a.

Doctrine:  A record of birth is merely prima facie evidence of the facts

contained therein; Only “legally adopted” children are considered
dependent children.

b.Case Title: SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. ROSANNA H.

AGUAS, JANET H. AGUAS, and minor JEYLNN H. AGUAS, represented
by her Legal Guardian, ROSANNA H. AGUAS, Respondents G.R. No.
165546  (CALLEJO, SR., J.:)  February 27, 2006

c. Facts: Pablo Aguas, a member of the Social Security System (SSS)

and a pensioner, died on December 8, 1996. Pablo’s surviving spouse,
Rosanna H. Aguas, filed a claim with the SSS for death benefits on
December 13, 1996. Rosanna indicated in her claim that Pablo was
likewise survived by his minor child, Jeylnn, who was born on October 29,
1991.2 Her claim for monthly pension was settled on February 13, 1997.

 
Sometime in 1997, the SSS received a sworn letter from Leticia, Pablo’s
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.

d.Issue/s : Whether Janet Aguas, the alleged adopted child, is entitled to

the claimed benefits?
e. Held: No. Under Section 8(e) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended,
only “legally adopted” children are considered dependent children.
 
The presumption of legitimacy cannot extend to Janet because her date of
birth was not substantially proven. It should be noted that respondents
likewise submitted a photocopy of Janet’s alleged birth certificate.
However, it stands as a mere photocopy, without probative weight.
 
In any case, a record of birth is merely prima facie evidence of the facts
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 testified that Janet’s adoption did not undergo any legal
proceedings; hence, there were no papers to prove it.
 
Under Section 8(e) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, only “legally
adopted” children are considered dependent children. Absent any proof
that the family has legally adopted Janet, the Court cannot consider her a
dependent child of Pablo, hence, not a primary beneficiary.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY

GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Only Jeylnn H. Aguas is declared
entitled to the SSS death benefits accruing from the death of Pablo Aguas.

SO ORDERED.