SSS vs Bailon [G.R. No.

165545]
March 24, 2006
by Quolete
Facts:
Clemente Bailon and Alice Diaz were married in Barcelona,
Sorsogon. Fifteen years later, Bailon petitioned to declare Alice
presumptively dead. The Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial
Court) thereafter, there being no opposition, declared Alice as
presumptively dead.
After thirteen years since Alice was declared presumptively dead,
Bailon married Teresita Jarque in Casiguran, Sorsogon. Some years
later, Bailon died. Since Bailon was a member of the SSS, Teresita
Jarque, the respondent, filed a claim for funeral benefits and was
consequently granted. After two months, respondent filed another
claim-for death benefits-and was again, granted. It was revealed later
that Bailon is married to three women: Alice, Elisa, and respondent
respectively and who are all alive. Elisa and her children, and the
brother of Alice later filed claims for funeral and death benefits
Amidst the confusion as to whom is the legal wife and to whom the
SSS benefits shall accrue to, the SSS cancelled the death pension
(monthly) benefits accrued to and an order to refund both funeral
and death benefits from respondent. Respondent returned the funeral
benefits received, in protest, and filed a petition to restore her
entitlement to the monthly pension.

Issues:
The SSC made decisions, with no judicial proceeding, and are the
following:
(1) Alice never disappeared. She was living with her parents. Thus,
there is no presumptive death and deceased cannot remarry.
(2) Bailon was the abandoning spouse and not Alice.
(3) The deceased is in bad faith because of fraud in petitioning to
declare first wife presumptively dead.
(4) Marriage to respondent is void because previous marriage still
subsists and no annulment, invalidation, nor marriage was dissolved.
(5) Respondent is not the legitimate wife.
(6) Respondent is merely a common-law wife. Thus, is not entitled to
primary beneficiary to the SSS member Bailons death.
(7) Respondent must refund the total amount of death benefits she
received from the SSS.
The Court of Appeals ruled:
(a) The SSS has no right, in its own investigation and without judicial
proceeding, to declare a presumptive death as having no basis and
override the decision of the RTC.

(b) The SSS has no right to declare in its own that a marriage is nulled
and void on the basis that the declaration of presumptive death has
no basis.
(c) SSS cannot arrogate upon itself the authority to review the
decision of regular courts.
(d) Affidavit of reappearance with the Civil Registry is no longer
necessary because there is no more marital bond between Alice and
Bailon as the latter is now deceased.
(e) A subsequent marriage without the previous marriage being
annulled or dissolved is illegal.
(f) There is no marriage to dissolve between respondent and Bailon
because the latter is already deceased.
Held:
(1) That the SSC is empowered to settle any dispute with respect to SSS
coverage, benefits and contributionshowever, it cannot review, much less
reverse, decisions rendered by courts of law.
(2) The law does not give the SSC unfettered discretion to trifle with orders
of regular courts in the exercise of its authority to determine the beneficiaries
of the SSS.
(3) The law applicable to the two marriages is the Civil Code. (In
determining the validity of marriage, it is to be tested by the law in

force at the time the marriage was contracted.)

(4) A subsequent marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse
is illegal and void ab initio unless the prior marriage is first annulled or
dissolved or contracted under any of the exceptional circumstances (Article
83 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code).
(5) Marriage under the exceptional cases (Article 83 paragraph 2 of the
Civil Code) is deemed valid until declared null and void by competent
courts.
(6) Exceptional cases (Article 83 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code) rests
on the party assailing the second marriage.
Where a person has entered into two successive marriages, a presumption
arises in favor of the validity of the second marriage
(7) Under the Civil Code, a subsequent marriage being voidable
(Article 85), it is terminated by final judgment of annulment in a case
instituted by the absent spouse who reappears or by either of the
spouses in the subsequent marriage.
Under the Family Code, no judicial proceeding to annul a subsequent
marriage is necessary (Article 42). (Note: This sentence pertains to
those presumed dead and those presumed dead must file an affidavit
of reappearance.)
(8) It bears reiterating that a voidable marriage cannot be assailed
collaterally except in a direct proceeding. Consequently, such marriages can

be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not after the death of
either, in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the
marriage had been perfectly valid. Upon the death of either, the marriage
cannot be impeached, and is made good ab initio.
The Ruling
(a) As no step was taken to nullify, in accordance with law, Bailons
and respondents marriage prior to the formers death in
1998, respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of
Bailon.