Reviewer Law 200 Agrarian Law and Social Legislation

1. SSS vs. Aguas, The presumption of legitimacy cannot extend to Janet because her date of
G.R. No. 165546, 483 SCRA 383, Feb. 27, 2006 birth was not substantially proven. It should be noted that respondents likewise
TOPIC : Social Security Law | Death Benefits | Legitimate and submitted a photocopy of Janet’s alleged birth certificate. However, it stands as
Illegitimate Children| a mere photocopy, without probative weight.
Petitioner : SSS
Respondent : Rosanna Aguas, Janet Aguas and minor Jeylnn Aguas, In any case, a record of birth is merely prima facie evidence of the facts
represented by her Legal Guardian Rosanna Aguas contained therein. Here, the witnesses were unanimous in saying that Janet was
not the real child but merely adopted by Rosanna and Pablo. Leticia also
FACTS: testified that Janet’s adoption did not undergo any legal proceedings; hence,
Pablo, a member of the SSS and a pensioner died in 1996. Immediately there were no papers to prove it.
thereafter, his wife, Rosanna, filed a claim with the SSS for death benefits.
Rosanna indicated in her claim that Pablo was likewise survived by his minor Under Section 8(e) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, only “legally
child, Jeylnn. adopted” children are considered dependent children. Absent any proof that the
family has legally adopted Janet, the Court cannot consider her a dependent
Sometime in 1997, the SSS received a sworn letter from Leticia, Pablo’s child of Pablo, hence, not a primary beneficiary.
sister, alleging that Rosanna abandoned the family abode approximately more
than six years before, and lived with another man on whom she has been
dependent for support. She further averred that Pablo had no legal children with
Rosanna, but that the latter had several children with a certain Romeo dela
Peña.

As a result, the SSS suspended the payment of Rosanna and Jeylnn’s

monthly pension in September 1997. They asked for reconsideration, but such
was denied upon the testimony of a doctor attesting the Pablo was infertile,
hence, he could not have possibly fathered the children of Rosanna.

Janet, who also claimed to be the child of the deceased and Rosanna, joined
them as claimant. Upon investigation by the SSS, it turned out that Janet was
only an adopted child. However, there were no legal papers on Janet’s adoption.

The SSS discontinued the receipt of benefits by the beneficiaries of Pablo.

ISSUE:
1) WON Janet Aguas; Jeylnn Aguas the alleged adopted child, is entitled to the
claimed benefits? NO.

RULING:
No. Under Section 8(e) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, only “legally
adopted” children are considered dependent children.

Estenzo, DCQ Page 1 of 1