Sebastian, Ethan Joshua S.

Social Security Act of 2018

Agrarian Laws and Social Legislation Social Security Act of 2018
Case Digest SSS v Teresita Jarque vda. De Bailon

SSS vs. Teresita Jarque vda. De Bailon,

G.R. No. 165545, 24 March 2006

Facts:

After 15 years since the marriage of Clemente G. Bailon and Alice P. Diaz, the later was
declared presumptively dead by the court. The former then contracted a subsequent marriage
with Teresita Jarque. Upon the death of Bailon who was a member of the SSS, the respondent
claimed and received funeral benefits. It was then discovered that the deceased Bailon
contracted three marriages and had several children. Some of the said children claimed for
death benefits. SSS then ordered Jarque to return the received benefits and the cancelation of
her monthly pension in view of the apparent void marriage between her and Bailon. Respondets
then filed with SSC for the reinstallation of her monthly pension, it was however denied by the
same. CA however reversed said decision and ordered SSS to pay the benefits once more.

Hence this petition,

Issue:

WON Jarque is entitled of the benefits

Ruling:

Yes, since her marriage with Bailon is not void.

Art. 83. Of the family code provides that:
“Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the
first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal
and void from its performance, unless:
(1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or
(2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the
second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or
if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally
considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of
contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead according to
Articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases
until declared null and void by a competent court.”
The article explains that as long as the subsequent marriage is not declared null and void by a
court, the marriage is still valid.

In the case at bar, as no step was taken to nullify, in accordance with law, Bailon’s and
respondent’s marriage prior to the former’s death in 1998, respondent is rightfully the dependent
spouse-beneficiary of Bailon.