Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

10/12/2017 SSS vs Azote Case Digest - Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence

Laws and jurisprudence in digital ether.

Latest Posts Bar Law Cases Reviewers

Only the Legal Spouse Beneficiary  Bar2017

of a Deceased Member is Entitled  Bersamin


to the SSS Benefits (SSS vs Azeto, Cases

2015)  Bar2016

 Velasco
Cases

Latest Cases

SSS vs Azote
Case Digest GR 209741 April 15, 2015  2016 - 2015
→ Full Text ←
 2014 - 2013
Facts:

In 1994, Edgardo submitted his SSS Form E-4 with his wife Edna Search
and their children as beneficiaries.  When he died in 2005, Edna
tried to claim the death benefits as the wife of a deceased member
but it was denied.  It appears from the SSS records that Edgardo
had another set of SSS Form E-4 in 1982 where his  former wife
Rosemarie and their child were designated as beneficiaries.  Edna
did not know that Edgardo was previously married to another
woman.  She then filed for a petition before the SSS, and notice was Creative Commons
sent to Rosemarie but she made no answer.  The SSC dismissed
Edna’s petition because the SSS Form E-4 designating Rosemarie
and her child was not revoked by Edgardo, and that she was still
Licensed under Creative
presumed to be the legal wife as Edna could not proved that
Commons Attribution-
Edgardo’s previous marriage was annulled or divorced.
NonCommercial 4.0
International License.
Issue:  W/N Edna is entitled to the SSS benefits as the wife of a
deceased member Email Address
http://barexamphil.com/sss-vs-azote/ 1/3
10/12/2017 SSS vs Azote Case Digest - Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence

Held:
Subscribe
No.  The law in force at the time of Edgardo’s death was RA 8282.
 Applying Section 8(e) and (k) thereof, only the legal spouse of the
deceased-member is qualified to be the beneficiary of the latter’s
SS benefits. Here, there is a concrete proof that Edgardo contracted
an earlier marriage with another individual as evidenced by their
marriage contract.

Since the second marriage of Edgardo with Edna was celebrated


when the Family Code was already in force. Edna, pursuant to Art
41 of the Family Code, failed to establish that there was no
impediment or that the impediment was already removed at the time
of the celebration of her marriage to Edgardo.  Edna could not
adduce evidence to prove that the earlier marriage of Edgardo was
either annulled or dissolved or whether there was a declaration of
Rosemarie’s presumptive death before her marriage to Edgardo.
What is apparent is that Edna was the second wife of Edgardo.
Considering that Edna was not able to show that she was the legal
spouse of a deceased-member, she would not qualify under the law
to be the beneficiary of the death benefits of Edgardo.

Although the SSC is not intrinsically empowered to determine the


validity of marriages, it is required by Section 4(b) (7) of R.A. No.
828229 to examine available statistical and economic data to
ensure that the benefits fall into the rightful beneficiaries.  ##

→ Full Text ←

***

Share this:

   

Related

GR 209741 SSS vs 2012 Mercantile GR 21698700


Azote, Apr 15 2015 Law (Essay) Grace Poe vs
(Civil Law) 01/25/2016 COMELEC, Mar 8
03/23/2016 In "Bar Questions 2016 (Political)
In "Philippine and Answers" 03/27/2016
Jurisprudence" In "Philippine
Jurisprudence"

http://barexamphil.com/sss-vs-azote/ 2/3
10/12/2017 SSS vs Azote Case Digest - Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Comment

Name

Email

Website

Post Comment
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

← previous - next →

All rights reserved © The Bar: Laws and Jurisprudence in Digital Ether

http://barexamphil.com/sss-vs-azote/ 3/3