G.R.

No. 209741. April 15, 2015.*

 
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. EDNA A. AZOTE, respondent.

Labor Law; Social Security Law; Republic Act (RA) No. 8282,the amendatory law of R.A. No. 1161 or
the “Social Security Law” is a tax-exempt social security service designed to promote social justice and
provide meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries against the hazards of disability,
sickness, maternity, old age, death, and other contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial
burden.—The law in force at the time of Edgardo’s death was Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8282,  the
amendatory law of R.A. No. 1161 or the “Social Security Law.” It is a tax-exempt social security service
designed to promote social justice and provide meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries
against the hazards of disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death, and other contingencies resulting in
loss of income or financial burden.
Same; Same; As a social security program of the government, Section 8(e) and (k) of Republic Act (RA)
No. 8282 expressly provides who would be entitled to receive benefits from its deceased member.—As a
social security program of the government, Section 8(e) and (k) of the said law expressly provides who
would be entitled to receive benefits from its deceased member, to wit: SEC. 8.  Terms Defined.—For
purposes of this Act, the following terms shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following
meanings: x x x x (e) Dependents – The dependents shall be the following: (1) The lega l spouse entitled
by law to receive support from the member; (2) The legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted,

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

606

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

and illegitimate child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed, and has not reached twenty-one
(21) years of age, or if over twenty-one (21) years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been
permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally; and (3) The parent who
is receiving regular support from the member. x x x x (k) Beneficiaries – The dependent spouse until he
or she remarries, the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate children, who
shall be the primary beneficiaries of the member:  Provided, That the dependent illegitimate children
shall be entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the share of the legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted
children: Provided, further, That in the absence of the dependent legitimate, legitimated children of the
member, his/her dependent illegitimate children shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of the
benefits. In their absence, the dependent parents who shall be the secondary beneficiaries of the member.
In the absence of all the foregoing, any other person designated by the member as his/her secondary
beneficiary.
Same; Same; Applying Section 8(e) and (k) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8282, it is clear that only the
legal spouse of the deceased member is qualified to be the beneficiary of the latter’s Social Security
Commission (SSC) benefits.—Applying Section 8(e) and (k) of R.A. No. 8282, it is clear that only the legal
spouse of the deceased member is qualified to be the beneficiary of the latter’s SS benefits. In this case,
there is a concrete proof that Edgardo contracted an earlier marriage with another individual as
evidenced by their marriage contract. Edgardo even acknowledged his married status when he filled out
the 1982 Form E-4 designating Rosemarie as his spouse.
Same; Same; Burden of Proof; Settled is the rule that “whoever claims entitlement to the benefits
provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence.”—Using the parameters
outlined in Article 41 of the Family Code, Edna, without doubt, 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. Settled is the rule that “whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should
establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence.” 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.
Administrative Agencies; Social Security Commission; Although the Social Security Commission
(SSC) is not intrinsically

607

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 607

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

  empowered to determine the validity of marriages, it is required by Section 4(b)(7) of Republic Act
(RA) No. 8282 to examine available statistical and economic data to ensure that the benefits fall into the
rightful beneficiaries.—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. 8282 to examine available statistical and economic
data to ensure that the benefits fall into the rightful beneficiaries. As held in Social Security Commission
v. Favila, 646 SCRA 462 (2011): SSS, as the primary institution in charge of extending social security
protection to workers and their beneficiaries is mandated by Section 4(b)(7) of RA 8282 to require
reports, compilations and analyses of statistical and economic data and to make an investigation as may
be needed for its proper administration and development. Precisely, the investigations conducted by SSS
are appropriate in order to ensure that the benefits provided under the SS Law are received by the
rightful beneficiaries. It is not hard to see that such measure is necessary for the system’s proper
administration, otherwise, it will be swamped with bogus claims that will pointlessly deplete its funds.
Such scenario will certainly frustrate the purpose of the law which is to provide covered employees and
their families protection against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death, with a view to
promoting their well-being in the spirit of social justice. Moreover and as correctly pointed out by SSC,
such investigations are likewise necessary to carry out the mandate of Section 15 of the SS Law which
provides in part, viz.: Sec. 15. Non-transferability of Benefits.—The SSS shall pay the benefits provided
for in this Act  to such [x  x  x] persons a s ma y be entitled thereto in a ccorda nce with the
provisions of this Act x x x.

Leonen, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Labor Law; Social Security Law; View that there is nothing in Republic Act (RA) No. 8282 expressly
prohibiting the change of beneficiary.—I, thus, disagree with the  ponencia  in disallowing the claim of
Edna Azote (Edna) for death benefits on the ground that she failed to sufficiently establish the legality of
her marriage to deceased Social Security System member Edgardo Azote in consideration of his first
marriage to Rosemarie (the designated wife in the 1982 Form E-4). The latest Form E-4 (1994) submitted
by the deceased to the Social Security System prior to his death designated Edna as his wife-beneficiary.
In my view, the 1994 Form E-4 should supersede

608

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

the earlier one. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the 1994 Form E-4 designating Edna as
his wife manifested the deceased’s intention to revoke his formal declaration in the 1982 Form E-4. This
conclusion is consistent with Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 8282, which states that “records and
reports duly accomplished and submitted to the Social Security System by the employer or the member
.  .  . [are] presumed correct as to the data and other matters stated therein .  .  . [and will be] made the
basis for the adjudication of the claim”  unless corrected before the right to the benefit being claimed
accrued. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 8282 expressly prohibiting the change of beneficiary. On
the contrary, Section 24(c), by implication, acknowledges a member’s right to change beneficiaries. Social
security benefits are paid to members (or their beneficiaries) by reason of their membership in the
System for which they contribute their money to a general common fund. These benefits ripen as vested
rights of members and their declared so that they are assured minimum financial assistance whenever
the hazards of disability, sickness, old age, and death provided for in the law occur. As a property
interest of the member under compulsory coverage of Republic Act No. 8282, a member’s designation of a
beneficiary in his Form E-4 should not easily be set aside, absent any adverse claim, in the distribution of
the death benefits under the law.
Same; Same; View that Edna established her right to the benefits through substantial evidence. She
presented her marriage certificate and the baptismal certificates of her children.—Edna established her
right to the benefits through substantial evidence. She presented her marriage certificate and the
baptismal certificates of her children. Being public documents, these constitute prima facie proof of their
contents, and, therefore, her claim to death benefits as legal wife and dependent of Edgardo should have
been approved.
Same; Same; View that the question on the validity of Edna’s designation as wife-beneficiary or the
legality of her marriage to the deceased is not yet upon us. The alleged first wife has neither challenged the
same nor claimed death benefits, and thus, there appears to be no controversy yet.—The question on the
validity of Edna’s designation as wife-beneficiary or the legality of her marriage to the deceased is not yet
upon us. The alleged first wife has neither challenged the same nor claimed death benefits, and thus,
there appears to be no controversy yet. We are asked to disturb their domestic

609

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 609

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

peace. Certainly, this amounts to unreasonable state intrusion on the autonomy that we should
respect in intimate relationships. Their inherent rights to privacy must impose on us the deserved
judicial restraint from making a determination on this matter. Ruling on the validity of Edna’s marriage
to the deceased would be premature and anticipatory.
Civil Law; Family Law; Divorce; View that divorce between Filipinos has remained unrecognized even
under the Family Code of the Philippines.—Divorce is not alien in our jurisdiction. Our new Civil Code
has repealed the earlier provisions on divorce, which we used to have under Act No. 2710 on grounds of
conjugal infidelity of one spouse. Divorce between Filipinos has remained unrecognized even under the
Family Code of the Philippines. Instead of divorce, the present Family Code only provides for  legal
separation (Title II), and even this expressly prescribes that “the marriage bonds shall not be severed.”
Under our present laws, the extinguishment of a valid marriage must be grounded only upon the death
of either spouse or that which is expressly provided by law (for defective marital unions). In the
alternative, estranged couples undergo the expensive labyrinth of claiming “psychological incapacity”
under Article 36 of the Family Code to be awarded an order to declare their marriage a nullity ab initio.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Social Security Commission for petitioner.
  Josue G. Engaño for respondent.

 
MENDOZA, J.:
 
This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner
Social Security Commission

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 32-56.

 610

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

(SSC) assails the August 13, 2013 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), and its October
29, 2013 Resolution3 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 122933, allowing respondent Edna A. Azote (Edna)
to claim the death benefits of her late husband, Edgardo Azote (Edgardo).
 
The Antecedents
 
On June 19, 1992, respondent Edna and Edgardo, a member of the Social Security System
(SSS), were married in civil rites at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Legazpi City, Albay
(RTC). Their union produced six children4 born from 1985 to 1999. On April 27, 1994, Edgardo
submitted Form E-4 to the SSS with Edna and their three older children as designated
beneficiaries. Thereafter or on September 7, 2001, Edgardo submitted another Form E-4 to the
SSS designating his three younger children as additional beneficiaries.5
On January 13, 2005, Edgardo passed away. Shortly thereafter, Edna filed her claim for
death benefits with the SSS as the wife of a deceased-member. It appeared, however, from the
SSS records that Edgardo had earlier submitted another Form E-4 on November 5, 1982 with
a different set of beneficiaries, namely: Rosemarie Azote (Rosemarie), as his spouse; and Elmer
Azote (Elmer), as dependent, born on October 9, 1982. Consequently, Edna’s claim was denied.
Her children were adjudged as beneficiaries and she was considered as the

_______________

2  Id., at pp. 58-74. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Rebecca De
Guia-Salvador and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
3  Id., at pp. 75-76.
4  (1) Joanna Rea A. Azote (September 15, 1985); (2) Edgardo A. Azote, Jr. (May 20, 1987); (3) Edgar Allan A. Azote
(June 30, 1988); (4) Erwin John A. Azote (February 11, 1995); (5) Edgardo A. Azote, Jr. II (February 27, 1998); and (6)
Jhoaenne Edrailynee A. Azote (June 24, 1999). Id., at p. 12.
5  Id., at pp. 36-37.

611

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 611

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

legal guardian of her minor children. The benefits, however, would be stopped once a child
would attain the age of 21.6
On March 13, 2007, Edna filed a petition with the SSC to claim the death benefits, lump
sum and monthly pension of Edgardo.7  She insisted that she was the legitimate wife of
Edgardo. In its answer, the SSS averred that there was a conflicting information in the forms
submitted by the deceased. Summons was published in a newspaper of general circulation
directing Rosemarie to file her answer. Despite the publication, no answer was filed and
Rosemarie was subsequently declared in default.8
In the Resolution,9 dated December 8, 2010, the SSC dismissed Edna’s petition for lack of
merit. Citing Section 24(c) of the SS Law, it explained that although Edgardo filed the Form
E-4 designating Edna and their six children as beneficiaries, he did not revoke the designation
of Rosemarie as his wife-beneficiary, and Rosemarie was still presumed to be his legal wife.
The SSC further wrote that the National Statistics Office (NSO) records revealed that the
marriage of Edgardo to one Rosemarie Teodora Sino was registered on July 28, 1982.
Consequently, 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.10
In an order,11  dated June 8, 2011, the SSC denied Edna’s motion for reconsideration. It
explained that it was incumbent upon Edna to prove that her marriage to the deceased was

_______________

6   Id., at pp. 78-79.

7   Id., at p. 60.
8   Id., at p. 79.
9   Id., at pp. 78-81.
10  Id., at p. 81.
11  Id., at pp. 82-84.

612

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

 
 
valid, which she failed to do. It further opined that Rosemarie could not be merely
presumed dead, and that death benefits under the SSS could not be considered properties
which may be disposed of in a holographic will.12
In the assailed August 13, 2013 Decision, the CA reversed and set aside the resolution and
the order of the SSC. It held that the SSC could not make a determination of the validity or
invalidity of the marriage of Edna to Edgardo considering that no contest came from either
Rosemarie or Elmer.13
The CA explained that Edna had established her right to the benefits by substantial
evidence, namely, her marriage certificate and the baptismal certificates of her children.14 It
ruled that Edgardo made a deliberate change of his wife-beneficiary in his 1994 E-4 form, as
such was clearly his voluntary act manifesting his intention to revoke his former declaration
in the 1982 E-4 form.15  The 1994 E-4 form submitted by Edgardo, designating Edna as his
wife, superseded his former declaration in his 1982 E-4 form.16
It further opined that the  Davac  case cited by the SSC was not applicable because there
were two conflicting claimants in that case, both claiming to be wives of the deceased, while in
this case, Edna was the sole claimant for the death benefits, and that her designation as wife-
beneficiary remained valid and unchallenged. It was of the view that Rosemarie’s
nonappearance despite notice could be deemed a waiver to claim death benefits from the SSS,
thereby losing whatever standing she might have had to dispute Edna’s claim.17

_______________

12  Id., at p. 83.
13  Id., at p. 64.
14  Id., at p. 65.
15  Id., at p. 70.
16  Id.
17  Id., at p. 72.

613

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 613

 Social Security Commission vs. Azote

In the assailed October 29, 2013 Resolution,18  the CA denied the SSC’s motion for
reconsideration.19
Hence, the present petition.
Grounds
 
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
COMMISSION IS BEREFT OF AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OR
INVALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND MEMBER
EDGARDO AZOTE.
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION
OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND FINDING HER ENTITLED TO THE SS BENEFITS.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS  GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
DESIGNATION OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS WIFE-BENEFICIARY IS VALID.20

 
The SSC argues that the findings of fact of the CA were not supported by the records. It
submits that under Section 5 of the SS Law, it is called upon to determine the rightful
beneficiary in the performance of its quasi-judicial function of adjudicating SS benefits. In fact,
it cited a number of cases,21 where the SSC had passed upon the validity of marriages for the
purpose of determining who were entitled to SS benefits.22

_______________

18  Id., at pp. 75-76.

19  Id., at pp. 85-89.
20  Id., at p. 39.
21  SSS v. De Los Santos, 585 Phil. 684; 563 SCRA 693 (2008); and Signey v. SSS, 566 Phil. 617; 542 SCRA 629
(2008).
22  Rollo, pp. 40-42.

614

614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

The SSC contends that Edna was not the legitimate spouse of deceased member Edgardo as
the CA failed to consider the NSO certification showing that Edgardo was previously married
to Rosemarie. With the death certificate of Rosemarie showing that she died only on November
6, 2004, it proved that she was alive at the time Edna and Edgardo were married, and,
therefore, there existed a legal impediment to his second marriage, rendering it void. Edna is,
therefore, not a legitimate spouse who is entitled to the death benefits of Edgardo.23
The SSC claims that the right to designate a beneficiary is subject to the SS Law. The
designation of a wife-beneficiary merely creates a disputable presumption that they are legally
married and may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary. Edna’s designation became
invalid with the determination of the subsistence of a previous marriage. The SSC posits that
even though Edgardo revoked and superseded his earlier designation of Rosemarie as
beneficiary, his designation of Edna was still not valid considering that only a legitimate
spouse could qualify as a primary beneficiary.24
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The petition is meritorious.
 The law in force at the time of Edgardo’s death was Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8282,25  the
amendatory law of R.A. No. 1161 or the “Social Security Law.” It is a tax-exempt social
security service designed to promote social justice and provide meaningful protection to
members and their beneficiaries against the hazards of disability, sickness, maternity, old age,
death, and other contingencies resulting in loss of income or finan-

_______________

23  Id., at pp. 48-49.

24  Id., at pp. 50-51.
25  An Act Further Strengthening the Social Security System Thereby Amending for this Purpose, Republic Act No.
1161, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Social Security Law.

615

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 615

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

cial burden.26  As a social security program of the government, Section 8(e) and (k) of the
said law expressly provides who would be entitled to receive benefits from its deceased
member, to wit:
SEC. 8. Terms Defined.—For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall, unless the context
indicates otherwise, have the following meanings:
x x x x
(e) Dependents – The dependents shall be the following:
(1) The lega l spouse entitled by law to receive support from the member;
(2) The legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate child who is unmarried, not
gainfully employed, and has not reached twenty-one (21) years of age, or if over twenty-one (21) years of
age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-
support, physically or mentally; and
(3) The parent who is receiving regular support from the member.
x x x x
  (k) Beneficiaries – The dependent spouse until he or she remarries, the dependent legitimate,
legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate children, who shall be the primary beneficiaries of the
member: Provided, That the dependent illegitimate children shall be entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the
share of the legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted children: Provided, further, That in the absence of
the dependent legitimate, legitimated children of the member, his/her dependent illegitimate children
shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of the benefits. In their absence, the dependent parents
who shall be the secondary beneficiaries of

_______________

26  Section 2, R.A. No. 8282.

616

616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

the member. In the absence of all the foregoing, any other person designated by the member as
his/her secondary beneficiary. (Emphasis supplied)

 
 Applying Section 8(e) and (k) of R.A. No. 8282, it is clear that only the legal spouse of the
deceased member is qualified to be the beneficiary of the latter’s SS benefits. In this case,
there is a concrete proof that Edgardo contracted an earlier marriage with another individual
as evidenced by their marriage contract. Edgardo even acknowledged his married status when
he filled out the 1982 Form E-4 designating Rosemarie as his spouse.27
It is undisputed that the second marriage of Edgardo with Edna was celebrated at the time
when the Family Code was already in force. Article 41 of the Family Code expressly states:
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null
and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for
four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already
dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger under the circumstances set forth in the provisions
of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
  For the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse
present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive
death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)

 
Using the parameters outlined in Article 41 of the Family Code, Edna, without doubt, failed
to establish that there was

_______________

27  Rollo, p. 67.

617

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 617

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

no impediment or that the impediment was already removed at the time of the celebration
of her marriage to Edgardo. Settled is the rule that “whoever claims entitlement to the
benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial
evidence.”28 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.
The Court does not subscribe to the disquisition of the CA that the updated Form E-4 of
Edgardo was determinative of Edna’s status and eligibility to claim the death benefits of
deceased member. Although an SSS member is free to designate a beneficiary, the designation
must always conform to the statute. To blindly rely on the form submitted by the deceased
member would subject the entire social security system to the whims and caprices of its
members and would render the SS Law inutile.
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 eco-

_______________

28  Signey v. Social Security System, supra note 21 at p. 627; p. 659.

29  SEC. 4. Powers and Duties of the Commission and SSS.—(a) The Commission.—For the attainment of its
main objectives as set forth in Section 2 hereof, the Commission shall have the following powers and duties:
x x x
 (b) The Social Security System.—Subject to the provision of Section four (4), paragraph seven (7) hereof, the SSS
shall have the following powers and duties:
x x x

618

618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

nomic data to ensure that the benefits fall into the rightful beneficiaries. As held in Social
Security Commission vs. Favila:30
SSS, as the primary institution in charge of extending social security protection to workers and their
beneficiaries is mandated by Section 4(b)(7) of RA 8282 to require reports, compilations and analyses of
statistical and economic data and to make an investigation as may be needed for its proper
administration and development. Precisely, the investigations conducted by SSS are appropriate in order
to ensure that the benefits provided under the SS Law are received by the rightful beneficiaries. It is not
hard to see that such measure is necessary for the system’s proper administration, otherwise, it will be
swamped with bogus claims that will pointlessly deplete its funds. Such scenario will certainly frustrate
the purpose of the law which is to provide covered employees and their families protection against the
hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death, with a view to promoting their well-being in the spirit
of social justice. Moreover and as correctly pointed out by SSC, such investigations are likewise
necessary to carry out the mandate of Section 15 of the SS Law which provides in part, viz.:
Sec. 15. Non-transferability of Benefits.—The SSS shall pay the benefits provided for in this Act  to
such [x  x  x] persons a s ma y be entitled thereto in a ccorda nce with the provisions of this
Act x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

 
The existence of two Form E-4s designating, on two different dates, two different women as
his spouse is already an indication that only one of them can be the legal spouse. As

_______________

(7) To require reports, compilations and analyses of statistical and economic data and to make investigation as
may be needed for the proper administration and development of the SSS.
30  G.R. No. 170195, March 28, 2011, 646 SCRA 462, 480.

619

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 619

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

can be gleaned from the certification issued by the NSO,31 there is no doubt that Edgardo
married Rosemarie in 1982. Edna cannot be considered as the legal spouse of Edgardo as their
marriage took place during the existence of a previously contracted marriage. For said reason,
the denial of Edna’s claim by the SSC was correct. It should be emphasized that the SSC
determined Edna’s eligibility on the basis of available statistical data and documents on their
database as expressly permitted by Section 4(b)(7) of R.A. No. 8282.
It is of no moment that the first wife, Rosemarie, did not participate or oppose Edna’s claim.
Rosemarie’s nonparti cipation or her subsequent death on November 11, 200432did not cure or
legitimize the status of Edna.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The August 13, 2013 Decision and the October
29, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 122933
are  REVERSED  and  SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the petition for entitlement of SS death
benefits filed by respondent Edna Azote is DENIED for lack of merit.
 SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo and Perez,** JJ., concur.

Leonen, J., See Separate Dissenting Opinion.

_______________

31  Rollo, p. 101.
32  Id., at p. 98.
* * Designated additional member, in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 1977 dated
April 15, 2015.

620

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

DISSENTING OPINION
 
LEONEN, J.:
 
We are asked in this case to sustain the action of the Social Security Commission as it
makes conjectures and then proceeds to adjudicate on the marital status of a claimant. There
is no conflicting claim made against respondent Edna Azote’s claim. We are asked to sustain
an action by the Social Security Commission against an individual much in need of financial
succor who is asking the State to honor the declaration of a beneficiary of one who has since
deceased.
I, thus, disagree with the ponencia in disallowing the claim of Edna Azote (Edna) for death
benefits on the ground that she failed to sufficiently establish the legality of her marriage to
deceased Social Security System member Edgardo Azote in consideration of his first marriage
to Rosemarie (the designated wife in the 1982 Form E-4).
The latest Form E-4 (1994) submitted by the deceased to the Social Security System prior to
his death designated Edna as his wife-beneficiary. In my view, the 1994 Form E-4 should
supersede the earlier one. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the 1994 Form E-4
designating Edna as his wife manifested the deceased’s intention to revoke his formal
declaration in the 1982 Form E-4.
This conclusion is consistent with Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 8282,1 which states that
“records and reports duly accomplished and submitted to the Social Security System by the
employer or the member .  .  . [are] presumed correct as to the data and other matters stated
therein . . . [and will be]

_______________

1  Rep. Act No. 8282 (1997), An Act Further Strengthening the Social Security System Thereby Amending for this
Purpose Republic Act No. 1161, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Social Security Law.

621

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 621

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

made the basis for the adjudication of the claim”2  unless corrected before the right to the
benefit being claimed accrued.3  There is nothing in Republic Act No. 8282 expressly
prohibiting the change of beneficiary. On the contrary, Section 24(c), by implication,
acknowledges a member’s right to change beneficiaries.
Social security benefits are paid to members (or their beneficiaries) by reason of their
membership in the System for which they contribute their money to a general common
fund.4  These benefits ripen as vested rights of members and their declared so that they are
assured minimum financial assistance whenever the hazards of disability, sickness, old age,
and death provided for in the law occur.5As a property interest of the member under
compulsory coverage of Republic Act No. 8282,6 a member’s designation of a beneficiary in his
Form E-4 should not easily be set aside, absent any adverse claim, in the distribution of the
death benefits under the law.
In Tecson v. SSS,7 this court allowed Tecson — a friend and co worker of the deceased — to
claim the death benefits giving regard to the deceased’s express desire to extend the benefits of
his contributions to his friend and coworker, to the exclusion of his wife:

_______________

2  Rep. Act No. 8282 (1997), Sec. 24(c).

3  Id.
4  Valencia v. Manila Yacht Club, 138 Phil. 761; 28 SCRA 724 (1969) [Per J. Reyes, J.B.L., En Banc], citing Rural
Transit Employees Association v. Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc.,  129 Phil. 503; 21 SCRA 1263 [Per  J.  Reyes,
J.B.L., En Banc].
5  Benguet Consolidate, Inc. v. SSS, 119 Phil. 890; 10 SCRA 618 (1964) [Per J. Batera, En Banc].
6    Dycaico v. Social Security System,  513 Phil. 23; 476 SCRA 538 (2005) [Per  J.  Callejo, Sr.,  En Banc]. See
also GSIS v. Montesclaros, 478 Phil. 573; 434 SCRA 441 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
7  113 Phil. 703; 3 SCRA 735 (1961) [Per J. Labrador, En Banc].

622

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

It should be remembered that the benefits or compensation allowed an employee or his beneficiary
under the provisions of the Social Security Act are paid out of funds which are contributed in part by the
employees and in part by the employers’ (commercial or industrial companies members of the System). . .
. As these funds are obtained from the employees and the employers, without the Government having
contributed any portion thereof, it would be unjust for the System to refuse to pay the benefits to those
whom the employee has designated as his beneficiaries. The contribution of the employee is his money;
the contribution of the employer is for the benefit of the employee. Hence the beneficiary should
primarily be the one to profit by such contributions. This is what is expressly provided in above quoted
Section 13 of the law.
It should also be noted that the Social Security System is not a law of succession. Its purpose is to
provide social security, which means funds for the beneficiary, if the employee dies, or for the employee
himself and his dependents if he is unable to perform his task because of illness or disability, or is laid off
by reason of the termination of the employment, or because of temporary layoff due to strike,  etc. It
should also be remembered that the beneficiaries of the System are those who are dependent upon the
employee for support. . . .
. . . .
.  .  . It was subsequently known that Lim Hoc had a wife and children in Communist China; the
omission by him of their existence and names in the records of the employer must have been due to the
fact that they were not at the time, at least, dependent upon him. If they were actually dependents, their
names would have appeared in the record of the employer. The absence in the record of his employee of
their existence and names must have been due to the lack of communication, of which We can take
judicial notice, between Communist China and the Philippines, or to the express desire of Lim Hoc to
extend the benefits of his contributions to the System to his “friend and coworker,” to the exclusion of his
wife[.]

623
 VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 623
Social Security Commission vs. Azote

Edna established her right to the benefits through substantial evidence. She presented her
marriage certificate and the baptismal certificates of her children. Being public documents,
these constitute prima facie proof of their contents, and, therefore, her claim to death benefits
as legal wife and dependent of Edgardo should have been approved.8
SSS v. Vda. de Bailon9  cites Arturo M. Tolentino, a recognized authority in civil law, as
having commented:
Where a person has entered into two successive marriages, a presumption arises in favor of the
validity of the second marriage, and the burden is on the party attacking the validity of the second
marriage to prove that the first marriage had not been dissolved; it is not enough to prove the first
marriage, for it must also be shown that it had not ended when the second marriage was contracted. The
presumption in favor  of the innocence of the defendant from crime or wrong and  of the legality of his
second marriage, will prevail over the presumption of the continuance of life of the first spouse or of the
continuance of the marital relation with such first spouse.10 (Emphasis supplied)

_______________

8   In Suarnaba v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 175 Phil. 8; 85 SCRA 502 (1978) [Per J. Santos, Second
Division], this court held that the parish certificate attesting to the marriage of petitioner and the deceased, other
parol evidence, and the presumption that “a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage” clearly show that the petitioner is the legal wife of the deceased employee
and, therefore, her claim to compensation benefits as legal wife and dependent of the deceased should have been
approved, especially where no other person claimed to be the wife of the deceased employee.
9   529 Phil. 249; 485 SCRA 376 (2006) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].
10    Id., at pp. 262-263; p. 390,  citing  Tolentino, A.,  Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the
Philippines, Vol. I, p. 282 (1999 ed.).

624

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

There was yet no attack on the validity of the deceased’s marriage to Edna. No adjudicatory
process was pending. Certainly the Social Security Commission was not invoked as the forum
to test the validity of her marriage. The validity of that marriage passed unchallenged. No
right was asserted by the proper real party-in-interest under the superceded forms submitted
by the claimant. The Social Security System  motu proprio  conducted its investigation based
solely on the conflicting information in the 1982 and 1994 forms submitted by the deceased. It
made pronouncements without any complaint and without affording all the parties the usual
due process rights accorded to them. It made a judgment as to the marital status of the
claimant when it did not have jurisdiction to do so. This action is null and void many times
over.
In these circumstances, the presumption in favor of the validity of the second marriage
must prevail, and sound reason requires that it be not lightly impugned and discredited by the
alleged prior marriage stated in the 1982 Form E-4.
The Social Security Commission cited SSS v. De Los Santos11 and Signey v. SSS 12 to justify
its position that it can pass upon the validity of marriages to determine who are entitled to
social security benefits. However, in those cases, there were two conflicting claimants both
claiming to be wives of the deceased, although in Signey, the first wife subsequently executed
a waiver of the benefits being claimed. The Commission necessarily had to rule on the validity
of marriages in order to determine who had a better right to the death benefits.
There is only one claimant in this case. No one contests her claim.
 The question on the validity of Edna’s designation as wife-beneficiary or the legality of her
marriage to the deceased is

_______________

11  585 Phil. 684; 563 SCRA 693 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, R. T., Third Division].
12  566 Phil. 617; 542 SCRA 629 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

625

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 625

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

not yet upon us. The alleged first wife has neither challenged the same nor claimed death
benefits, and thus, there appears to be no controversy yet. We are asked to disturb their
domestic peace. Certainly, this amounts to unreasonable state intrusion on the autonomy that
we should respect in intimate relationships. Their inherent rights to privacy must impose on
us the deserved judicial restraint from making a determination on this matter. Ruling on the
validity of Edna’s marriage to the deceased would be premature and anticipatory.
These cases are problematic because of the absence of a divorce law.
Divorce is not alien in our jurisdiction. Our new Civil Code has repealed the earlier
provisions on divorce, which we used to have under Act No. 2710 on grounds of conjugal
infidelity of one spouse.13  Divorce between Filipinos has remained unrecognized even under
the Family Code of the Philippines.14

_______________

13  Act No. 2710 (1917), An Act to Establish Divorce.

Sec. 1. A petition for divorce can only be filed for adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the
husband, committed in any of the forms described in Article four hundred and thirty-seven of the Penal Code.
. . . .
Sec. 11. The dissolution of the bonds of matrimony shall have the following effects:
First. The spouses shall be free to marry again.
Second. The minor children shall remain in the custody of the innocent spouse unless otherwise directed by the
court in the interest of said minors, for whom said court may appoint a guardian.
Third. The children shall, with regard to their parents, retain all rights granted to them by law as legitimate
children; but upon the partition of the estate of said parents they shall bring to collation everything received by them
under the provisions of the second paragraph of Section nine.
14  Exec. Order No. 209 (1987), The Family Code of the Philippines.

626

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

Instead of divorce, the present Family Code only provides for  legal separation  (Title
II),15  and even this expressly prescribes that “the marriage bonds shall not be
severed.”16 Under our present laws, the extinguishment of a valid marriage must be grounded
only upon the death of either spouse or that which is expressly provided by law (for defective
marital unions).17  In the alternative, estranged couples undergo the expensive labyrinth of
claiming “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of the Family Code to be awarded an
order to declare their marriage a nullity ab initio.
There are many second marriages like that of Edgardo and Edna, which was celebrated in
Legazpi City and accepted by all parties concerned. They have lived together as husband and
wife without issue for 13 long years until the husband’s death in 2005. By all indications, they
have established a strong family foundation. This case shows that without divorce, our laws
remain insensitive to a multitude of intimate relations. As people with autonomous and
private choices that do no harm to society, they are wholly and immoderately disregarded.
This case, like many others, should be basis for Congress to seriously consider the respect due
to voluntary adult choices of our people. A divorce law is no longer a luxury; it has become a
just and inevitable necessity.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DENY  the Petition. The Decision dated August 13, 2013 and
Resolution dated October 29, 2013 of the Court of Appeals should be AFFIRMED.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

_______________

15  Exec. Order No. 209 (1987), Title II.

16  Exec. Order No. 209 (1987), Title II, Art. 63(1).
17  Exec. Order No. 209 (1987), Title I, Chapter 3. Void and Voidable Marriages.

627

VOL. 755, APRIL 15, 2015 627

Social Security Commission vs. Azote

Notes.—The fact that a worker was not reported as an employee to the Social Security
System (SSS) is not conclusive proof of the absence of employer-employee relationship; Nor
does the fact that respondent’s name does not appear in the payrolls and pay envelope records
submitted by petitioners negate the existence of employer-employee relationship. (South East
International Rattan, Inc. vs. Coming, 718 SCRA 658 [2014])
The observation that the matter of Social Security System (SSS) contributions necessarily
flowed from the employer-employee relationship between the parties — shared by the lower
courts and the Court of Appeals (CA) — is correct; thus, petitioners’ claims should have been
referred to the labor tribunals. (Amecos Innovations, Inc. vs. Lopez, 728 SCRA 577 [2014])
——o0o——