Pablo Aguas was an SSS member and pensioner. When he died in 1996, his wife, Rosanna, filed a claim for SSS death benefits. She also claimed benefits on behalf of a minor child, Jeylnn, whom she identified as Pablo’s daughter. The SSS initially approved the claim and began paying monthly pensions.

A few months later, trouble started. Pablo’s sister wrote to the SSS and challenged the claim. According to her, Rosanna had long abandoned Pablo and was already living with another man. She further alleged that the children claimed to be Pablo’s were actually fathered by someone else.

The SSS conducted an investigation. Witnesses claimed that Rosanna and Pablo had been separated for years before his death. There were also allegations that Rosanna had another relationship and had children with another man. As a result, the SSS suspended the pension and demanded a refund of the benefits already released.

Rosanna, together with two children, Janet and Jeylnn, challenged the SSS decision before the Social Security Commission. The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Who was entitled to the SSS death benefits?

The Supreme Court held that only one claimant qualified: Jeylnn.

The Court first examined Jeylnn’s status. Her birth certificate bore Pablo’s signature as her father. More importantly, she was born during the subsistence of Pablo and Rosanna’s marriage. Under the Family Code, a child conceived or born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. Pablo never challenged her legitimacy during his lifetime. As a result, her status as Pablo’s legitimate child could no longer be questioned.

For that reason, the Court declared Jeylnn entitled to SSS death benefits as a dependent child.

Janet’s claim met a different fate. Although Rosanna presented a photocopy of Janet’s birth certificate, the Court found that it was never properly verified. Witnesses consistently testified that Janet was merely taken in and raised by Pablo and Rosanna because the couple initially had difficulty having children. There was likewise no proof of a legal adoption. Under the SSS law, only legitimate, legitimated, or legally adopted children qualify as dependent children. Accordingly, Janet could not receive death benefits.

The more difficult question involved Rosanna. There was no dispute that she was Pablo’s lawful wife. The issue was whether she remained a dependent spouse within the meaning of the SSS law.

The Supreme Court emphasized that being legally married is not enough. The law requires the spouse to be dependent for support upon the member. The Court explained that dependency is a factual matter that must be proven. It cannot simply be presumed from the existence of a marriage certificate.

After reviewing the evidence, the Court found that Pablo and Rosanna had already been living separately for years before his death. Witnesses testified that Rosanna was residing with another man and no longer living with Pablo. More importantly, Rosanna failed to present convincing evidence that she was still actually dependent on Pablo for support at the time he died. As a result, the Court ruled that Rosanna did not qualify as a dependent spouse and was therefore not entitled to SSS death benefits.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that among all the claimants, only Jeylnn was entitled to receive the SSS death benefits arising from Pablo’s death.

SSS v. Aguas. G.R. NO. 165546, February 27, 2006