SSS v Aguas Petitioners SOCIAL Petitioners SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM Respondents ROSANNA Respondents ROSANNA H. AGUAS, JANET H. AGUAS, and minor JEYLNN H. AGUAS, reresen!ed "# $er Lega% Guardian, ROSANNA H. AGUAS Short facts (recit ready) & held: Pablo Aguas, a member and p ensioner of the SSS died. Pablo’s suriing spouse, Rosanna !. Aguas, filed a claim "ith the SSS for death benefits on indicating in her claim that Pablo "as suried by his minor child, #eylnn. !er claim for monthly pension "as settled. SSS receied a s"orn from $eticia Aguas%acapinlac, Pablo’s sister, contesting Rosanna’s claim for death benefits. She alleged that Rosanna abandoned the family abode appro'imately more than years before, and lied "ith another man on "hom she has been dependent for support. She further aerred that Pablo had no legal children "ith Rosanna. he SS* ruled that Rosanna "as no longer +ualified as primary beneficiary. beneficiary. *A reersed the SS* deicision and faored the respondents. ssue: -/ Rosanna, #eylnn and #anet are entitled to the SSS death benefits accruing from the death of Pablo !eld: Petition is PARA$$0 1RA/23. t bears stressing that under Article 45 of the 6amily *ode, children conceied or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. #eylnn’s claim is 7ustified by the photoc photocopy opy of her birth certi certific ficate ate "hich "hich bears bears the signat signature ure of Pablo. Pablo. Petiti Petitione onerr "as "as able able to authenticate the certification from the *iil Registry sho"ing that she "as born on ctober 89, 4994. he records also sho" that Rosanna and Pablo "ere married on 3ecember 5, 49 and the marriage subsisted until the latter’s death on 3ecember ;, 499. t is therefore eident that #eylnn "as born during Rosanna and Pablo’s marriage. mpugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband or, in e'ceptional cases, his heirs. n this case, there is no sho"ing that Pablo challenged the legitimacy of #eylnn during his lifetime. he presumption that #eylnn is a legitimate child is buttressed by her birth certificate bearing Pablo’s signature, "hich "as erified from his specimen signature on file "ith petitioner. petitioner. A birth birth certificate signed by the father is a competent eidence of paternity. 6or Rosanna, to +ualify as a primary beneficiary, she must establish 8 +ualifying factors: (4) that she is the legitimate spouse, and (8) that she is dependent upon the member for support. A "ife "ho is already separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be
•
•
Pablo Aguas, a member of the Social Security System (SSS) and a pensioner, died. Pablo’s suriing spouse, Rosanna !. Aguas, filed a claim "ith the SSS for death b enefits. Rosanna indicated in her claim that Pablo "as li=e"ise suried by his minor child, #eylnn SSS receied a s"orn letter from $eticia Aguas%acapinlac, Aguas%acapinlac, Pablo’s sister, contesting Rosanna’s claim for death benefits. She alleged that Rosanna abandoned the family family abode appro'imat appro'imately ely more than si' years before, and lied "ith another man on "hom she has been dependent for support. She further aerred that Pablo had no legal children "ith Rosanna, but that the latter had seeral children "ith a certain Romeo dela Pe>a.
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
• •
n support of her allegation, $eticia enclosed a notari?ed copy of the original birth certificate of one #efren !. dela Pe>a, sho"ing that the latter "as born to Rosanna 0. !ernande? and Romeo *. dela Pe>a, and that the t"o "ere married. As a result, the SSS suspended the payment of Rosanna and #eylnn’s monthly pension n the basis of the report and an alleged confirmation by a certain 3r. anuel acapinlac that Pablo "as infertile, the SSS denied Rosanna’s re+uest to resume the payment of their pensions. his prompted Rosanna and #eylnn to file a claim@petition for the Restoration@Payment of Pensions "ith the Social Security *ommission #anet !. Aguas, "ho also claimed to be the child of the deceased and Rosanna, no" 7oined them as claimant. he claimants appended to their petition, among others, photocopies of the follo"ing: (4) Pablo and Rosanna’s marriage certificate (8) #anet’s certificate of lie birth (B) #eylnn’s certificate of lie birth and (5) Pablo’s certificate of death. he claimants aerred that #eylnn "as a legitimate child of Pablo as eidenced by her birth certificate bearing Pablo’s signature as #eylnn’s father. hey asserted that Rosanna neer left Pablo and that they lied together as husband and "ife under one roof. n support thereof, they attached a #oint Affidait e'ecuted by their neighbors, Ciencia urla and *armelita 0angu, "here they declared that Rosanna and Pablo lied together as husband and "ife until the latter’s death. n #anet’s birth certificate, "hich "as registered in the *iil Registry of San 6ernando, it appears that her father "as Pablo and her mother "as Rosanna. the SS* rendered a decision d enying the claims for lac= of merit he SS* ruled that Rosanna "as no longer +ualified as primary beneficiary, it appearing that she had contracted marriage "ith Romeo dela Pe>a during the subsistence of her marriage to Pablo. he SS* based its conclusion on the birth certificate of #efren dela Pe>a stating that his mother, Rosanna, and father, Romeo dela Pe>a, "ere married on /oember 4, 499D. he SS* declared that Rosanna had a child "ith Romeo dela Pe>a "hile she "as still married to Pablo as eidenced by the baptismal certificate of #enelyn !. dela Pe>a sho"ing that she "as the child of Rosanna !ernande? and Romeo dela Pe>a he SS* concluded that Rosanna "as no longer entitled to support from Pablo prior to his death because of her act of adultery. As for #eylnn, the SS* ruled that, een if her birth certificate "as signed by Pablo as her father, there "as more compelling eidence that #eylnn "as not his legitimate child. As for #anet, the SS* relied on $eticia’s declaration that she "as only adopted by Pablo and Rosanna. *A rendered a decision in faor of petitioners. *A relied on the birth certificates of #anet and #eylnn sho"ing that they "ere the children of the deceased.
ssue: -/ Rosanna, #eylnn and #anet are entitled to the SSS death benefits accruing from the death of Pablo. !eld: he petition is partly meritorious. 4.
t bears stressing that under Article 45 of the 6amily *ode, children conceied or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. 8. here is perhaps no presumption of the la" more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and more conincing reason than the presumption that children born in "edloc= are legitimate. B. his presumption indeed becomes conclusie in the absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of access bet"een the spouses during the first 48D days of the BDD days "hich immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to
hae se'ual intercourse "ith his "ife (b) the fact that the husband and "ife are liing separately in such "ay that se'ual intercourse is not possible or (c) serious illness of the husband, "hich absolutely preents se'ual intercourse. 5. Euite remar=ably, upon the e'piration of the periods set forth in Article 4D, and in proper cases Article 44 of the 6amily *ode, the action to impugn the legitimacy of the child "ould no longer be legally feasible and the status conferred by the presumption becomes fi'ed and unassailable. F. ndeed, impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband or, in e'ceptional cases, his heirs. . n this case, there is no sho"ing that Pablo challenged the legitimacy of #eylnn during his lifetime. !ence, #eylnn’s status as a legitimate child of Pablo can no longer be contested. . he presumption that #eylnn is a legitimate child is buttressed by her birth certificate bearing Pablo’s signature, "hich "as erified from his specimen signature on file "ith petitioner. A birth certificate signed by the father is a competent eidence of paternity. ;. he presumption of legitimacy under Article 45, ho"eer, cannot e'tend to #anet because her date of birth "as not substantially proen. 9. Such presumption may be aailed only upon conincing proof of the factual basis therefor, i.e., that the child’s parents "ere legally married and that his@her conception or birth occurred during the subsistence of that marriage. 4D. t should be noted that respondents li=e"ise submitted a photocopy of #anet’s alleged birth certificate. !o"eer, the *ourt cannot gie said birth certificate the same probatie "eight as #eylnn’s because it "as not erified in any "ay by the ciil register. t stands as a mere photocopy, "ithout probatie "eight. Gnli=e #eylnn, there "as no confirmation by the ciil register of the fact of #anet’s birth on the date stated in the certificate. 44. n conclusion, the *ourt finds that, among respondents, only #eylnn is entitled to the SSS death benefits accruing from the death of Pablo, as it "as established that she is his legitimate child. 48. n the other hand, the records sho" that #anet "as merely
