Case # 94 (assigned to Astrid) ARTICLE 105 – Conjugal Partnership of Gains (What is excluded) Berciles vs. GSIS PONENTE: Guerrero, J. FACTS:
Judge Pascual G. Berciles died on cardiac arrest on August 21, 1979, age 66. He had GSIS pension for serving in the government for 36 yrs, of which 26 yrs were in judiciary. He was also entitled to other benefits from his employer as well as return of the premium paid to GSIS. Such benefits are now being claimed by 2 families
Iluminada Ponce of Ilocos Sur and her four children: Ilona, Ellery, England and Ione filed an application for survivors benefit as the legal spouse and legitimate children of the late judge.
The other set of claimants are Flor Fuentebella and her 4 children: Pascual, Mar ia, Mercy and Rhoda filing their families claim through a letter dated November 10 , 1979 together with supporting documents.
The matter of these 2 conflicting claims was resolved as an Administrative Matter where the application of Iluminada Berciles was approved subject to: (1) proper determination of rightful beneficiary and their corresponding share, and (2) the usual clearance requirements. Based on this, the Court Administrator sent a memorandum to GSIS to hold retirement ret irement papers of the late judge until the payment of other benefits from employer are settled and that an investigator is going to be assigned to determine t he respective claims of the supposed heirs.
Atty. Reinato Quilala was assigned as the Court Investigator. On December 22, 1980, he sent a notice of hearing to all alleged parties set for January January 26, 1981. However, none of the parties appeared. Records of the retirement retirement section of the administrative office of the court showed that GSIS already approved the claim of Iluminada and her children on October 9, 1980 and that the check representing retirement gratuity of the deceased has been remitted to the Budget and Finance Office of the Court.
On February 4, 1981, Atty Cecilia Berciles, daughter in law of deceased, together with Iluminada, submitted to the Court Investigator additional documents to support their claim and the following rec ommendation: o
(1) that the death benefit of t he deceased be awarded to Iluminada, to whom the deceased had been living with up to the time of his death,
o
(2) That the claim of Flor be denied for 2 reasons: (a) she has not established her legitimate relationship with deceased, and (b) she was not living with dece ased at the time of his death as required by rules and regulations of PD 626 (the legitimate spouse living wi th the employee at the time o f the employee’s death).
Additional documents presented were: o
1975, 1976, 1979 income tax returns of the deceased where whe re he listed Iluminada as his wife
o
Xerox of the application for optional insurance filed with the GSIS on November 19. 1956 listing the beneficiaries as Iluminada and their 4 children.
Flor did not submit any evidence of their filiation to the late judge in spite of the telegram sent to them on February 5, 1981. The letter submitted by Rhoda Berciles on behalf of her mother Flor on Oct 19, 1979 had no leg to stand on. There was not marriage contract or certification from the Local Civil Registrar certifying that the deceased was actually married to the late judge. The documents are mere scrap of papers unworthy of credence since they did did not prove any family filiation.
ISSUE: 1) Whether or not Flor and her children are entitled to the GSIS retirement benefit of the late Judge Pascual Berciles.
HELD: 1) No, the Supreme Court ruled that Flor and her children are not entitled to the GSIS retirement benefit of the late judge. RATIONALE: Judgement is based on the following: 1) The birth certificate of Pascual Voltaire Berciles, alleged acknowledged natural child, is not signed by t he late judge. It is ruled that he “did not intervene” (i.e. there was no voluntary acknowledgement on his part) and the
mere putting of his name by the mother or doctor is null and void. 2) The birth certificates of Maria, Mercy and Rhoda were also had no intervention. Birth certificates, to evidence acknowledgement, must under Section 5 of Act 3753, bear the signature under oath of the acknowledging parents. 3) The sworn statement of Coronacion Berciles, sister in law of the late judge, that her and her husband lived with the judge and his wife Flor during the Japanese Occupation, was no proof that there was filiation of the children of Flor with the late judge. 4) The pictures of Flor, judge and the children do not prove family filiation. At most, the show the picture of a family without the sanction of marriage. 5) The letter of the late judge to Mercy, her daughter with Flor, indicating that it’s only her mother Flor and no other woman deserve scant consideration since the late judge could not be expected to admit there was another family. Moreso, the typewritten letter signed by the father is not an authentic writing. 6) The testimony of Flor is self-serving; the te stimony of Concepcion Gonzales of her presence during the mar riage of Flor and Pascual, is deficient because she is blind; and the affidavit of Judge Rafael Lavente being present in the wedding of Flor and Pascual was re pudiated. 7) Flor had been living abroad since 1972 and I luminada and the deceased have been living together at t he time of the death of the judge. GSIS disposition of the retirement benefit (based on Republic Act 910) of late Judge Pascual G. Berciles was erroneous. GSIS granted 77/134 to surviving spouse, 10/134 to 4 legitimate children, 5/134 to acknowledge natural child, and 4/134 to 3 illegitimate children. The court ruled that GSIS committed grave abuse of discretion for considering Pascual Voltaire Berciles as acknowledged nature c hild, and Maria, Mercy and Rhoda as illegitimate children without substantial evidence through competent and admissible proof of acknowledgement of filiation by the late judge. Iluminada and her children are the lawful heirs entitled to the distribution of benefits and will be distributed in accordance with the law on intestate and succession. Article 966 of the New Civil Code states that: “If a widow or
widower and legitimate children of descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in succession the same share as that of each of the children.” The court ruled to divide the GS IS pension equally to 5 heirs (Iluminada and her 4 children) and one half of the ret irement premium of P9,700 (being conjugal) to Iluminada with the remaining half divided into 5 (Iluminada and her 4 children).
