Having been separated only from bed and board, Mr.

Chris Brown and Mrs. Rihanna Brown remain to be married

in the eyes of law. Mrs. Brown retains her right to claim
benefits under Republic Act 8291 also known as the
Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997 (copy
attached for ease of reference) for she still is the
legal dependent spouse of Mr. Brown notwithstanding the
fact that they decided not to cohabit anymore.

RA 8291 clearly included her under “Dependents” and

“Primary Beneficiary”. Nothing in the said law
unequivocally mentions any other spouse as one of the
dependents or beneficiaries (primary or secondary) of the
government employee concerned. Therefore, Ms. Britney
Cruz may not qualify as a beneficiary. It is an
elementary rule in legal hermeneutics that what the law
does not include, it excludes. Thus, there can be no
inference of inclusion from the non-mention of any other
spouse in the enumeration.

The fact that Mrs. Brown had not been asking for
support from Mr. Brown since their separation de facto
did not incise their ties of marriage. Neither did it
make Mrs. Brown not the “legal spouse dependent upon
support” under RA 8291. Their separation did not make her
less than the “dependent spouse” contemplated by the law.

The law does not require one spouse to be paralyzed,

or bed-ridden, or bankrupt or submissive in order to
qualify as dependent of a GSIS member. As the admonition
made by the Supreme Court in Paras vs. Comelec goes:

We admonish against a too literal reading of the law

as this is opt to constrict rather than fulfill its
 purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. The
intention is usually found not in the letter that
killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth.

Assuming arguendo that Ms. Cruz would counter this

clear provision of RA 8291 by posing Mrs. Brown’s being
barred from claiming GSIS benefits (after consenting to
their separation, hiring a former GRO to take care of her
husband, and failure to seek financial support for a long
time), the same shall fail. On the contrary, when Mrs.
Brown hired Britney Cruz, she was not remiss of her duty
to render support (medical attendance) to her husband. It
was, in fact, a manifestation of compliance with her duty
as a wife only that it was through Ms. Cruz. Furthermore,
what difference does it make between hiring Ms. Cruz and
hiring a private nurse?

Nevertheless, Mr. Brown’s child with Britney Cruz,

for purposes of RA 8291, qualifies as a dependent who may
be benefited. Paragraph (b) provides:

Dependents- xxx
(b) Legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted child,
including illegitimate child who is unmarried, not
gainfully employed, not over the age of majority, or is
over the age of majority but incapacitated and incapable
of self support…