Non-dependent

To be entitled to the death benefits of a deceased SSS member, the surviving spouse must be a dependent of said spouse. This case of Tita tells us what “dependent” means.

On January 17, 1970, Tita married Ferdie who was a Social Security System (SSS) member. So in the E-I Form submitted by Ferdie to the SSS, he designated Tita as his beneficiary. And when they begot three children, Ferdie likewise designated their children as his beneficiaries.

Tita however frequented the casino and was disloyal to her husband. So after ten years of marriage, the couple separated. Tita left Ferdie and was rumored to have affairs with other men including a police officer although it was not established that she cohabited with any of them. Ferdie, on the other hand, also had an affair with another woman, Sonya, who became his common-law wife and cohabited with him and his three children with Tita.

Seventeen years after Tita left and separated from Ferdie, or on February 1, 1997, the latter died. Sonya, the common-law wife thus filed her own claim for death benefits from the SSS as Ferdie’s beneficiary. But the SSS denied Sonya’s claim. Instead, it granted the death benefits to the remaining minor child, Boysie. But since Boysie was still a minor, the pension benefits were initially paid to Tita as guardian, for a total period of 37 months or from February 1997 to October 2001 when Boysie reached the age of 21.

Thereafter, Tita filed her own claim for the deceased Ferdie’s SSS pension benefits. But the SSS denied the claim in a letter dated January 31, 2002. Instead it re-adjudicated the claim and settled the balance of the five year guaranteed pension again in favor of Boysie on July 11, 2002.

Thus on August 5, 2002 Tita filed a petition before the Social Security Commission (SSC) questioning the SSS’ re-adjudication and claiming that as the surviving legal wife of Ferdie, she was likewise entitled to Ferdie’s pension benefits.

On June 4, 2003, the SSC denied Tita’s petition. The SSC held that to be entitled to death benefits, the surviving legal spouse must have been actually dependent for support from the member-spouse during the latter’s lifetime up to the time of death. Here, although Tita was without question, Ferdie’s legal spouse, she was not the dependent spouse referred to in Section 8(k) of the SS Law (R.A. 1161). Given the reason for the couple’s separation for about 17 years prior to Ferdie’s death and in the absence of proof that Tita relied upon Ferdie for support, Tita could not be considered a dependent spouse entitled to her husbband’s death benefits. Was the SSC correct?

Yes. For a spouse to qualify as a primary beneficiary, he/she must not only be a legitimate spouse but must also be a dependent, that is one who is dependent upon the member for support (Section 8 par. (e) and (k) RA 1161).

It is true that Tita’s amorous relations have not been substantially proven. But as a wife who is already separated de facto from her husband for 17 years prior to the latter’s death, she cannot be said to be dependent for support upon her husband, absent any showing to the contrary.

In this case, aside from Tita’s bare allegation that she was dependent upon her husband Ferdie for support and her misplaced reliance on presumption of dependency by reason of her valid and subsisting marriage with Ferdie, Tita 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. Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto by substantial evidence.

Tita could have submitted affidavits of reputable and disinterested persons who have knowledge that during her separation with Ferdie, she does not have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation from which she derives income sufficient for her support or other such evidence to prove her claim of dependency. Hence for Tita’s failure to show that despite their separation she was dependent upon Ferdie for support at the time of his death, she cannot qualify as a primary beneficiary entitled to the death benefits accruing on account of Ferdie’s death (Social Security Commission vs. Favila, G.R. 170195, March 28, 2011, 646 SCRA, 462).