SSS v.

AZOTE (2015)

A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be
null and void. In claiming benefits, the settled rule from Signey v. SSS is that "whoever
claims entitlement benefits provided by law should establish his or her right by substantial
evidence."

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS: In 1992, Edna and Edgardo were married. Two years
thereafter, Edgardo submitted Form E-4 to the Social Security System (SSS) with Edna and
their children as designated beneficiaries. When Edgardo passed away, Edna filed her claim
for death benefits with the SSS as the wife of a deceased-member. However, Edna’s claim
was denied because it appeared from the SSS records that Edgardo had earlier submitted
another Form E-4 in 1982 with a different set of beneficiaries, namely: Rosemarie Azote, as
his spouse; and Elmer Azote, as dependent.

Edna filed a petition with the SSC to claim the death benefits, lump sum and monthly
pension of Edgardo, insisting that she was the legitimate wife of Edgardo. SSC dismissed
Edna’s petition for lack of merit. The SSC further wrote that the National Statistics Office
records revealed that the marriage of Edgardo to one Rosemarie Sino was registered in
1982. It opined that Edgardo’s marriage to Edna was not valid as there was no showing
that his first marriage had been annulled or dissolved. The SSC stated that there must be a
judicial determination of nullity of a previous marriage before a party could enter into a
second marriage.

V. ISSUE: Whether or not Edna is entitled to the SSS benefit of Edgardo

VI. RULING: No. Edna cannot be considered the legal spouse of Edgardo as their marriage
took place during the existence of a previously contracted marriage. The law in force at the
time of Edgardo's death was RA 8282. Sec 8 (e) and (k) expressly provide that it is the legal
spouse who would be entitled to receive benefits from an SSS deceased-member. In this
case, there is concrete proof of Edgardo's earlier contracted marriage with Rosemarie,
making her the first and legal wife.

At the time of the celebration of the marriage of Edgardo and Edna, the Family Code was
already in force. Article 41 states "a marriage contracted by any person during the
subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void..." In claiming benefits, the settled
rule from Signey v. SSS is that "whoever claims entitlement benefits provided by law should
establish his or her right by substantial evidence". In the case, Edna failed to establish that
there was no impediment at the time of the celebration of their marriage.