Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

SSS vs Teresita Jarque vda de Bailon In 1955 Clemente Bailon and Alice Diaz married in Barcelona, Sorsogon.

15+ years later, Clemente filed an action to declare the presumptive death of Alice she being an absentee. The petition was granted in 1970. In 1983, Clemente married Jarque. The two live together untile Clementes death in 1998. Jarque then sought to claim her husbands SSS benefits and the same were granted her. On the other hand, a certain Cecilia Baion-Yap who claimed that she is the daughter of Bailon to a certain Elisa Jayona petitioned before the SSS that they be given the reimbursement for the funeral spending for it was actually them who shouldered the burial expenses of Clemente. They further claim that Clemente contracted three marriages; one with Alice, another with Elisa and the other with Jarque. Cecilia also averred that Alice is alive and kicking and Alice subsequently emerged; Cecilia claimed that Clemente obtained the declaration of Alices presumptive death in bad faith for he was aware of the whereabouts of Alice or if not he could have easily located her in her parents place. She was i n Sorsogon all along in her parents place. She went there upon learning that Clemente had been having extra -marital affairs. SSS then ruled that Jarque should reimburse what had been granted her and to return the same to Cecilia since she shouldered the burial expenses and that the benefits should go to Alice because her reappearance had terminated Clementes marriage with Harque. Further, SSS ruled that the RTCs decision in declaring Alice to be presumptively death is erroneous. Teresita appealed the decision of the SSS before the Social Security Comission and the SSC affirmed SSS. The CA however ruled the contrary. ISSUE: Whether or not the mere appearance of the absent spouse declared presumptively dead automatically terminates the subsequent marriage. HELD: There is no previous marriage to restore for it is terminated upon Clementes death. Likewise there is no subsequent marriage to terminate for the same is terminated upon Clementes death. SSS is correct in ruling that it is inutile for Alice to pursue the recording of her reappearance before the local civil registrar through an affidavit or a court action. But it is not correct for the SSS to rule upon the declaration made by the RTC. The SSC or the SSS has no judicial power to review the decision of the RTC. SSS is indeed empowered to determine as to who should be the rightful beneficiary of the benefits obtained by a deceased member in case of disputes but such power does not include the appellate power to review a court decision or declaration. In the case at bar, the RTC ruling is binding and Jarques marriage to Clemente is still valid because no affidavit was filed by Alice to make known her reappearance legally. Alice reappeared only after Clementes death and in this case she can no longer file such an affidavit; in this case the bad faith [or good faith] of Clemente can no longer be raised the marriage herein is considered voidable and must be attacked directly not collaterally it is however impossible for a direct attack since there is no longer a marriage to be attacked for the same has been terminated upon Clementes death.

Dycaico v. Social Security SystemGR No. 16135730 November 2005 Facts: Bonifacio Dycaico was a member of the SSS, with his common-law wife Elena and their eight childrennamed in his data record as beneficiaries. In 1989, Bonifacio was considered retired and beganreceiving his monthly pension from the SSS. He married Elena on the same year that he passed away.Shortly after Bonifacios death, Elena filed with the SSS an application for survivors pension. However,the same was denied on the ground that under Section 12-B(d) of RA 8282 (Social Security Law), shecould not be considered Bonifacios primary beneficiary became they were not married at the time of his retirement.Elena brought her case to the Social Security Commission, which still denied her claim .ISSUE: Whether or not the proviso as of the date of his retirement in Section 12-B(d) of RA 8282violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution. HELD: YES. The classification violates the equal protection clause because: (1) it is not germane to thepurpose of the law. Classifying dependent spouses with respect to their entitlement based on whetherthe marriage was contracted before or after the retirement of the other spouse, regardless of theduration of the said marriage, bears no relation to the achievement of the police objective of the law,which is to provide meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries against the hazard of disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death, and other contingencies resulting in loss of income orfinancial burden. (2) it is not based on real and substantial distinctions. It is arbitrary anddiscriminatory. It unfairly lumps marriages contracted after the members retirement as shamrelationships or were contracted solely for the purpose of acquiring benefits accruing upon the deathof the other spouse. The proviso also violates the due process clause as it outrightly deprives the surviving spouses whoserespective marriages to the retired SSS members were contracted after the latters retirement of theirsurvivors benefits. There is outright confiscation of benefits due such surviving spouses without givingthem an opportunity to be heard. The proviso creates the presumption that marriages contracted afterthe members retirement date were entered into for the purpose of securing benefits under RA 8282. This presumption is conclusive because the said surviving spouses are not afforded any opportunity todisprove the presence of the illicit purpose, thereby also depriving them the opportunity to be heard

Вам также может понравиться