SSS and Solidum vs. De los Santos

A legal spouse who is separated de facto from the deceased member and has not been receiving support from him is not a "dependent spouse" under the Social Security Law and therefore cannot qualify as a primary beneficiary, notwithstanding the subsistence of the marriage bond under Philippine law.

Antonio de los Santos and Gloria de los Santos were Filipinos married in Manila in 1964. Their marriage was marked by repeated separations; Gloria left Antonio on at least two occasions to live with other men, eventually obtaining a divorce in the United States and remarrying an American citizen. Antonio, for his part, married Cirila de los Santos in 1987 and had one child, May-Ann. Antonio was a covered employee under the Social Security System (SSS), retired on March 1, 1996, and received monthly pension until his death on May 15, 1999. The dispute centers on who between Gloria, the first wife, and Cirila, the second wife, is entitled to claim Antonio's SSS death benefits, an entitlement governed by the dependency requirement under the Social Security Law (R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282).

Antonio de los Santos and respondent Gloria de los Santos, both Filipinos, were married on April 29, 1964 in Manila. Less than one year after, in February 1965, Gloria left Antonio and contracted another marriage with a certain Domingo Talens in Nueva Ecija. Sometime in 1969, Gloria returned to Antonio and lived with him until 1983. Their union produced three children: Alain Vincent, Arlene, and Armine.

In 1983, Gloria left Antonio again and went to the United States. On May 8, 1986, she filed for divorce against Antonio with the Superior Court of Orange, Sta. Ana, California. On May 21, 1983, she executed a document waiving all her rights to their conjugal properties and other matters. The divorce was granted on November 5, 1986. Gloria subsequently married Larry Thomas Constant, an American citizen, on July 11, 1987, in the United States.

On May 23, 1987, Antonio married Cirila de los Santos in Camalig, Albay. Their union produced one child, May-Ann N. de los Santos, born on May 15, 1989. On May 15, 1989, Antonio amended his records at the SSS, changing his beneficiaries: from Mrs. Margarita de los Santos to Cirila de los Santos; from Gloria de los Santos to May-Ann de los Santos; and from Erlinda de los Santos to Armine de los Santos.

Antonio retired from employment on March 1, 1996, and began receiving monthly pension. He died of respiratory failure on May 15, 1999. Upon his death, Cirila applied for and began receiving his SSS pension benefit starting December 1999. On December 21, 1999, Gloria filed a claim for Antonio's death benefits with the SSS Cubao Branch. Her claim was denied by letter dated September 1, 2000, the SSS citing that she had remarried in the United States and had herself procured the dissolution of her marriage with the deceased member. Gloria then elevated her claim to the Social Security Commission, which impleaded Cirila as respondent. After submission of position papers, the SSC dismissed Gloria's petition on February 13, 2002, finding that she had abandoned Antonio and failed to satisfy the dependency requirement, and declaring May-Ann as the secondary beneficiary entitled to the balance of the five-year guaranteed pension. Gloria appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the SSC and held that, as the legal wife whose marriage subsisted under Philippine law, she was entitled to support and thus qualified as a dependent primary beneficiary.

• Qualification as Beneficiary: Petitioner SSS argued that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that respondent Gloria was still qualified as a primary beneficiary of deceased SSS member Antonio under Section 12-B in relation to Section 8(e) and (k) of the Social Security Law, given her abandonment of Antonio, her procurement of a foreign divorce, and her subsequent remarriage to an American citizen.

• Invalidity of Foreign Divorce: Respondent Gloria contended that the decree of divorce issued by a foreign state involving Filipino citizens has no validity and effect under Philippine law, and that her marriage to Larry Constant was not the subsequent marriage contemplated under the Social Security Law that would disqualify her as a beneficiary.
• No Forum Shopping: Respondent Gloria argued that there was no forum shopping because the petition she filed before the RTC for settlement of Antonio's intestate estate did not involve the issue of her entitlement to SSS benefits.

• Beneficiary Qualification: Whether respondent Gloria, the legal wife who obtained a foreign divorce and remarried abroad, is qualified as a primary beneficiary of deceased SSS member Antonio under Section 12-B in relation to Section 8(e) and (k) of the Social Security Law.

• Beneficiary Qualification: No. Although Gloria remained the legal spouse of Antonio under Philippine law because the foreign divorce was not recognized, she was disqualified as a primary beneficiary because she was not a "dependent spouse" as required by the Social Security Law, having abandoned the family on two separate occasions and lived with other men.

• Beneficiary Qualification: The Court first addressed the reckoning point for determining beneficiaries, citing Dycaico vs. SSS, which struck down the proviso "as of the date of retirement" in Section 12-B(d) of R.A. No. 8282 as unconstitutional for violating due process and equal protection. The proper reckoning point is therefore the time of the member's death, not retirement. Applying this, the Court examined Section 8(e) and (k) of the Social Security Law, which define "dependents" as including "the legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the member" and "beneficiaries" as "the dependent spouse until he or she remarries." Both the SSC and the CA found that the divorce obtained by Gloria was not binding in the Philippines, as only aliens may obtain divorces abroad valid under Philippine law; Gloria was still a Filipino citizen when she procured the divorce. Her marriage to Antonio thus subsisted. However, the Court found that she failed to satisfy the dependency requirement. Relying on SSS vs. Aguas, the Court held that whether a spouse is actually dependent for support upon the other cannot be presumed from the fact of marriage alone. A wife who abandoned the family for extended periods and lived with other men was not dependent on her husband for support, financial or otherwise. Gloria herself admitted leaving the conjugal abode on two separate occasions—first in 1965 to marry Domingo Talens, and again in 1983 when she went to the US, obtained a divorce, and married an American citizen. These uncontroverted facts disqualified her as a primary beneficiary. The Court further noted that a wife separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be "dependent for support" upon him absent any showing to the contrary, while a wife living with her husband at the time of his death may be presumed dependent unless shown capable of providing for herself.

• Dependency Requirement under the Social Security Law — A "dependent spouse" under the Social Security Law is one who relies on the member for support; dependency cannot be presumed from the fact of marriage alone. A spouse who is separated de facto and has not been receiving support from the member is not a "dependent spouse" and cannot qualify as a primary beneficiary. Conversely, if the spouses were living together at the time of the member's death, dependency may be presumed unless the spouse is shown to be capable of self-support.
• Foreign Divorce and Filipino Citizens — Under Philippine law, only aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law. A divorce obtained by a Filipino citizen abroad is not recognized in the Philippines and does not sever the marriage tie. However, the invalidity of such a divorce does not, by itself, qualify the spouse as a dependent beneficiary; the dependency requirement must still be independently satisfied.

• "AN ESTRANGED wife who was not dependent upon her deceased husband for support is not qualified to be his beneficiary." — This is the opening line of the decision and encapsulates the core ruling: the dependency requirement is indispensable and cannot be satisfied by the mere existence of a marriage bond.
• "whether one is actually dependent for support upon the other cannot be presumed from the fact of marriage alone." — This passage, drawn from SSS vs. Aguas, articulates the controlling principle that dependency is a factual question requiring proof beyond the marital relationship itself.
• "The obvious conclusion then is that a wife who is already separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be 'dependent for support' upon the husband, absent any showing to the contrary." — This formulation establishes the evidentiary framework: de facto separation negates dependency unless rebutted, while cohabitation raises a presumption of dependency unless the spouse is shown to be self-supporting.

• Dycaico vs. SSS, G.R. No. 161357, November 30, 2005, 476 SCRA 538 — Controlling precedent on the reckoning point for determining beneficiaries. The Court struck down the proviso "as of the date of retirement" in Section 12-B(d) of R.A. No. 8282 as unconstitutional for violating due process and equal protection, establishing that the time of death—not retirement—is the proper reckoning point.
• SSS vs. Aguas, G.R. No. 165546, February 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 383 — Directly applied. The Court relied on Aguas for the principle that dependency cannot be presumed from marriage alone and that a wife who abandoned her family and lived with other men was not dependent on her husband for support.
• Llorente vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000, 345 SCRA 592 — Cited for the rule that under Philippine law, only aliens may obtain divorces abroad valid according to their national law; a divorce obtained by a Filipino citizen abroad is not recognized.

• Section 8(e), R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282 (Social Security Law) — Defines "dependents" as including "the legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the member." Applied to determine whether Gloria qualified as a dependent; the Court found she did not because she was not actually receiving support from Antonio.
• Section 8(k), R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282 (Social Security Law) — Defines "beneficiaries" as "the dependent spouse until he or she remarries, the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate children, who shall be the primary beneficiaries." Applied to disqualify Gloria as a primary beneficiary for failure to meet the dependency requirement, and to qualify May-Ann as a secondary beneficiary.
• Section 12-B(d), R.A. No. 8282 (Social Security Law) — Governs retirement benefits upon the death of a retired member. The proviso "as of the date of retirement" was declared unconstitutional in Dycaico, making the time of death the reckoning point for determining entitlement.

Justices Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, and Nachura concurred.