SSS vs. Jarque Vda. De Bailon

A subsequent marriage contracted under Article 83 of the Civil Code based on a judicial declaration of presumptive death is valid until annulled by a competent court in a direct proceeding; it cannot be collaterally attacked by an administrative agency, and upon the death of a spouse, the action for annulment is extinguished, rendering the marriage valid ab initio.

Clemente Bailon married Alice Diaz in 1955. After Alice had been absent for 15 consecutive years, Bailon obtained a Court of First Instance order in 1970 declaring Alice presumptively dead. Bailon subsequently married respondent Teresita Jarque in 1983. Upon Bailon’s death in 1998, respondent claimed and was granted funeral and death benefits from the SSS.

• First Marriage and Presumptive Death: Clemente Bailon and Alice Diaz married in 1955. In 1970, after Alice had been absent for 15 consecutive years, Bailon filed a petition before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Sorsogon to declare Alice presumptively dead. The CFI granted the petition.
• Second Marriage and Death Benefits: Bailon married respondent Teresita Jarque in 1983. Bailon, an SSS member since 1960 and retiree pensioner since 1994, died on January 30, 1998. Respondent filed a claim for funeral and death benefits, which the SSS initially granted.
• Contesting Claims: Cecilia Bailon-Yap, claiming to be Bailon’s daughter with Elisa Jayona, contested respondent's benefits, alleging Bailon contracted three marriages and Alice was still alive. Alice’s brother, Hermes Diaz, also filed a claim for death benefits, attesting that another woman defrayed Bailon’s funeral expenses. Elisa and seven of her children subsequently filed claims as beneficiaries.
• SSC Ruling: The SSS Legal Unit found that Alice never disappeared and Bailon was the deserting spouse, rendering the presumptive death order invalid and the second marriage void. The SSS cancelled respondent’s benefits and demanded a refund. The SSC adopted these findings, declared respondent a "common-law wife," ordered her to refund the benefits received under the principle of solutio indebiti, and ordered SSS to pay Alice the death benefits.

• Factual Findings of the SSC: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals failed to give due consideration to the SSC’s factual findings on the prior and subsisting marriage between Bailon and Alice.
• Authority of the SSC: Petitioner maintained that the SSC has the authority under Section 5 of the Social Security Law to determine to whom death benefits should be awarded.
• Due Process: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the SSS did not give respondent due process or ample opportunity to present evidence.
• Obiter Dictum: Petitioner asserted that the appellate court's observations regarding the CFI proceedings are obiter dicta, as the SSC’s finding of a prior subsisting marriage gives Alice a better right to the benefits.

• Validity of Marriage: Respondent countered that her marriage with Bailon was never declared bigamous or unlawful by any court and remained valid and subsisting, as Bailon himself designated her as his beneficiary.
• Lack of Authority of SSS: Respondent argued that the SSS and SSC cannot validly re-evaluate the RTC’s findings, declare the court’s decision bereft of basis, or declare the second marriage null and void based solely on their own investigation.
• Inutility of Affidavit of Reappearance: Respondent maintained that while the filing of an affidavit of reappearance may be unnecessary where both marriages were dissolved by death, this inutility does not grant the SSS the authority to review the RTC decision and declare the second marriage void.

• Jurisdiction of the SSC: Whether the SSC can review, reverse, or declare void a regular court’s order declaring a spouse presumptively dead in the exercise of its power to determine SSS beneficiaries.
• Nature and Impugnability of Subsequent Marriage: Whether a subsequent marriage contracted under a judicial declaration of presumptive death is void or voidable under the Civil Code, and whether it can be collaterally attacked after the death of a spouse.

• Jurisdiction of the SSC: The SSC exceeded its authority. While empowered to settle disputes regarding SSS coverage and benefits, the SSC cannot review, much less reverse, decisions rendered by courts of law. By declaring the CFI order obtained through fraud and disregarding it, the SSC virtually acted as an appellate court, which the law does not permit.
• Nature and Impugnability of Subsequent Marriage: Under Article 83 of the Civil Code, a subsequent marriage contracted under the exceptional circumstances of presumptive death is valid until declared null and void by a competent court. The burden of proof rests on the party assailing the second marriage. A presumption arises in favor of the validity of the second marriage, prevailing over the presumption of the continuance of the first. Being voidable, not void ab initio, the marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding for annulment. Upon the death of either spouse, the action for annulment is extinguished, and the marriage can no longer be impeached, leaving it valid ab initio. Because no step was taken to nullify the marriage before Bailon’s death, respondent remains the rightful dependent spouse-beneficiary.

• Presumption of Validity of Subsequent Marriage — Where a person enters into two successive marriages, a presumption arises in favor of the validity of the second marriage. The burden is on the party attacking the second marriage to prove the first marriage had not been dissolved. The presumption of innocence and legality of the second marriage prevails over the presumption of the continuance of the first marriage.
• Collateral Attack on Voidable Marriages — A voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding for annulment. Such marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties; upon the death of either, the marriage cannot be impeached and is deemed valid ab initio.

• "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."
• "In fact, even if the bigamous marriage had not been void ab initio but only voidable under Article 83, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, because the second marriage had been contracted with the first wife having been an absentee for seven consecutive years, or when she had been generally believed dead, still the action for annulment became extinguished as soon as one of the three persons involved had died, as provided in Article 87, paragraph 2, of the Code, requiring that the action for annulment should be brought during the lifetime of any one of the parties involved."

• Armas v. Calisterio, 386 Phil. 402 (2000) — Followed for the proposition that under Article 83 of the Civil Code, the onus probandi rests on the party assailing the second marriage.
• Jones v. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179 (1937) — Cited for the rule that a judicial declaration of presumptive death was not a requirement for remarriage under the Civil Code at the time.
• Lapuz v. Eufemio, 150 Phil. 204 (1972) — Followed for the doctrine that the action for annulment of a voidable marriage under Art. 83 is extinguished upon the death of one of the parties involved.
• Niñal v. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661 (2000) — Followed for the principle that a voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally and upon the death of a spouse, the marriage can no longer be impeached and is made good ab initio.

• Article 83, Civil Code — Provides that a subsequent marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is illegal and void unless the prior marriage is annulled/dissolved, or contracted under exceptional circumstances (absence of 7 years, generally believed dead, or presumed dead under Arts. 390-391). The marriage under these exceptions is valid until declared null and void by a competent court. Applied to classify the second marriage as voidable, not void ab initio.
• Article 85(2), Civil Code — Classifies a subsequent marriage under Art. 83 as voidable if the former spouse believed to be dead was in fact living and the marriage with such former spouse was then in force.
• Article 87(2), Civil Code — Provides that the action for annulment under Art. 85(2) must be commenced by the absent spouse during their lifetime, or by either spouse of the subsequent marriage during the lifetime of the other. Applied to establish that the action for annulment extinguished upon Bailon's death.
• Article 42, Family Code — Provides that a subsequent marriage is automatically terminated by the recording of an affidavit of reappearance. Distinguished and discussed to note that mere reappearance without recording or judicial action does not terminate the subsequent marriage.
• Section 5, Social Security Law — Grants the SSC jurisdiction to settle disputes with respect to SSS coverage, benefits, and contributions. Interpreted not to include the power to review or reverse decisions of regular courts.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (on official leave), Antonio T. Carpio, Dante O. Tinga.