G.R. No.
170195 March 28, 2011 spouse of Florante and in addition, she was designated by Florante as such
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM, Petitioner,
vs.
TERESA G. FAVILA, Respondent.
Topic: Joint obligation to support
DOCTRINE: A spouse who claims entitlement to death benefits as a primary
beneficiary under the Social Security Law must establish two qualifying
factors, to wit: (1) that he/she is the legitimate spouse; and (2) that he/she is
dependent upon the member for support. A person separated de facto from
her husband is not a dependent, unless the contrary is shown.
FACTS:
January 17, 1970 - Teresa married Florante Favila
June 30, 1970 - Florante designated Teresita to be his sole beneficiary in
SSS
o He likewise named their common children as beneficiaries when
they later had children
Feb 1, 1997 - Florante died; his pension benefits under the SSS were
given to their only minor child at that time, Florante II, but only until his
emancipation at age 21
Teresa then filed claim to the benefits as the surviving legal spouse but
was denied by the SSS; SSS claimed that Teresa was not entitled
o SSS answered that Teresa as guardian was paid a total period
of 57 months and that sister of Florante wrote that Teresa has
been separated from Florante because former had an affair with
a married man, have sex 4 times a week and the couple lived
together for 10 years only
o Interview of SSS - Teresa did not live with anybody but rumored
to have an affair
Ruling of SSS Commission: death benefits dependent on 2 factors(1)
legality of the marital relationship; and (2) dependency for support, which, in
SSCs opinioin, is affected by factors such as separation de facto of the
spouses, marital infidelity and such other grounds sufficient to disinherit a
spouse under the law. SSC ruled that she is disqualified from claiming
benefits because she is not dependent for support from Florante due to
her marital infidelity. Also, she has been separated from Florante for 17
years before his death. She only contested her non-entitlement of benefits
when the pension was stopped
CA Ruling: found Teresa's petition impressed with merit. It gave weight to
the fact that she is a primary beneficiary because she is the lawful surviving
beneficiary. There was no legal separation or annulment of marriage that
could have disqualified her from claiming the death benefits as her
designation as beneficiary had not been invalidated by any court of law.
ISSUE: Is Teresa a primary beneficiary in contemplation of the Social
Security Law as to be entitled to death benefits accruing from the death of
Florante?
HELD: NO. CA order set aside. Teresa is not dependent spouse within the
contemplation of the SSL
Under the SSS Law (RA 1161), the term dependent is defined as
xxx; the legitimate spouse dependent for support upon the
employee; xxx
In Re: Application for Survivors Benefits of Manlavi, a dependent is "one
who derives his or her main support from another [or] relying on, or
subject to, someone else for support; not able to exist or sustain oneself,
or to perform anything without the will, power or aid of someone else."
Likewise under the same law, beneficiaries, is defined as:
the dependent spouse until he remarries and dependent children, who
shall be the primary beneficiaries. xxx
For a spouse to qualify as a primary beneficiary the SSS Law he/she
must not only be a legitimate spouse but also a dependent as
defined, that is, one who is dependent upon the member for
support.
SC agreed with Teresa that her alleged affair with another man was not
sufficiently established and Florante was actually the one who has a
common wife; however, Teresa is still not entitled as she has been
separated in fact from Florante for 17 years prior to his death
From prevailing jurisprudence: 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.
"[w]hoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should
establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence In this case, as
held in Aguas, the wife-claimant had the burden to prove that all the
statutory requirements have been complied with, particularly her
dependency on her husband at the time of his death
Aside from Teresas bare allegation that she was dependent upon her
husband for support and her misplaced reliance on the presumption of
dependency by reason of her valid and then subsisting marriage with
Florante, Teresa has not presented sufficient evidence to discharge her
burden of proving that she was dependent upon her husband for support
at the time of his death. She could have done this by submitting affidavits
of reputable and disinterested persons who have knowledge that during
 her separation with Florante, she does not have a known trade,
business, profession or lawful occupation from which she derives income
sufficient for her support and such other evidence tending to prove her
claim of dependency.
Hence, for Teresas failure to show that despite their separation she was
dependent upon Florante for support at the time of his death, Teresa
cannot qualify as a primary beneficiary. Hence, she is not entitled to the
death benefits accruing on account of Florantes death.