Scribd
Upload
145 views2 pages

U. SSS vs. VDA DE BAILON, GR. NO 165545, MARCH 24, 2008, SINGZON

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, Teresita Jarque, was the rightful beneficiary of her deceased husband Clemente Bailon's Social Security benefits. While Bailon was first married to Alice in 1955, she was declared presumptively dead by a court in 1970. Bailon then married Teresita in 1983. After Bailon's death in 1998, Teresita filed claims for death benefits which were approved by the SSS. However, it was later revealed that Alice was still alive, as were two other women Bailon had married. But the Court held that since Bailon's marriage to Teresita was made after Alice was declared dead, Teresita remained

Uploaded by

Reynier Molintas Clemens
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
145 views2 pages

U. SSS vs. VDA DE BAILON, GR. NO 165545, MARCH 24, 2008, SINGZON

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, Teresita Jarque, was the rightful beneficiary of her deceased husband Clemente Bailon's Social Security benefits. While Bailon was first married to Alice in 1955, she was declared presumptively dead by a court in 1970. Bailon then married Teresita in 1983. After Bailon's death in 1998, Teresita filed claims for death benefits which were approved by the SSS. However, it was later revealed that Alice was still alive, as were two other women Bailon had married. But the Court held that since Bailon's marriage to Teresita was made after Alice was declared dead, Teresita remained

Uploaded by

Reynier Molintas Clemens
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner,

vs.
TERESITA JARQUE VDA. DE BAILON, Respondent.
G.R. No. 165545 March 24, 2006

JURISPRUDENCE:
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.

FACTS:
On April 25, 1955, Clemente G. Bailon (Bailon) and Alice P. Diaz (Alice) contracted marriage
in Barcelona, Sorsogon. More than 15 years later or on October 9, 1970, Bailon filed before the
then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Sorsogon a petition to declare Alice presumptively dead. By
Order of December 10, 1970, the CFI granted the petition.

Close to 13 years after his wife Alice was declared presumptively dead or on August 8, 1983,
Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita Jarque (respondent) in Casiguran, Sorsogon.
On January 30, 1998, Bailon, who was a member of the Social Security System (SSS) since 1960
and a retiree pensioner thereof effective July 1994, died.

Respondent filed on March 11, 1998 an additional claim for death benefits which was also
granted by the SSS on April 6, 1998. Then, 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent was the rightful beneficiaries of the deceased member.

HELD:
Yes. The court ruled that the respondent was rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of
Bailon. If the absentee (first wife) reappears, but no step is taken to terminate the subsequent
marriage, either by affidavit or by court action, such absentee’s mere reappearance, even if made
known to the spouses in the subsequent marriage, will not terminate such marriage. Since the
second marriage has been contracted because of a presumption that the former spouse is dead,
such presumption continues inspite of the spouse’s physical reappearance, and by fiction of law,
he or she must still be regarded as legally an absentee until the subsequent marriage is terminated
as provided by law.

You might also like