Sss v. Favila

7/25/2019 Sss v. Favila

1/12

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 170195 March 28, 2011

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION an SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,Petitioner,

vs.

TERESA G. !A"ILA,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

#EL CASTILLO, J.:

" spouse #ho clai$s entitle$ent to death benefits as a pri$ar% beneficiar% under the Social

Securit% &a# $ust establish t#o 'ualif%in( factors, to #it) *+ that he-she is the le(iti$ate

spouse and */ that he-she is dependent upon the $e$ber for support.+

This Petition for Revie# on Certiorariassails the Decision/dated Ma% /0, /112 of the !ourt of

"ppeals *!" in !"34.R. SP No. 5/678 #hich reversed and set aside the Resolution8dated

9une 0, /118 and Order0dated 9anuar% /+, /110 of the Social Securit% !o$$ission *SS! in

SS! !ase No. 53+280531/. &i:e#ise assailed is the !" Resolution2dated October +6, /112

den%in( the Motion for Reconsideration thereto.

Factual Antecedents

On "u(ust 2, /11/, respondent Teresa 4. Favila *Teresa filed a Petition7before petitioner SS!

doc:eted as SS! !ase No. 53+280531/. She averred therein that after she #as $arried to

Florante Favila *Florante on 9anuar% +6, +;61, the latter desi(nated her as the sole beneficiar%

in the 3+ For$ he sub$itted before petitioner Social Securit% S%ste$ *SSS, ranch on 9une 81, +;61. ?hen the% be(ot their children 9ofel, Floresa and Florante II, her

husband li:e#ise desi(nated each one of the$ as beneficiaries. Teresa further averred that

#hen Florante died on Februar% +, +;;6, his pension benefits under the SSS #ere (iven to their

onl% $inor child at that ti$e, Florante II, but onl% until his e$ancipation at a(e /+. >elievin( that

as the survivin( le(al #ife she is li:e#ise entitled to receive Florante@s pension benefits, Teresasubse'uentl% filed her clai$ for said benefits before the SSS. The SSS, ho#ever, denied the

clai$ in a letter dated 9anuar% 8+, /11/, hence, the petition.

In its "ns#er,6SSS averred that on Ma% 7, +;;;, the clai$ for Florante@s pension benefits #as

initiall% settled in favor of Teresa as (uardian of the $inor Florante II. Per its records, Teresa

#as paid the $onthl% pension for a total period of 26 $onths or fro$ Februar% +;;6 to October

/11+ #hen Florante II reached the a(e of /+. The clai$ #as, ho#ever, re3adAudicated on 9ul%
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt1


2/12

++, /11/ and the balance of the five3%ear (uaranteed pension #as a(ain settled in favor of

Florante II.5SSS also alle(ed that stelita Ra$os, sister of Florante, #rote a letter;statin( that

her brother had lon( been separated fro$ Teresa. She alle(ed therein that the couple lived

to(ether for onl% ten %ears and then decided to (o their separate #a%s because Teresa had an

affair #ith a $arried $an #ith #ho$, as Teresa herself alle(edl% ad$itted, she slept #ith four

ti$es a #ee:. SSS also averred that an intervie# conducted in Teresa@s nei(hborhood in Tondo,Manila on Septe$ber +5, +;;5 revealed that althou(h she did not cohabit #ith another $an

after her separation #ith Florante, there #ere ru$ors that she had an affair #ith a police officer.

To support Teresa@s non3entitle$ent to the benefits clai$ed, SSS cited the provisions of

Sections 5*: and +8 of Republic "ct *R" No. ++7+, as a$ended other#ise :no#n as Social

Securit% *SS &a#.+1

Ruling of the Social Security Commission

In a Resolution++dated 9une 0, /118, SS! held that the survivin( spouse@s entitle$ent to an

SSS $e$ber@s death benefits is dependent on t#o factors #hich $ust concur at the ti$e of the

latter@s death, to #it) *+ le(alit% of the $arital relationship and */ dependenc% for support. "s

to dependenc% for support, the SS! opined that sa$e is affected b% factors such as

separation de factoof the spouses, $arital infidelit% and such other (rounds sufficient to

disinherit a spouse under the la#. Thus, althou(h Teresa is the le(al spouse and one of

Florante@s desi(nated beneficiaries, the SS! ruled that she is dis'ualified fro$ clai$in( the

death benefits because she #as dee$ed not dependent for support fro$ Florante due to $arital

infidelit%. Bnder Section 5*: of the SS &a#, the dependent spouse until she re$arries is entitled

to death benefits as a pri$ar% beneficiar%, to(ether #ith the deceased $e$ber@s le(iti$ate

$inor children. "ccordin( to SS!, the #ord Cre$arr%C under said provision has been interpreted

as to include a spouse #ho cohabits #ith a person other than his-her deceased spouse or is in

an illicit relationship. This is for the reason that no support is due to such a spouse and to allo#hi$-her to enAo% the $e$ber@s death benefits #ould be tanta$ount to circu$vention of the la#.

ven if a spouse did not cohabit #ith another, SS! #ent on to state that for purposes of the SS

&a#, it is sufficient that the separation in3fact of the spouses #as precipitated b% an adulterous

act since the actual absence of support fro$ the $e$ber is evident fro$ such separation.

Notable in this case is that #hile Teresa denied havin( re$arried or cohabited #ith another

$an, she did not, ho#ever, den% her havin( an adulterous relationship. SS! therefore

concluded that Teresa #as not dependent upon Florante for support and conse'uentl%

dis'ualified her fro$ enAo%in( her husband@s death benefits.

SS! further held that Teresa did not ti$el% contest her non3entitle$ent to the a#ard of benefits.

It #as onl% #hen Florante II@s pension #as stopped that she dee$ed it #ise to file her clai$. ForSS!, Teresa@s lon( silence led SSS to believe that she reall% suffered fro$ a dis'ualification as

a beneficiar%, other#ise she #ould have i$$ediatel% protested her non3entitle$ent. It thus

opined that Teresa is no# estopped fro$ clai$in( the benefits. ence, SS! dis$issed the

petition for lac: of $erit.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt11


3/12

"s Teresa@s Motion for Reconsideration+/of said Resolution #as also denied b% SS! in an

Order+8dated 9anuar% /+, /110, she sou(ht recourse before the !" throu(h a Petition for

Revie#+0under Rule 08.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

>efore the !", Teresa insisted that SSS should have (ranted her clai$ for death benefits

because she is undisputedl% the le(al survivin( spouse of Florante and is therefore entitled to

such benefits as pri$ar% beneficiar%. She clai$ed that the SS!@s findin( that she #as not

dependent upon Florante for support is unfair because the fact still re$ains that she #as le(all%

$arried to Florante and that her alle(ed illicit affair #ith another $an #as never sufficientl%

established. In fact, SSS ad$itted that there #as no concrete evidence or proof of her a$orous

relationship #ith another $an. Moreover, Teresa found SSS@s strict interpretation of the SS &a#

as not onl% anti3labor but also anti3fa$il%. It is anti3labor in the sense that it does not #or: to the

benefit of a deceased e$plo%ee@s pri$ar% beneficiaries and anti3fa$il% because in den%in(

benefits to survivin( spouses, it destro%s fa$il% solidarit%. In su$, Teresa pra%ed for the reversal

and settin( aside of the assailed Resolution and Order of the SS!.

The SS! and the SSS throu(h the Office of the Solicitor 4eneral *OS4 filed their respective

!o$$ents+2to the petition.

SS! contended that the #ord CspouseC under Section 5*: of the SS &a# is 'ualified b% the

#ord CdependentC. Thus, to be entitled to death benefits under said la#, a survivin( spouse

$ust have been dependent upon the $e$ber spouse for support durin( the latter@s lifeti$e

includin( the ver% $o$ent of contin(enc%. "ccordin( to it, the fact of dependenc% is a

$andator% re'uire$ent of la#. If it is other#ise, the la# #ould have si$pl% used the #ord

CspouseC #ithout the descriptive #ord CdependentC. In this case, SS! e$phasi=ed that Teresanever denied the fact that she and Florante #ere alread% separated and livin( in different

houses #hen the contin(enc% happened. 4iven this fact and since the conduct of investi(ation

is standard operatin( procedure for SSS, it bein( under le(al obli(ation to deter$ine prior to the

a#ard of death benefit #hether the supposed beneficiar% is actuall% receivin( support fro$ the

$e$ber or if such support #as ri(htfull% #ithdra#n prior to the contin(enc%, SSS conducted an

investi(ation #ith respect to the couple@s separation. "nd as said investi(ation revealed tales of

Teresa@s adulterous relationship #ith another $an, SSS therefore correctl% adAudicated the

entire death benefits in favor of Florante II.

To ne(ate Teresa@s clai$ that SSS failed to establish her $arital infidelit%, SS! enu$erated the

follo#in( evidence) *+ the letter+7of Florante@s sister, stelita Ra$os, statin( that the $ainreasons #h% Teresa and Florante separated after onl% +1 %ears of $arria(e #ere Teresa@s

adulterous relationship #ith another $an and her propensit% for (a$blin( */ the

Me$orandu$+6dated "u(ust 81, /11/ of SSS Senior "nal%sts &i=a "(illes and 9ana Si$pas

#hich ran throu(h the facts in connection #ith the clai$ for death benefits accruin( fro$

Florante@s death. It indicates therein, a$on( others, that based on intervie#s conducted in

Teresa@s nei(hborhood, she did not cohabit #ith another $an after her separation fro$ her
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt17


4/12

husband althou(h there #ere ru$ors that she and a certain police officer had an affair.

o#ever, there is not enou(h proof to establish their relationship as Teresa and her para$our

did not live to(ether as husband and #ife and *8 the field investi(ation report+5of SSS Senior

"nal%st Fernando F. Nicolas #hich %ielded the sa$e findin(s. The SS! dee$ed the fore(oin(

evidence as substantial to support the conclusion that Teresa indeed had an illicit relationship

#ith another $an.

SS! also defended SSS@s interpretation of the SS la# and ar(ued that it is neither anti3labor nor

anti3fa$il%. It is not anti3labor because the subAect $atter of the case is covered b% the SS &a#

and hence, &abor &a# has no application. It is li:e#ise not anti3fa$il% because SSS has nothin(

to do #ith Teresa@s separation fro$ her husband #hich resulted to the latter@s #ithdra#al of

support for her. "t an% rate, SS! advanced that even if Teresa is entitled to the benefits clai$ed,

sa$e have alread% been received in its entiret% b% Florante II so that no $ore benefits are due

to Florante@s other beneficiaries. ence, SS! pra%ed for the dis$issal of the petition.

For its part, the OS4 li:e#ise believed that Teresa is not entitled to the benefits clai$ed as she

lac:s the re'uire$ent that the #ife $ust be dependent upon the $e$ber for support. This is in

vie# of the rule that beneficiaries under the SS &a# need not be the le(al heirs but those #ho

are dependent upon hi$ for support. Moreover, it noted that Teresa did not file a protest before

the SSS to contest the a#ard of the five3%ear (uaranteed pension to their son Florante II. It

posited that because of this, Teresa cannot raise the $atter for the first ti$e before the courts.

The OS4 also believed that no further benefits are due to Florante@s other beneficiaries

considerin( that the balance of the five3%ear (uaranteed pension has alread% been settled.

In a Decision+;dated Ma% /0, /112, the !" found Teresa@s petition i$pressed #ith $erit. It (ave

#ei(ht to the fact that she is a pri$ar% beneficiar% because she is the la#ful survivin( spouse of

Florante and in addition, she #as desi(nated b% Florante as such beneficiar%. There #as nole(al separation or annul$ent of $arria(e that could have dis'ualified her fro$ clai$in( the

death benefits and that her desi(nation as beneficiar% had not been invalidated b% an% court of

la#. The !" cited Social Securit% S%ste$ v. Davac/1#here it #as held that it is onl% #hen there

is no desi(nation of beneficiar% or #hen the desi(nation is void that the SSS #ould have to

decide #ho is entitled to clai$ the benefits. It opined that once a spouse is desi(nated b% an

SSS $e$ber as his-her beneficiar%, sa$e forecloses an% in'uir% as to #hether the spouse is

indeed a dependent derivin( support fro$ the $e$ber. Thus, #hen SSS conducted an

investi(ation to deter$ine #hether Teresa is indeed dependent upon Florante, SSS #as

unilaterall% addin( a re'uire$ent not i$posed b% la# #hich $a:es it ver% difficult for desi(nated

pri$ar% beneficiaries to clai$ for benefits. To $a:e thin(s #orse, the result of said investi(ation

#hich beca$e the basis of Teresa@s non3entitle$ent to the benefits clai$ed #as culled fro$unfounded ru$ors.

Moreover, the !" sa# SSS@s conduct of investi(ations to be violative of the constitutional ri(ht

to privac%. It la$ented that SSS has no po#er to investi(ate and pr% into the $e$ber@s and

his-her fa$il%@s personal lives and should cease and desist fro$ conductin( such investi(ations.

Blti$atel%, the !" reversed and set aside the assailed Resolution and Order of the SS! and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt20


5/12

directed SSS to pa% Teresa@s $onetar% clai$s #hich included the $onthl% pension due her as

the survivin( spouse and the lu$p su$ benefit e'uivalent to thirt%3siE ti$es the $onthl%

pension.

SS! filed its Motion for Reconsideration/+of said Decision but sa$e #as denied in a

Resolution//

dated October +6, /112. I$pleadin( SSS as co3petitioner, SS! thus filed thispetition for revie# on certiorari.

I$$%&

Is Teresa a pri$ar% beneficiar% in conte$plation of the Social Securit% &a# as to be entitled to

death benefits accruin( fro$ the death of Florante

Petitioners Arguments

SS! reiterates the ar(u$ent that to be entitled to death benefits, a survivin( spouse $ust have

been actuall% dependent for support upon the $e$ber spouse durin( the latter@s lifeti$eincludin( the ver% $o$ent of contin(enc%. To it, this is clearl% the intention of the le(islature

other#ise, Section 5*: of the SS la# #ould have si$pl% stated CspouseC #ithout the descriptive

#ord CdependentC. ere, althou(h Teresa is #ithout 'uestion Florante@s le(al spouse, she is not

the Cdependent spouseC referred to in the said provision of the la#. 4iven the reason for the

couple@s separation for about +6 %ears prior to Florante@s death and in the absence of proof that

durin( said period Teresa relied upon Florante for support, there is therefore no reason to infer

that Teresa is a dependent spouse entitled to her husband@s death benefits.

SS! adds that in the process of deter$inin( non3dependenc% status of a spouse, conviction of

a cri$e involvin( $arital infidelit% is not an absolute necessit%. It is sufficient for purposes of thea#ard of death benefits that a thorou(h investi(ation #as conducted b% SSS throu(h intervie#s

of i$partial #itnesses and that sa$e sho#ed that the spouse3beneficiar% co$$itted an act of

$arital infidelit% #hich caused the $e$ber to #ithdra# support fro$ his spouse. In this case, no

less than Florante@s sister, #ho does not stand to benefit fro$ the present controvers%, revealed

that Teresa fre'uented a casino and #as dislo%al to her husband so that the% separated after

onl% +1 %ears of $arria(e. This #as affir$ed throu(h the intervie# conducted in Teresa@s

nei(hborhood. ence, it is not true that Teresa@s $arital infidelit% #as not sufficientl% proven.

&i:e#ise, SS! contends that contrar% to the !"@s posture, a $e$ber@s desi(nation of a pri$ar%

beneficiar% does not (uarantee the latter@s entitle$ent to death benefits because such

entitle$ent is deter$ined onl% at the ti$e of happenin( of the contin(enc%. This is becausethere $a% have been events #hich supervened subse'uent to the desi(nation #hich #ould

other#ise dis'ualif% the person desi(nated as beneficiar% such as e$ancipation of a $e$ber@s

child or separation fro$ his-her spouse. This is actuall% the sa$e reason #h% SSS $ust

conduct an investi(ation of all clai$s for benefits.

Moreover, SS! Austifies SSS@s conduct of investi(ation and ar(ues that said office did not

intrude into Florante@s and his fa$il%@s personal lives as the investi(ation did not a((ravate the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt22


6/12

situation insofar as Teresa@s relationship #ith her deceased husband #as concerned. It $erel%

led to the discover% of the true state of affairs bet#een the$ so that based on it, the death

benefits #ere a#arded to the ri(htful pri$ar% beneficiar%, Florante II. !learl%, such an

investi(ation is an essential part of adAudication process, not onl% in this case but also in all

clai$s for benefits filed before SSS. Thus, SS! pra%s for the settin( aside of the assailed !"

Decision and Resolution.

Respondents Arguments

To support her entitle$ent to the death benefits clai$ed, Teresa cited Ceneta v. Social Security

System,/8a case decided b% the !" #hich declared, viz:

!learl% then, the ter$ dependent spouse, #ho $ust not re3$arr% in order to be entitled to the

SSS death benefits accruin( fro$ the death of his-her spouse, refers to the le(al spouse #ho,

under the la#, is entitled to receive support fro$ the other spouse.

Indubitabl%, petitioner, havin( been le(all% $arried to the deceased SSS $e$ber until the

latter@s death and despite his subse'uent $arria(e to respondent !arolina, is dee$ed

dependent for support under "rticle 75 of the Fa$il% !ode. Said provision reads)

GThe husband and #ife are obli(ed to live to(ether, observe $utual love, respect and fidelit%,

and render $utual help and support@

>ased on said la#, petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the clai$ed death benefits. er $arria(e

to the deceased not havin( been la#full% severed, the la# disputabl% presu$es her to be

continuall% dependent for support.

No evidence or even a $ere inference can be adduced to prove that petitioner ceased to derive

all her needs indispensable for her sustenance, and thus, she re$ains a le(al dependent. "

dependent spouse is pri$ar% beneficiar% entitled to the death benefits of a deceased SSS

$e$ber spouse unless he or she re$arries. " $ere alle(ation of adulter% not substantiall%

proven can not validl% deprive petitioner of the support referred to under the la#, and

conse'uentl%, of her clai$ under the SSS &a#.

Thus, bein( the le(al #ife, Teresa asserts that she is presu$ed to be dependent upon Florante

for support. The bare alle(ation of stelita that she had an affair #ith another $an is insufficient

to deprive her of support fro$ her husband under the la# and, conversel%, of the death benefits

fro$ SSS. Moreover, Teresa points out that despite their separation and the ru$ors re(ardin(her infidelit%, Florante did not #ithdra# her desi(nation as pri$ar% beneficiar%. Bnder this

circu$stance, Teresa believes that Florante reall% intended for her to receive the benefits fro$

SSS.

Teresa also a(rees #ith the !"@s findin( that SSS unilaterall% added to the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt23


7/12

re'uire$ents of the la# the condition that a survivin( spouse $ust be actuall% dependent for

support upon the $e$ber spouse durin( the latter@s lifeti$e. She avers that this could not have

been the la#$a:ers@ intention as it #ould $a:e it difficult or even i$possible for beneficiaries to

clai$ for benefits under the SS &a#. She stresses that courts *or 'uasi3Audicial a(encies for that

$atter, $a% not, in the (uise of interpretation, enlar(e the scope of a statute and include

therein situations not provided nor intended b% la#$a:ers. !ourts are not authori=ed to insertinto the la# #hat the% thin: should be in it or to suppl% #hat the% thin: the le(islature #ould

have supplied if its attention had been called to the o$ission. ence, Teresa pra%s that the

assailed !" Decision and Resolution be affir$ed in toto.

O%r R%'(n)

?e find $erit in the petition.

The la# in force at the ti$e of Florante@s death #as R" ++7+. Section 5 *e and *: of said la#

provides)

Section 5. Terms Defined.For the purposes of this "ct, the follo#in( ter$s shall, unless the

conteEt indicates other#ise, have the follo#in( $eanin(s)

E E E E

*e DependentH The le(iti$ate, le(iti$ated or le(all% adopted child #ho is un$arried, not

(ainfull% e$plo%ed and not over t#ent%3one %ears of a(e, or over t#ent%3one %ears of a(e,

provided that he is con(enitall% incapacitated and incapable of self3support, ph%sicall% or

$entall% *h& '&)(*(+a*& $o%$& &&n&n* -or $%or* %on *h& &+'o&& and the

le(iti$ate parents #holl% dependent upon the covered e$plo%ee for re(ular support.

E E E E

*: BeneficiariesH The &&n&n* $o%$&until he re$arries and dependent children, #ho

shall be the pri$ar% beneficiaries. In their absence, the dependent parents and, subAect to the

restrictions i$posed on dependent children, the le(iti$ate descendants and ille(iti$ate children

#ho shall be the secondar% beneficiaries. In the absence of an% of the fore(oin(, an% other

person desi(nated b% the covered e$plo%ee as secondar% beneficiar%. *$phasis ours.

Fro$ the above3'uoted provisions, it is plain that for a spouse to 'ualif% as a pri$ar% beneficiar%

under para(raph *: thereof, he-she $ust not onl% be a le(iti$ate spouse but also a dependentas defined under para(raph *e, that is, one #ho is dependent upon the $e$ber for support.

Para(raphs *e and *: of Section 5 of R" ++7+ are ver% clear. Cence, #e need onl% appl% the

la#. Bnder the principles of statutor% construction, if a statute is clear, plain and free fro$

a$bi(uit%, it $ust be (iven its literal $eanin( and applied #ithout atte$pted interpretation. This

plain $eanin( rule or verba legis, derived fro$ the $aEi$index animo sermo est*speech is the

indeE of intention, rests on the valid presu$ption that the #ords e$plo%ed b% the le(islature in


8/12

a statute correctl% eEpress its intent b% the use of such #ords as are found in the statute. Verba

legis non est recedendum, or, fro$ the #ords of a statute there should be no departure.C/0

Thus, in Social Security System v. guas/2#e held that)

IJt bears stressin( that for her *the clai$ant to 'ualif% as a pri$ar% beneficiar%, she $ust provethat she #as Gthe le(iti$ate spouse dependent for support fro$ the e$plo%ee.@ The clai$ant3

spouse $ust therefore establish t#o 'ualif%in( factors) *+ that she is the le(iti$ate spouse, and

*/ that she is dependent upon the $e$ber for support. E E E

ere, there is no 'uestion that Teresa #as Florante@s le(al #ife. ?hat is at point, ho#ever, is

#hether Teresa is dependent upon Florante for support in order for her to fall under the ter$

Cdependent spouseC under Section 5*: of R" ++7+.

?hat the SS! relies on in concludin( that Teresa #as not dependent upon Florante for support

durin( their separation for +6 %ears #as its findin(s that Teresa $aintained an illicit relationship

#ith another $an. Teresa ho#ever counters that such illicit relationship has not been sufficientl%

established and, hence, as the le(al #ife, she is presu$ed to be continuall% dependent upon

Florante for support.

?e a(ree #ith Teresa that her alle(ed affair #ith another $an #as not sufficientl% established.

The Me$orandu$ of SSS Senior "nal%sts &i=a "(illes and 9ana Si$pas reveals that it #as

Florante #ho #as in fact livin( #ith a co$$on la# #ife, Susan Favila *Susan and their three

$inor children at the ti$e of his death. Susan even filed her o#n clai$ for death benefits #ith

the SSS but sa$e #as, ho#ever, denied. ?ith respect to Teresa, #e 'uote the pertinent

portions of said Me$orandu$, viz)

SBS"N SB>MITTD " &TTR SI4ND >K ST&IT" R"MOS, &DR SISTR OF T

D!"SD ST"TIN4 T"T MM>R ?"S SP"R"TD FROM TRS" "FTR +1 K"RS

OF &IVIN4 IN FOR T R"SONS T"T IS ?IF "D !O">ITD ?IT " M"RRID

M"N. "&SO, PR ST&IT", T ?IF RS&F "DMITTD T"T T M"N S&PT ?IT

R 0 TIMS " ?L.

TRS" SB>MITTD "N "FFID"VIT !BTD >K N"PO&ON "ND 9OSFIN",

>ROTR "ND SISTR *IN &"?, RSP!TIV&K, OF T D!"SD T"T TRS"

"S NVR R3M"RRID NOR !O">ITD ?IT "NOTR M"N.

>"SD ON T INTRVI? *D"TD ;-+5-;5 !ONDB!TD FROM T NI4>OROOD

OF TRS" "ND >4K. L"4"?"D IN TONDO, M"NI&", IT /AS ESTALISE# TAT

TERESA #I# NOT COAIT /IT ANOTER MAN A!TER TE SEPARATION ALTOUG

TERE ARE RUMORS TAT SE AN# A CERTAIN POLICE O!!ICER A# AN A!!AIR.

UT NOT3 ENOUG PROO! TO ESTALIS TEIR RELATIONSIP SINCE TEY #I#

NOT LI"E4IN AS USAN# AN# /I!E.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt25


9/12

>"SD ON T INTRVI? ?IT 9OSFIN" F"VI&", MM>R "ND TRS" ?R

SP"R"TD FOR " NBM>R OF K"RS "ND T"T SE A# NO NO/LE#GE I!

TERESA COAITE# /IT ANOTER MAN ALTOUG SE EAR# O! TE RUMORS

TAT SAI# /I!E A# AN A!!AIR /IT ANOTER MAN. N"PO&ON ?"S NOT

INTRVI?D. *$phasis ours

?hile SS! believes that the fore(oin( constitutes substantial evidence of Teresa@s a$orous

relationship, #e, ho#ever, find other#ise. It is not hard to see that stelita@s clai$ of Teresa@s

cohabitation #ith a $arried $an is a $ere alle(ation #ithout proof. &i:e#ise, the intervie#s

conducted b% SSS revealed ru$ors onl% that Teresa had an affair #ith a certain police officer.

Notabl%, not one fro$ those intervie#ed confir$ed that such an affair indeed eEisted. CThe basic

rule is that $ere alle(ation is not evidence and is not e'uivalent to proof. !har(es based on

$ere suspicion and speculation li:e#ise cannot be (iven credence.C/7CMere uncorroborated

hearsa% or ru$or does not constitute substantial evidence.C/6Re$ar:abl%, the Me$orandu$

itself stated that there is not enou(h proof to establish Teresa@s alle(ed relationship #ith another

$an since the% did not live as husband and #ife.

This not#ithstandin(, #e still find untenable Teresa@s assertion that bein( the le(al #ife, she is

presu$ed dependent upon Florante for support. In !e: pplication for Survivor"s Benefits of

#anlavi,/5this !ourt defined CdependentC as Cone #ho derives his or her $ain support fro$

another orJ rel%in( on, or subAect to, so$eone else for support not able to eEist or sustain

oneself, or to perfor$ an%thin( #ithout the #ill, po#er or aid of so$eone else.C "lthou(h therein,

the #ife@s $arria(e to the deceased husband #as not dissolved prior to the latter@s death, the

!ourt denied the #ife@s clai$ for survivorship benefits fro$ the 4overn$ent Service Insurance

S%ste$ *4SIS because the #ife abandoned her fa$il% to live #ith other $en for $ore than +6

%ears until her husband died. er #hereabouts #as un:no#n to her fa$il% and she never

atte$pted to co$$unicate #ith the$ or even chec: up on the #ell3bein( of her dau(hter #iththe deceased. Fro$ these, the !ourt concluded that the #ife durin( said period #as not

dependent on her husband for an% support, financial or other#ise, hence, she is not a

dependent #ithin the conte$plation of R" 5/;+/;as to be entitled to survivorship benefits. It is

#orth% to note that under Section /*f R" 5/;+, a le(iti$ate spouse dependent for support is

li:e#ise included in the enu$eration of dependents and under Section /*(, the le(al dependent

spouse in the enu$eration of pri$ar% beneficiaries.

Bnder this pre$ise, #e declared inguasthat Cthe obvious conclusion is that a #ife #ho is

alread% separated de factofro$ her husband cannot be said to be Gdependent for support@ upon

the husband, absent an% sho#in( to the contrar%. !onversel%, if it is proved that the husband

and #ife #ere still livin( to(ether at the ti$e of his death, it #ould be safe to presu$e that she#as dependent on the husband for support, unless it is sho#n that she is capable of providin(

for herself.C81ence, #e held therein that the #ife3clai$ant had the burden to prove that all the

statutor% re'uire$ents have been co$plied #ith, particularl% her dependenc% on her husband at

the ti$e of his death. "nd, #hile said #ife3clai$ant #as the le(iti$ate #ife of the deceased, #e

ruled that she is not 'ualified as a pri$ar% beneficiar% since she failed to present an% proof to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt30


10/12

sho# that at the ti$e of her husband@s death, she #as still dependent on hi$ for support even if

the% #ere alread% livin( separatel%.

In this case, aside fro$ Teresa@s bare alle(ation that she #as dependent upon her husband for

support and her $isplaced reliance on the presu$ption of dependenc% b% reason of her valid

and then subsistin( $arria(e #ith Florante, Teresa has not presented sufficient evidence todischar(e her burden of provin( that she #as dependent upon her husband for support at the

ti$e of his death. She could have done this b% sub$ittin( affidavits of reputable and

disinterested persons #ho have :no#led(e that durin( her separation #ith Florante, she does

not have a :no#n trade, business, profession or la#ful occupation fro$ #hich she derives

inco$e sufficient for her support and such other evidence tendin( to prove her clai$ of

dependenc%. ?hile #e note fro$ the above$entioned SSS Me$orandu$ that Teresa sub$itted

affidavits eEecuted b% Napoleon Favila and 9osefina Favila, sa$e onl% pertained to the fact that

she never re$arried nor cohabited #ith another $an. On the contrar%, #hat is clear is that she

and Florante had alread% been separated for about +6 %ears prior to the latter@s death as

Florante #as in fact, livin( #ith his co$$on la# #ife #hen he died. Suffice it to sa% that

C#Jhoever clai$s entitle$ent to the benefits provided b% la# should establish his or her ri(ht

thereto b% substantial evidence.C8+ence, for Teresa@s failure to sho# that despite their

separation she #as dependent upon Florante for support at the ti$e of his death, Teresa cannot

'ualif% as a pri$ar% beneficiar%.$%&p'i$ence, she is not entitled to the death benefits

accruin( on account of Florante@s death.

"s a final note, #e do not a(ree #ith the !"@s pronounce$ent that the investi(ations conducted

b% SSS violate a person@s ri(ht to privac%. SSS, as the pri$ar% institution in char(e of eEtendin(

social securit% protection to #or:ers and their beneficiaries is $andated b% Section 0*b*6 of

R" 5/5/8/to re'uire reports, co$pilations and anal%ses of statistical and econo$ic data and to

$a:e an investi(ation as $a% be needed for its proper ad$inistration and develop$ent.Precisel%, the investi(ations conducted b% SSS are appropriate in order to ensure that the

benefits provided under the SS &a# are received b% the ri(htful beneficiaries. It is not hard to

see that such $easure is necessar% for the s%ste$@s proper ad$inistration, other#ise, it #ill be

s#a$ped #ith bo(us clai$s that #ill pointlessl% deplete its funds. Such scenario #ill certainl%

frustrate the purpose of the la# #hich is to provide covered e$plo%ees and their fa$ilies

protection a(ainst the ha=ards of disabilit%, sic:ness, old a(e and death, #ith a vie# to

pro$otin( their #ell3bein( in the spirit of social Austice. Moreover and as correctl% pointed out b%

SS!, such investi(ations are li:e#ise necessar% to carr% out the $andate of Section +2 of the

SS &a# #hich provides in part, viz:

Sec. +2. (on)transferability of Benefits.H The SSS shall pa% the benefits provided for in this"ct to such [x x x persons as may !e entitled thereto in accordance "ith the pro#isions

of this ActE E E. *$phasis ours.

?RFOR, the Petition for Revie# on !ertiorari is 4R"NTD. The assailed Decision and

Resolution of the !ourt of "ppeals dated Ma% /0, /112 and October +6, /112 in !"34.R. SP

No. 5/678 are hereb% RVRSD and ST "SID. Respondent Teresa 4. Favila is declared to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#fnt32


11/12

be not a dependent spouse #ithin the conte$plation of Republic "ct No. ++7+ and is therefore

not entitled to death benefits accruin( fro$ the death of Florante Favila.

SO ORDRD.

MARIANO C. #EL CASTILLO"ssociate 9ustice

? !ON!BR)

RENATO C. CORONA

!hief 9ustice

!hairperson

PRESITERO 6. "ELASCO, 6R.

"ssociate 9ustice

TERESITA 6. LEONAR#O4#E CASTRO

"ssociate 9ustice

6OSE PORTUGAL PERE

"ssociate 9ustice

! R T I F I ! " T I O N

Pursuant to Section +8, "rticle VIII of the !onstitution, it is hereb% certified that the conclusions

in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case #as assi(ned to the

#riter of the opinion of the !ourt@s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

!hief 9ustice

!oo*no*&$

+Social Security System v. guas,4.R. No. +72207, Februar% /6, /117, 058 S!R"

858,011.

/

!" rollo, pp. ;83+17 penned b% "ssociate 9ustice Vicente


12/12

7Id. at /+3/8.

6Id. at /03/7.

5See SSS@s Dili$an Processin( !enter Routin( Slip dated "u(ust /1, /11/, id. at 20.

;Id. at 21.

+1Sections 5 *: and +8 thereof reads)

Section 5. $erms %efined. For the purposes of this "ct, the follo#in( ter$s

shall, unless the conteEt indicates other#ise, have the follo#in( $eanin(s)

E E E E

*: BeneficiariesH The dependent spouse until he re$arries and dependent

children, #ho shall be pri$ar% beneficiaries. In their absence, the dependentparents and, subAect to the restrictions i$posed on dependent children, the

le(iti$ate descendants and ille(iti$ate children #ho shall be the secondar%

beneficiaries. In the absence of an% of the fore(oin(, an% other person

desi(nated b% the covered e$plo%ee as secondar% beneficiar%.

Section +8. %eath &enefits. Bpon the covered e$plo%ee@s death, his pri$ar%

beneficiaries shall be entitled to the $onthl% pension and his dependents to the

dependents@ pension) Provided, That he has paid at least thirt%3siE $onthl%

contributions prior to the se$ester of death) Provided, further, That if the

fore(oin( condition is not satisfied his pri$ar% beneficiaries shall be entitled to a

lu$p su$ benefit e'uivalent to thirt%3five ti$es the $onthl% pension) Provided,

further, That if he has no pri$ar% beneficiaries, his secondar% beneficiaries shall

be entitled to a lu$p su$ benefit e'uivalent to t#ent% ti$es the $onthl% pension)

Provide
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_170195_2011.html#rnt10

Documents

Sss v. Favila