SSS v.

Favila
G.R. No. 170195, March 28, 2011
Verba Legis
Petitioner: SSS
Respondent: Teresa Favila
Facts: Teresa Favila filed a petition before SSC, averring therein that she is
married to Florante Favila who designated Teresa as her sole beneficiary.
When they begot children, Florante likewise designated his children as
beneficiaries. When he died, his pension benefits were given only to his minor
child, Florante II until the latter was emancipated at 21. As the surviving legal
spouse, Teresa believed that she was entitled to death benefits.
SSC Ruling: Teresa filed a claim with SSC but it was denied. SSC held that
surviving spouses entitlement to SSS members death benefits is dependent
on two factors which must concur at the time of the latters death: (1) legality
of the marital relationship; (2) dependency for support. These are affected by
separation de facto/infidelity/etc. sufficient to disinherit a spouse under the
law. SSC ruled that although Teresa was the legal wife, she was not dependent
on Florante at the time of his death due to marital infidelity. Teresa filed MR,
but was denied.
CA Ruling: She elevated to CA. CA reversed SSCs decision, averring that
Teresa is undoubtedly the legal wife and that she is the primary beneficiary
entitled to his pension benefits. Her illicit affair with another man was never
established nor corroborated with substantial evidence.
SSC contended that the word spouse is qualified by the word dependent. Fact
of dependency is required by law, otherwise, law couldve just stated, spouse
without the descriptive word dependent. SSCs investigation revealed that
Teresa was separated in fact with Favila until the time of his death because of
her adulterous relationship. SSC filed for reconsideration but it was denied. It
elevated to SC.

Issue: W/N Teresa is entitled to Florantes death benefits, in contemplation of

the SS Law?
Held: NO.
Ratio: SS Law Sec. 8 defines dependent as the legitimate spouse dependent
for support upon the employee; beneficiaries = dependent spouse. The laws
purpose is plain and simple. A beneficiary must not only be a legitimate
spouse, but also dependent for a spouse to qualify as primary beneficiary.
BASIC STATCON RULE: if a statute is plain and clearly free from
ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without intended
interpretation. verba legis non est recedendum, from the words of a statute,
there must be no departure.
SC finds untenable Teresas assertion that being the legal wife, she is
presumed to be a primary dependent. In Aguas, SC clearly concluded thata
wife separated de fact from her husband cannot be said to be dependent for
support upon the husband. Wife-claimant had burden to show proof that all
requirements were complied with.
Teresa did not present any evidence to prove that she was dependent upon the
support of Florante until his death.
(e) Dependents The dependent shall be the following:
(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 twentyone years
(21) of age, or if over twentyone (21) years of age, he is congenitally or
while still a minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of self
support, physically or mentally; and xxx