G.R. No.

161357 November 30, 2005 petition with our Social Security Commission to determine your
benefit eligibility.3
ELENA P. DYCAICO, Petitioner,
vs. On July 9, 2001, the petitioner filed with the SSC a petition alleging
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and SOCIAL SECURITY that the denial of her survivor’s pension was unjustified. She
COMMISSION, Respondents. contended that Bonifacio designated her and their children as
primary beneficiaries in his SSS Form RS-1 and that it was not
DECISION indicated therein that only legitimate family members could be
made beneficiaries. Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 does
not, likewise, require that the primary beneficiaries be legitimate
CALLEJO, SR., J.: relatives of the member to be entitled to the survivor’s pension.
The SSS is legally bound to respect Bonifacio’s designation of
Before the Court is the petition for review under Rule 45 of the them as his
Rules of Court filed by Elena P. Dycaico which seeks to reverse beneficiaries. Further, Rep. Act No. 8282 should be interpreted to
and set aside the Decision1 dated April 15, 2003 of the Court of promote social justice.
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
On February 6, 2002, the SSC promulgated its Resolution
No. 69632. The assailed decision affirmed the Resolution dated affirming the denial of the petitioner’s claim. The SSC refuted the
February 6, 2002 of the Social Security Commission (SSC), petitioner’s contention that primary beneficiaries need not be
denying the petitioner’s claim for survivor’s pension accruing from legitimate family members by citing the definitions of "primary
the death of her husband Bonifacio S. Dycaico, a Social Security beneficiaries" and "dependents" in Section 8 of Rep. Act No. 8282.
System (SSS) member-pensioner. Likewise sought to be reversed Under paragraph (k) of the said provision, "primary beneficiaries"
and set aside is the appellate court’s Resolution dated December are "[t]he dependent spouse until he or she remarries, the
15, 2003, denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and
illegitimate children …" Paragraph (e) of the same provision, on
the other hand, defines "dependents" as the following: "(1) [t]he
The case arose from the following undisputed facts: legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the member;
(2) [t]he legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate
Bonifacio S. Dycaico became a member of the SSS on January child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed and has not
24, 1980. In his self-employed data record (SSS Form RS-1), he reached twenty-one (21) years of age, or if over twenty-one (21)
named the petitioner, Elena P. Dycaico, and their eight children as years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been
his beneficiaries. At that time, Bonifacio and Elena lived together permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support,
as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. physically or mentally; and (3) [t]he parent who is receiving regular
support from the member." Based on the foregoing, according to
the SSC, it has consistently ruled that entitlement to the survivor’s
In June 1989, Bonifacio was considered retired and began pension in one’s capacity as primary beneficiary is premised on
receiving his monthly pension from the SSS. He continued to the legitimacy of relationship with and dependency for support
receive the monthly pension until he passed away on June 19, upon the deceased SSS member during his lifetime.
1997. A few months prior to his death, however, Bonifacio married
the petitioner on January 6, 1997.
Under Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282, the primary
beneficiaries who are entitled to survivor’s pension are those who
Shortly after Bonifacio’s death, the petitioner filed with the SSS an qualify as
application for survivor’s pension. Her application, however, was such as of the date of retirement of the deceased member. Hence,
denied on the ground that under Section 12-B(d) of Republic Act the petitioner, who was not then the legitimate spouse of Bonifacio
(Rep. Act) No. 8282 or the Social Security Law2 she could not be as of the date of his retirement, could not be considered his
considered a primary beneficiary of Bonifacio as of the date of his primary beneficiary. The SSC further opined that Bonifacio’s
retirement. The said proviso reads: designation of the petitioner as one of his primary beneficiaries in
his SSS Form RS-1 is void, not only on moral considerations but
Sec. 12-B. Retirement Benefits. – also for misrepresentation. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled
to claim the survivor’s pension under Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act
… No. 8282.

(d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary beneficiaries Aggrieved, the petitioner filed with the CA a petition for review of
as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the the SSC’s February 6, 2002 Resolution. In the assailed Decision,
monthly pension. … dated April 15, 2003, the appellate court dismissed the petition.
Citing the same provisions in Rep. Act No. 8282 as those cited by
the SSC, the CA declared that since the petitioner was merely the
Applying this proviso, the petitioner was informed that the – common-law wife of Bonifacio at the time of his retirement in 1989,
his designation of the petitioner as one of his beneficiaries in the
Records show that the member [referring to Bonifacio] was SSS Form RS-1 in 1980 is void. The CA further observed that
considered retired on June 5, 1989 and monthly pension was Bonifacio’s children with the petitioner could no longer qualify as
cancelled upon our receipt of a report on his death on June 19, primary beneficiaries because they have all reached twenty-one
1997. In your death claim application, submitted marriage contract (21) years of age. The decretal portion of the assailed decision
with the deceased member shows that you were married in 1997 reads:
or after his retirement date; hence, you could not be considered his
primary beneficiary. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED
and the assailed 06 February 2002 Resolution of respondent
In view of this, we regret that there is no other benefit due you. Commission is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
However, if you do not conform with us, you may file a formal
SO ORDERED.4 The SSS filed its separate comment and therein insists that the
petitioner was not the legitimate spouse of the deceased member
The petitioner sought reconsideration of the said decision but in at the time when the contingency occurred (his retirement) and,
the assailed Resolution dated December 15, 2003, the appellate therefore, she could not be considered a primary beneficiary within
court denied her motion. Hence, the petitioner’s recourse to this the contemplation of Rep. Act No. 8282. The SSS posits that the
Court. statute’s intent is to give survivorship pension only to primary
beneficiaries at the time of the retirement of the deceased
member. Rep. Act No. 8282 itself ordains the persons entitled
The petitioner points out that the term "primary beneficiaries" as thereto and cannot be subject of change by the SSS.
used in Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 does not have any
qualification. She thus theorizes that regardless of whether the
primary beneficiary designated by the member as such is The Solicitor General agrees with the stance taken by the SSS that
legitimate or not, he or she is entitled to the survivor’s pension. the proviso "as of the date of his retirement" merely marks the
Reliance by the appellate court and the SSC on the definitions of period when the primary beneficiary must be so to be entitled to
"primary beneficiaries" and "dependents" in Section 8 of Rep. Act the benefits. It does not violate the equal protection clause
No. 8282 is allegedly unwarranted because these definitions because the classification resulting therefrom rests on substantial
cannot modify Section 12-B(d) thereof. distinctions. Moreover, the condition as to the period for
entitlement, i.e., as of the date of the member’s retirement, is
relevant as it set the parameters for those availing of the benefits
The petitioner maintains that when she and Bonifacio got married and it applies to all those similarly situated. The Solicitor General is
in January 1997, a few months before he passed away, they also of the view that the said proviso does not offend the due
merely intended to legalize their relationship and had no intention process clause because claimants are given the opportunity to file
to commit any fraud. Further, since Rep. Act No. 8282 is a social their claims and to prove their case before the Commission.
legislation, it should be construed liberally in favor of claimants like
the petitioner. She cites the Court’s pronouncement that "the
sympathy of the law on social security is toward its beneficiaries, For clarity, Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 is quoted anew
and the law, by its own terms, requires a construction of utmost below:
liberality in their favor."5
Sec. 12-B. Retirement Benefits. –
The SSS, on the other hand, contends that Section 12-B(d) of
Rep. Act No. 8282 should be read in conjunction with the definition …
of the terms "dependents" and "primary beneficiaries" in Section 8
thereof. Since the petitioner was not as yet the legal spouse of (d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary beneficiaries
Bonifacio at the time of his retirement in 1989, she is not entitled to as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the
claim the survivor’s pension accruing at the time of his death. The monthly pension. …
SSS insists that the designation by Bonifacio of the petitioner and
their illegitimate children in his SSS Form RS-1 is void.
Under Section 8(k) of the same law, the "primary beneficiaries"
are:
According to the SSS, there is nothing in Rep. Act No. 8282 which
provides that "should there be no primary or secondary
beneficiaries, the benefit accruing from the death of a member 1. The dependent spouse until he or she remarries; and
should go to his designated common-law spouse" and that "to rule
otherwise would be to condone the designation of common-law 2. The dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and
spouses as beneficiaries, a clear case of circumventing the SS illegitimate children.
Law and a violation of public policy and morals."6 Finally, the SSS
is of the opinion that Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 is clear
and explicit; hence, there is no room for its interpretation, only for Further, the "dependent spouse" and "dependent children" are
application. qualified under paragraph (e) of the same section as follows:

In the Resolution dated July 19, 2005, the Court required the 1. The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support until he or
parties, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General, to file their she remarries; and
respective comments on the issue of whether or not the proviso
"as of the date of his retirement" in Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 2. The dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and
8282 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the illegitimate child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed and has
Constitution. The Court believes that this issue is intertwined with not reached twenty-one (21) years of age, or if over twenty-one
and indispensable to the resolution of the merits of the petition. years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been
permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support,
In compliance therewith, in its comment, the SSC argues that the physically or mentally.
proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in Section 12-B(d) of Rep.
Act No. 8282 does not run afoul of the equal protection clause of The SSS denied the petitioner’s application for survivor’s pension
the Constitution as it merely determines the reckoning date of on the sole ground that she was not the legal spouse of Bonifacio
qualification and entitlement of beneficiaries to the survivorship "as of the date of his retirement;" hence, she could not be
pension. It asserts that this classification of beneficiaries is based considered as his primary beneficiary under Section 12-B(d) of
on valid and substantial distinctions that are germane to the Rep. Act No. 8282.
legislative purpose of Rep. Act No. 8282.
The Court holds that the proviso "as of the date of his retirement"
The SSC also impugns the marriage of the petitioner to Bonifacio in Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282, which qualifies the term
after his retirement stating that it was contracted as an afterthought "primary beneficiaries," is unconstitutional for it violates the due
to enable her to qualify for the survivorship pension upon the process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. 7
latter’s death. It further alleges that there is no violation of the due
process clause as the petitioner was given her day in court and
was able to present her side.
In an analogous case, Government Service Insurance System v. entitlement to survivor’s pension under Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act
Montesclaros,8 the Court invalidated the proviso in Presidential No. 8282.
Decree (P.D.) No. 11469 which stated that "the dependent spouse
shall not be entitled to said pension if his marriage with the In any case, the issue that now confronts the Court involves a
pensioner is contracted within three years before the pensioner dependent spouse who claims to have been unjustly deprived of
qualified for the pension." In the said case, the Court characterized her survivor’s pension under Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282.
retirement benefits as property interest of the pensioner as well as Hence, the subsequent discussion will focus on the resultant
his or her surviving spouse. The proviso, which denied a classification of the dependent spouses as primary beneficiaries
dependent spouse’s claim for survivorship pension if the under the said provision.
dependent spouse contracted marriage to the pensioner within the
three-year prohibited period, was declared offensive to the due
process clause. There was outright confiscation of benefits due the As earlier stated, the petitioner belongs to the second group of
surviving spouse without giving him or her an opportunity to be dependent spouses, i.e., her marriage to Bonifacio was contracted
heard. The proviso was also held to infringe the equal protection after his retirement. She and those similarly situated are
clause as it discriminated against dependent spouses who undoubtedly discriminated against as the proviso "as of the date of
contracted their respective marriages to pensioners within three his retirement" disqualifies them from being considered "primary
years before they qualified for their pension. beneficiaries" for the purpose of entitlement to survivor’s pension.

For reasons which shall be discussed shortly, the proviso "as of Generally, a statute based on reasonable classification does not
the date of his retirement" in Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 violate the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection clause of
similarly violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the law.11 With respect to Rep. Act No. 8282, in particular, as a
the Constitution. social security law, it is recognized that it "is permeated with
provisions that draw lines in classifying those who are to receive
benefits. Congressional decisions in this regard are entitled to
The proviso infringes the equal protection clause deference as those of the institution charged under our scheme of
government with the primary responsibility for making such
As illustrated by the petitioner’s case, the proviso "as of the date of judgments in light of competing policies and interests." 12
his retirement" in Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 which
qualifies the term "primary beneficiaries" results in the However, as in other statutes, the classification in Rep. Act No.
classification of dependent spouses as primary beneficiaries into 8282 with respect to entitlement to benefits, to be valid and
two groups: reasonable, must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must
rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the
(1) Those dependent spouses whose respective marriages to SSS purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions
members were contracted prior to the latter’s retirement; and only; and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same
class.13
(2) Those dependent spouses whose respective marriages to SSS
members were contracted after the latter’s retirement. The legislative history of Rep. Act No. 8282 does not bear out the
purpose of Congress in inserting the proviso "as of the date of his
Underlying these two classifications of dependent spouses is that retirement" to qualify the term "primary beneficiaries" in Section
their respective marriages are valid. In other words, both groups 12-B(d) thereof. To the Court’s mind, however, it reflects
are legitimate or legal spouses. The distinction between them lies congressional concern with the possibility of relationships entered
solely on the date the marriage was contracted. The petitioner after retirement for the purpose of obtaining benefits. In particular,
belongs to the second group of dependent spouses, i.e., her the proviso was apparently intended to prevent sham marriages or
marriage to Bonifacio was contracted after his retirement. As such, those contracted by persons solely to enable one spouse to claim
she and those similarly situated do not qualify as "primary benefits upon the anticipated death of the other spouse.
beneficiaries" under Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 and,
therefore, are not entitled to survivor’s pension under the same This concern is concededly valid. However, classifying dependent
provision by reason of the subject proviso. spouses and determining their entitlement to survivor’s pension
based on whether the marriage was contracted before or after the
It is noted that the eligibility of "dependent children" who are retirement of the other spouse, regardless of the duration of the
biological offsprings of a retired SSS member to be considered as said marriage, bears no relation to the achievement of the policy
his primary beneficiaries under Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. objective of the law, i.e., "provide meaningful protection to
8282 is not substantially affected by the proviso "as of the date of members and their beneficiaries against the hazard of disability,
his retirement." A biological child, whether legitimate, legitimated or sickness, maternity, old age, death and other contingencies
illegitimate, is entitled to survivor’s pension upon the death of a resulting in loss of income or financial burden." 14 The nexus of the
retired SSS member so long as the said child is unmarried, not classification to the policy objective is vague and flimsy. Put
gainfully employed and has not reached twenty-one (21) years of differently, such classification of dependent spouses is not
age, or if over twenty-one (21) years of age, he or she is germane to the aforesaid policy objective.
congenitally or while still a minor has been permanently
incapacitated and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally. For if it were the intention of Congress to prevent sham marriages
or those entered in contemplation of imminent death, then it should
On the other hand, the eligibility of legally adopted children to be have prescribed a definite "duration-of-relationship" or durational
considered "primary beneficiaries" under Section 12-B(d) of Rep. period of relationship as one of the requirements for entitlement to
Act No. 8282 is affected by the proviso "as of the date of his survivor’s pension. For example, in the United States, a provision
retirement" in the same manner as the dependent spouses. A in their social security law which excludes from social security
legally adopted child who satisfies the requirements in Section 8(e) benefits the surviving wife and stepchild of a deceased wage
(2)10 thereof is considered a primary beneficiary of a retired SSS earner who had their respective relationships to the wage earner
member upon the latter’s death only if the said child had been for less than nine months prior to his death, was declared
legally adopted prior to the member’s retirement. One who was valid.15 Thus, nine months is recognized in the United States as the
legally adopted by the SSS member after his or her retirement minimum duration of a marriage to consider it as having been
does not qualify as a primary beneficiary for the purpose of
contracted in good faith for the purpose of entitlement to employer and employee contributions.26 Further, under Rep. Act
survivorship pension. No. 8282, the surviving spouse is entitled to survivor’s pension
accruing on the death of the member; hence, the surviving
In contrast, the proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in Section spouse’s right to receive such benefit following the demise of the
12-B(d) in Rep. Act No. 8282 effectively disqualifies from wife or husband, as the case may be, is also part of the latter’s
entitlement to survivor’s pension all those dependent spouses contractual compensation.
whose respective marriages to retired SSS members were
contracted after the latter’s retirement. The duration of the The proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in Section 12-B(d) of
marriage is not even considered. It is observed that, in certain Rep. Act No. 8282 runs afoul of the due process clause as it
instances, the retirement age under Rep. Act No. 8282 is sixty outrightly deprives the surviving spouses whose respective
(60) marriages to the retired SSS members were contracted after the
years old.16 A marriage contracted by a retired SSS member after latter’s retirement of their survivor’s benefits. There is outright
the said age may still last for more than ten years, assuming the confiscation of benefits due such surviving spouses without giving
member lives up to over seventy (70) years old. In such a case, it them an opportunity to be heard.
cannot be said that the marriage was a sham or was entered into
solely for the purpose of enabling one spouse to obtain the By this outright disqualification of the surviving spouses whose
financial benefits due upon the death of the other spouse. respective marriages to SSS members were contracted after the
Nonetheless, the said surviving spouse is not entitled to survivor’s latter’s retirement, the proviso "as of the date of his retirement"
pension because he or she is not a primary beneficiary as of the qualifying the term "primary beneficiaries" for the purpose of
date of retirement of the SSS member following Section 12-B(d) of entitlement to survivor’s pension has created the presumption that
Rep. Act No. 8282. marriages contracted after the retirement date of SSS members
were entered into for the purpose of securing the benefits under
Further, the classification of dependent spouses on the basis of Rep. Act No. 8282. This presumption, moreover, is conclusive
whether their respective marriages to the SSS member were because the said surviving spouses are not afforded any
contracted prior to or after the latter’s retirement for the purpose of opportunity to disprove the presence of the illicit purpose. The
entitlement to survivor’s pension does not rest on real and proviso, as it creates this conclusive presumption, is
substantial distinctions. It is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is too unconstitutional because it presumes a fact which is not
sweeping because the proviso "as of the date of his retirement," necessarily or universally true. In the United States, this kind of
which effectively disqualifies the dependent spouses whose presumption is characterized as an "irrebuttable presumption" and
respective marriages to the retired SSS member were contracted statutes creating permanent and irrebutable presumptions have
after the latter’s retirement as primary beneficiaries, unfairly lumps long been disfavored under the due process clause. 27
all these marriages as sham relationships or were contracted
solely for the purpose of acquiring benefits accruing upon the In the petitioner’s case, for example, she asserted that when she
death of the other spouse. The proviso thus unduly prejudices the and Bonifacio got married in 1997, it was merely to legalize their
rights of the legal surviving spouse, like the petitioner, and defeats relationship and not to commit fraud. This claim is quite believable.
the avowed policy of the law "to provide meaningful protection to After all, they had been living together since 1980 and, in fact,
members and their beneficiaries against the hazards of disability, during that time their eldest child was already twenty-four (24)
sickness, maternity, old age, death, and other contingencies years old. However, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to
resulting in loss of income or financial burden." 17 prove her claim that she was Bonifacio’s bona fide legal spouse as
she was automatically disqualified from being considered as his
The proviso infringes the due process clause primary beneficiary. In effect, the petitioner was deprived of the
survivor’s benefits, a property interest, accruing from the death of
As earlier opined, in Government Service Insurance System v. Bonifacio without any opportunity to be heard. Standards of due
Montesclaros,18 the Court characterized retirement benefits as a process require that the petitioner be allowed to present evidence
property interest of a retiree. We held therein that "[i]n a pension to prove that her marriage to Bonifacio was contracted in good
plan where employee participation is mandatory, the prevailing faith and as his bona fide spouse she is entitled to the survivor’s
view is that employees have contractual or vested rights in the pension accruing upon his death.28 Hence, the proviso "as of the
pension where the pension is part of the terms of date of his retirement" in Section 12-B(d) which deprives the
employment."19 Thus, it was ruled that, "where the employee petitioner and those similarly situated dependent spouses of
retires and meets the eligibility requirements, he acquires a vested retired SSS members this opportunity to be heard must be struck
right to benefits that is protected by the due process clause" and down.
"[r]etirees enjoy a protected property interest whenever they
acquire a right to immediate payment under pre-existing Conclusion
law."20 Further, since pursuant to the pertinent law therein, the
dependent spouse is entitled to survivorship pension, "a widow’s Even as the proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in Section
right to receive pension following the demise of her husband is 12-B(d) is nullified, the enumeration of primary beneficiaries for the
also part of the husband’s contractual compensation."21 purpose of entitlement to survivor’s pension is not substantially
affected since the following persons are considered as such under
Although the subject matter in the above-cited case involved the Section 8(k) of Rep. Act No. 8282:
retirement benefits under P.D. No. 1146 or the Revised
Government Service Insurance Act of 197722 covering government (1) The dependent spouse until he or she remarries; and
employees, the pronouncement therein that retirees enjoy a
protected property interest in their retirement benefits applies
squarely to those in the private sector under Rep. Act No. 8282. (2) The dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and
This is so because the mandatory contributions of both the illegitimate children.
employers23and the employees24 to the SSS do not, likewise, make
the retirement benefits under Rep. Act No. 8282 mere gratuity but In relation thereto, Section 8(e) thereof qualifies the dependent
form part of the latter’s compensation. Even the retirement benefits spouse and dependent children as follows:
of self-employed individuals, like Bonifacio, who have been
included in the compulsory coverage of Rep. Act No. 828225 are
not mere gratuity because they are required to pay both the
(1) The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the
member;

(2) The legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate

child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed and has not
reached twenty-one years (21) of age, or if over twenty-one (21)
years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been
permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support,
physically or mentally.

Finally, the Court concedes that the petitioner did not raise the
issue of the validity of the proviso "as of the date of his retirement"
in Section 12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282. The rule is that the Court
does not decide questions of a constitutional nature unless
absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.29 However, the
question of the constitutionality of the proviso is absolutely
necessary for the proper resolution of the present case.
Accordingly, the Court required the parties to present their
arguments on this issue and proceeded to pass upon the same in
the exercise of its equity jurisdiction and in order to render
substantial justice to the petitioner who, presumably in her
advanced age by now, deserves to receive forthwith the survivor’s
pension accruing upon the death of her husband.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April

15, 2003 and Resolution dated December 15, 2003 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69632 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The proviso "as of the date of his retirement" in Section
12-B(d) of Rep. Act No. 8282 is declared VOID for being contrary
to the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution. The Social Security System cannot deny the claim of
petitioner Elena P. Dycaico for survivor’s pension on the basis of
this invalid proviso.

SO ORDERED.