ILUMINADA PONCE BERCILES, ILONA BERCILES ALVAREZ, ELLERY P.

BERCILES,
ENGLAND P. BERCILES and IONE P. BERCILES, petitioners, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM, PASCUAL VOLTAIRE BERCILES, MARIA LUISA BERCILES
VILLAREAL, MERCY BERCILES PATACSIL and RHODA BERCILES, respondents.
G.R. No. L-57257 | 1984-03-05
Topic: What is excluded as Conjugal Property Gains; brought as exclusive property

Facts:
 Judge Pascual G. Berciles died on cardiac arrest on August 21, 1979, age 66. He had GSIS
pension for serving in the government for 36 yrs, of which 26 yrs were in judiciary. He was also
entitled to other benefits from his employer as well as return of the premium paid to GSIS. Such
benefits are now being claimed by 2 families
 Iluminada Ponce of Ilocos Sur and her four children: Ilona, Ellery, England and Ione filed an
application for survivors benefit as the legal spouse and legitimate children of the late judge.
 The other set of claimants are Flor Fuentebella and her 4 children: Pascual, Maria, Mercy and
Rhoda filing their families claim through a letter dated November 10, 1979 together with
supporting documents.
 The matter of these 2 conflicting claims was resolved as an Administrative Matter where the
application of Iluminada Berciles was approved subject to: (1) proper determination of rightful
beneficiary and their corresponding share, and (2) the usual clearance requirements. Based on
this, the Court Administrator sent a memorandum to GSIS to hold retirement papers of the late
judge until the payment of other benefits from employer are settled and that an investigator is
going to be assigned to determine the respective claims of the supposed heirs.
 Atty. Reinato Quilala was assigned as the Court Investigator. On December 22, 1980, he sent a
notice of hearing to all alleged parties set for January 26, 1981. However, none of the parties
appeared. Records of the retirement section of the administrative office of the court showed that
GSIS already approved the claim of Iluminada and her children on October 9, 1980 and that the
check representing retirement gratuity of the deceased has been remitted to the Budget and
Finance Office of the Court.
 On February 4, 1981, Atty Cecilia Berciles, daughter in law of deceased, together with Iluminada,
submitted to the Court Investigator additional documents to support their claim and the following
recommendation:
o (1) that the death benefit of the deceased be awarded to Iluminada, to whom the deceased
had been living with up to the time of his death,
o (2) That the claim of Flor be denied for 2 reasons: (a) she has not established her
legitimate relationship with deceased, and (b) she was not living with deceased at the
time of his death as required by rules and regulations of PD 626 (the legitimate spouse
living with the employee at the time of the employee’s death).
 Additional documents presented were:
o 1975, 1976, 1979 income tax returns of the deceased where he listed Iluminada as his
wife
o Xerox of the application for optional insurance filed with the GSIS on November 19. 1956
listing the beneficiaries as Iluminada and their 4 children.
 Flor did not submit any evidence of their filiation to the late judge in spite of the telegram sent
to them on February 5, 1981. The letter submitted by Rhoda Berciles on behalf of her mother
Flor on Oct 19, 1979 had no leg to stand on. There was not marriage contract or certification
from the Local Civil Registrar certifying that the deceased was actually married to the late judge.
The documents are mere scrap of papers unworthy of credence since they did not prove any
family filiation.

Issue: Whether or not Flor and her children are entitled to the GSIS retirement benefit of the late
Judge Pascual Berciles?
Held: No, the Supreme Court ruled that Flor and her children are not entitled to the GSIS retirement
benefit of the late judge.

Judgement is based on the following:

1) The birth certificate of Pascual Voltaire Berciles, alleged acknowledged natural child, is not signed by the
late judge. It is ruled that he “did not intervene” (i.e. there was no voluntary acknowledgement on his part) and
the mere putting of his name by the mother or doctor is null and void.
2) The birth certificates of Maria, Mercy and Rhoda were also had no intervention. Birth certificates, to
evidence acknowledgement, must under Section 5 of Act 3753, bear the signature under oath of the
acknowledging parents.
3) The sworn statement of Coronacion Berciles, sister in law of the late judge, that her and her husband lived
with the judge and his wife Flor during the Japanese Occupation, was no proof that there was filiation of the
children of Flor with the late judge.
4) The pictures of Flor, judge and the children do not prove family filiation. At most, the show the picture of
a family without the sanction of marriage.
5) The letter of the late judge to Mercy, her daughter with Flor, indicating that it’s only her mother Flor and
no other woman deserve scant consideration since the late judge could not be expected to admit there was
another family. Moreso, the typewritten letter signed by the father is not an authentic writing.
6) The testimony of Flor is self-serving; the testimony of Concepcion Gonzales of her presence during the
marriage of Flor and Pascual, is deficient because she is blind; and the affidavit of Judge Rafael Lavente being
present in the wedding of Flor and Pascual was repudiated.
7) Flor had been living abroad since 1972 and Iluminada and the deceased have been living together at the
time of the death of the judge.

GSIS disposition of the retirement benefit (based on Republic Act 910) of late Judge Pascual G. Berciles was
erroneous. GSIS granted 77/134 to surviving spouse, 10/134 to 4 legitimate children, 5/134 to acknowledge
natural child, and 4/134 to 3 illegitimate children. The court ruled that GSIS committed grave abuse of discretion
for considering Pascual Voltaire Berciles as acknowledged nature child, and Maria, Mercy and Rhoda as illegitimate
children without substantial evidence through competent and admissible proof of acknowledgement of filiation
by the late judge.

Iluminada and her children are the lawful heirs entitled to the distribution of benefits and will be distributed in
accordance with the law on intestate and succession. Article 966 of the New Civil Code states that: “If a widow or
widower and legitimate children of descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in succession the same share as
that of each of the children.” The court ruled to divide the GSIS pension equally to 5 heirs (Iluminada and her 4
children) and one half of the retirement premium of P9,700 (being conjugal) to Iluminada with the remaining half
divided into 5 (Iluminada and her 4 children).