (Legal Unit, SSS Bicol Cluster) recommended:
- Cancellation of payment of death pension benefits to respondent and refund of amounts paid from February 1998 to May 1999.
- Denial of Alice's claim on the ground that she was not dependent upon Bailon during his lifetime.
- Payment of the balance of the five-year guaranteed pension to Bailon's beneficiaries in order of statutory preference after collection.
- The Legal Unit Memorandum stated in part:
- Alice (referred to as "Aliz" in places) never disappeared; the CFI order was allegedly obtained by misrepresentation and did not become final.
- Bailon was the abandoning spouse; his remarriage to respondent was void as bigamous.
- An affidavit of reappearance was unnecessary, since, in the Legal Unit's view, there was no disappearance of Alice.
- The SSS Sorsogon Branch, by letter dated August 16, 2000, advised respondent to return the P12,000 funeral benefit, citing Cecilia and Norma as having defrayed funeral expenses.
- By letter dated September 7, 1999, the SSS advised respondent of cancellation of her monthly death pension benefits, asserting her marriage to Bailon was void as bigamous and that the December 10, 1970 CFI Order did not become final due to "contrary proof."
- Respondent protested the cancellation by letter dated October 12, 1999 and reiterated her position by letter dated November 27, 1999 to the SSC that her marriage had not been judicially declared bigamous or unlawful.
- The SSS, by letter dated January 21, 2000, maintained denial and discontinuance but advised respondent of her right to file a petition with the SSC.
- Respondent filed a petition with the SSC for restoration of her entitlement to monthly pension.
- Respondent informed the SSS she was returning, under protest, the P12,000 funeral benefit claiming she was prevented by Norma and siblings from spending any amount during the wake.
Evidence Presented to the SSC
- Affidavit(s) and statements:
- Affidavit of Cecilia and Norma (Feb. 13, 1999) alleging cohabitation of Bailon with Elisa and asserting Alice was alive.
- Hermes P. Diaz sworn statement (April 5, 1999) claiming to be sibling and guardian of "Aliz P. Diaz."
- Affidavit of Alicia P. Diaz (Aug. 14, 2002) attesting that she is the widow of Bailon, that she never disappeared and that Bailon could have located her, and that Bailon used to visit her after separation.
- SSS Memorandum dated August 9, 1999 (pertinent portions reproduced in the record) reporting interviews:
- Interviewed relatives of Alice who alleged that Alice never left Barcelona after separation and was not dependent on, nor received support from, the deceased member.
SSC Resolution (April 2, 2003) — Findings and Disposition
- The SSC concluded that respondent Teresita Jarque-Bailon was not the legitimate spouse and primary beneficiary of Clemente Bailon.
- The SSC found "ample evidence" that Alice never disappeared and that the 1970 CFI order was extracted through fraud, rendering it invalid.
- The SSC found that Bailon was the abandoning spouse and that respondent was a mere common-law wife, not entitled to primary beneficiary status.
- The SSC ordered:
- Respondent to refund P24,000.00 (death benefit received from February 1998 to May 1999) and P12,000.00 (funeral benefit).
- The SSS to pay Alice (a.k.a. Aliz) Diaz-Bailon the appropriate death benefit in accordance with Sections 8(e) and (k) and Section 13 of the Social Security Law, as amended, and prevailing rules and regulations.
- Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of the SSC Resolution was denied by Order dated June 4, 2003.