ELENA P. DYCAICO, G.R. No. 161357Petitioner,versusSOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM CHICO-NAZARIO andand SOCIAL SECURITY GARCIA, JJ.COMMISSION,Respondents. Promulgated: November !, "!!# $oni%a&io '. ()&ai&o be&ame a member o% t*e ''' on +anuar) ",, -./!. In *is sel%-emplo)ed data re&ord 0''' 1orm R'--2, *e named t*e petitioner, 3lena P. ()&ai&o, and t*eir eig*t &*ildren as *is bene%i&iaries. At t*at time, $oni%a&io and 3lena lived toget*er as *usband and 4i%e 4it*out t*e bene%it o% marriage. In +une -./., $oni%a&io 4as &onsidered retired and began re&eiving *is mont*l) pension %rom t*e '''. He &ontinued to re&eive t*e mont*l) pensionuntil *e passed a4a) on +une -., -..5. A %e4 mont*s prior to *is deat*, *o4ever, $oni%a&io married t*e petitioner on +anuar) 6, -..5. '*ortl) a%ter $oni%a&ios deat*, t*e petitioner %iled 4it* t*e ''' an appli&ation %or survivors pension. Her appli&ation, *o4ever, 4as denied on t*e ground t*at under 'e&tion -"-$0d2 o% Republi& A&t 0Rep. A&t2 No. /"/" or t*e 'o&ial 'e&urit) 7a48"9 s*e &ould not be &onsidered a primar) bene%i&iar) o% $oni%a&io as o% t*e date o% *is retirement. :*e said proviso reads:'e&. -"-$. Retirement Benefits. 0d2 ;pon t*e deat* o% t*e retired member, *is primar) bene%i&iaries as o% t*e date o% *is retirement s*all be entitled to re&eive t*e mont*l) pension. t*e ''C promulgated its Resolution a%%irming t*e denial o% t*e petitioners &laim. :*e ''C re%uted t*e petitioners &ontention t*at primar) bene%i&iaries need not be legitimate %amil) members b) &itingt*e de%initions o% primar) bene%i&iaries and dependents in 'e&tion / o%Rep. A&t No. /"/". ;nder paragrap* 0uali%) as su&* as o% t*e date o% retirement o% t*e de&eased member. Hen&e, t*e petitioner, 4*o 4as not t*en t*e legitimate spouse o% $oni%a&io as o% t*e date o% *is retirement, &ould not be &onsidered *is primar) bene%i&iar). Aggrieved, t*e petitioner %iled 4it* t*e CA a petition %or revie4. t*e appellate &ourt dismissed t*e petition :*e petitioner maintains t*at 4*en s*e and $oni%a&io got married in +anuar)-..5, a %e4 mont*s be%ore *e passed a4a), t*e) merel) intended to legali?et*eir relations*ip and *ad no intention to &ommit an) %raud. 1urt*er, sin&eRep. A&t No. /"/" is a so&ial legislation, it s*ould be &onstrued liberall) in%avor o% &laimants liual prote&tion &lauses o% t*e Constitution.The proviso infringes the equal protection clause t*e petitioner belongs to t*e se&ond group o% dependent spouses, i.e., *er marriage to $oni%a&io 4as &ontra&ted a%ter *is retirement. '*e and t*ose similarl) situated are undoubtedl) dis&riminated against as t*e proviso as o% t*e date o% *is retirement dis>uali%ies t*em %rom being &onsidered primar) bene%i&iaries %or t*e purpose o% entitlement to survivors pension. t*e proviso 4as apparentl) intended to prevent s*am marriages or t*ose &ontra&ted b) persons solel) to enable one spouse to &laim bene%its upon t*eanti&ipated deat* o% t*e ot*er spouse. :*is &on&ern is &on&ededl) valid. Ho4ever, &lassi%)ing dependent spouses and determining t*eir entitlement to survivors pension based on 4*et*er t*e marriage 4as &ontra&ted be%ore or a%ter t*e retirement o% t*e ot*er spouse, regardless o% t*e duration o% t*e said marriage, bears no relation to t*e a&*ievement o% t*e poli&) ob@e&tive o% t*e la4,i.e., provide meaning%ul prote&tion to members and t*eir bene%i&iaries against t*e *a?ard o% disabilit),si&uali%ied %rom being &onsidered as *is primar) bene%i&iar).!onclusion 3ven as t*e proviso as o% t*e date o% *is retirement in 'e&tion -"-$0d2 is nulli%ied, t*e enumeration o% primar) bene%i&iaries %or t*e purpose o% entitlement tosurvivors pension is not substantiall) a%%e&ted sin&e t*e %ollo4ing persons are &onsidered as su&* under 'e&tion /0