SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. TERESITA JARQUE VDA. DE BAILON, Respondent.
G.R. No. 165545 March 24, 2006
Civil law; subsequent marriages before the effectivity of the Family Code.
ISSUE: May the subsequent marriage of Clemente Bailon and respondent Teresita Jarque be terminated by mere reappearance of the absent spouse of Bailon? (answers are rulings of the Supreme Court) after the facts
FACTS: Clemente G. Bailon and Alice P. Diaz got married in 1955. Over 15 years later, Bailon filed a petition to declare Alice presumptively dead, and the court granted it in 1970.
In 1983, Bailon married Teresita Jarque. Bailon, a retiree pensioner, passed away in 1998. Teresita filed claims for funeral and death benefits, which were granted by the Social Security System (SSS).
However, Cecilia Bailon-Yap, claiming to be Bailon's daughter, contested the claims, stating that Alice was still alive and that Teresita's marriage to Bailon was void. The SSS recommended canceling Teresita's benefits and refunding the amount paid to her.
Various parties filed claims for Bailon's death benefits, and the SSS ordered Teresita to refund the benefits she received. Teresita protested and filed a petition with the SSS.
Later, Alicia P. Diaz, claiming to be Bailon's widow, submitted an affidavit contradicting Bailon's representation of Alice's disappearance. The SSC declared Teresita as a common-law wife, ordered her to refund the benefits, and directed the SSS to pay Alice her rightful death benefit.
Teresita appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the SSC's decision, stating that the SSS lacked the authority to nullify the court's findings and that Teresita was not given a fair opportunity to present evidence. The motions for reconsideration by the SSC and the SSS were denied.
ANSWER (SUPREME COURT RULING): YES!
Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Social Security System (SSS). The SSS argued that the Court of Appeals (CA) failed to consider the findings of the Social Security Commission (SSC) regarding the prior and subsisting marriage between Bailon and Alice, disregarded the authority of the SSC to determine the beneficiaries of the death benefits, and claimed that the SSS did not provide the respondent with due process.
However, the Supreme Court held that the SSC exceeded its authority by reviewing and overturning the decisions of regular courts.
The court emphasized that the applicable law to determine the validity of the marriages involved is the Civil Code since they were solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code.
Under the Civil Code, a subsequent marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse is considered illegal and void unless certain exceptional circumstances exist or it is declared null and void by a competent court.
The court further explained that the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the validity of the second marriage.
In this case, Alice had been absent for 15 consecutive years when Bailon sought the declaration of her presumptive death, which was not even required for purposes of remarriage at that time. Additionally, the court cited legal opinions stating that if a subsequent marriage is dissolved by the death of either spouse, the effects of dissolution of valid marriages arise.
Therefore, since no steps were taken to nullify Bailon's and respondent's marriage before Bailon's death, the court concluded that the respondent is the rightful dependent spouse-beneficiary of Bailon. As a result, the Supreme Court denied the SSS' petition.