Social Security System v. Enobiso

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 183262. February 13, 2013.]

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), petitioner, vs. LOURDES S. ENOBISO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 13, 2013 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 183262 (Social Security System (SSS) v. Lourdes S. Enobiso). — For review is the Decision 1 rendered on June 29, 2007 and Resolution 2 issued on June 3, 2008 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93626. The CA nullified and set aside the Social Security Commission's (SSC) Resolution 3 and Order 4 dated September 7, 2005 and December 21, 2005, respectively, which declared that herein private respondent, Lourdes S. Enobiso (Lourdes), was not a primary beneficiary of the late Petronilo Enobiso (Petronilo), a member of the Social Security System (SSS).

Petronilo was initially enrolled as a member of the SSS on June 6, 1968. 5 Back then, he declared his father Ciriaco as beneficiary and his brother Salvador as dependent.

Lourdes claimed that she married Petronilo on March 24, 1969. 6 They had nine children, but three of them died.

Subsequently, on different dates, "Member's Data Change or Addition Report" forms were submitted to the SSS. Indicated therein were the names of (a) Lourdes Semera, Orlando Enobiso, Ernesto Enobiso and Jose Eleasar Enobiso, 7 (b) Michelle Enobiso, 8 (c) Anna Lyn Enobiso, 9 and (d) Danilo, Richard, Marlon, and Maricel, all surnamed Enobiso. 10 The foregoing names were declared either as new or additional dependents, or as additional beneficiaries.

On September 17, 1993, Petronilo died of pneumonia. 11 Lourdes filed claims for death and pension benefits with the SSS Caloocan Branch. The said claims were granted on December 30, 1993. CDHAcI

Sometime in December 1997, the SSS stopped paying benefits to Lourdes. The SSS declared that its Security and Anti-Fraud Office (SAFO) found that the marriage certificate, upon which Lourdes based her claims for benefits by reason of Petronilo's death, was fake.

In 2004, Lourdes filed with the SSS claims for the resumption of monthly death and pension benefits. In support of her claims, she submitted the following: (a) Affidavit of Late Registration of Marriage executed on October 23, 2001; 12 (b) PAG-IBIG beneficiary nomination form indicating her and four of her common children with Petronilo as beneficiaries; (c) Joint Affidavit 13 dated April 30, 2002 of Juliana Enoveso and Herminigilda Enobiso Talesik, Petronilo's siblings, stating that Lourdes was their late brother's spouse; and (d) photocopy of the marriage contract of Lourdes and Petronilo duly signed by them, the officiating judge and witnesses. 14

On March 23, 2004, the SSS denied Lourdes' claims and ordered her to return the pension benefits which she had previously received. The SSS declared that:

Our Legal Department opined that since the report of SAFO clearly states that the marriage contract submitted was fake, thus, a subsequent registration of marriage contract, presumably, the same marriage contract earlier submitted and declared fake by the same unit, would not cure the defect. In addition, your claim that your marriage contract was registered only now because the copies including your marriage license were given to you and were kept "believing that it was already finished", is contrary to established procedure on the registration of marriage certificate. The solemnizing officer would not give all the copies of the marriage certificate, including, the marriage license to the parties as he is required by law to forward the duplicate and triplicate copies of said marriage certificate to the Local Civil Registrar of the place where the marriage took place. Further, the other documents submitted such as the PAG-IBIG beneficiary nomination form and joint affidavit of the relatives of the deceased are likewise not sufficient to disprove the findings of SAFO that the marriage contract is fake. No document was presented to establish the fact that indeed you were married to subject member. 15 (Emphasis in the original) HIEASa

Lourdes assailed the same by way of a petition filed with the SSC.

On September 7, 2005, the SSC declared that Lourdes was not a primary beneficiary of Petronilo, hence, not entitled to receive death benefits. 16 Lourdes' illegitimate children with Petronilo were, however, admitted as secondary beneficiaries entitled to receive a lump sum death benefit. The SSC thus ordered the SSS to compute the amounts previously paid to Lourdes and her minor illegitimate children. Lourdes was likewise directed to reimburse the SSS for any overpayment the latter had made. The SSC ratiocinated that:

[I]t is easily shown by the parties' pleadings that the death pension benefit of petitioner Lourdes Somera (sic) Enobiso, accruing from the demise of SSS member Petronilo Enobiso on September 17, 1993, was granted on December 30, 1993 and was later suspended in December 1997 following a finding by SAFO that petitioner's claim was fraudulent, her marriage contract being a fake document. However, the petitioner requested for a resumption of the payment of her monthly pension in 2004. While this seemingly irrelevant fact may not directly prove that the original claim was fraudulent, yet it undisputably shows a reluctance to assert a right, which would not be the natural reaction of anybody who was prejudiced pecuniarily and who knows fully well that her relationship to the deceased member was legitimate to begin with and is, therefore, confident about her entitlement to the benefit which was taken away, and unceremoniously at that.

The long inaction on the part of the petitioner is probably caused by her desire to present a marriage contract duly registered with the Local Civil Registrar. But the marriage contract presented in this case was only a photocopy and shows a late registration date, October 25, 2001 to be exact, and Registry No. 2001-9128. The document, entered into on March 24, 1969, was supposedly in the possession of the petitioner for some thirty[-]two (32) years before it was finally submitted for registration. A question as to its authenticity then arises because this document supposedly in existence for quite some time should have been presented at the moment the original claim was filed in 1993 and should have borne a 1993 registration date. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the petitioner could have been granted her death benefit in 1993 on the basis of an unregistered marriage contract which was subsequently found to be a fabricated document by SAFO. aEcADH

The Memorandum dated January 15, 2004 of the Officer-in-Charge of the SSS Legal Department to the head of the SSS Kalookan Branch, distinctly states that no document in this case was presented to establish the fact that the petitioner was married to the member. . . .:

xxx xxx xxx

Even now, the petitioner failed to submit the original of the marriage contract purportedly executed in 1969 so that the Commission will be able to appreciate its authenticity. This particular lapse is fatal to her cause of action. Thus, without the original marriage contract supposed to be still existing several decades after its alleged execution in 1969 (which was even submitted for late registration in 2001), the present case must fail. Indeed, the alleged return of all copies of the marriage contract AS WELL AS THE MARRIAGE LICENSE by the solemnizing officer after the marriage ceremony, had one (sic) been actually performed, is so incredible that it unwittingly corroborates the finding in the SAFO report that the marriage contract is fake for no duly authorized solemnizing officer returns a marriage license to the contracting parties after performing the wedding ceremony. The act of the solemnizing officer as stated by the petitioner is so irregular and is a far departure from the usual norm that it does not inspire belief and actually proves that no marriage in this case ever took place. 17 (Underlining ours)

Lourdes challenged the SSC's disquisition in a Petition for Review 18 under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court filed before the CA.

On June 29, 2007, the CA rendered the now assailed Decision 19 setting aside the SSC's Resolution dated September 7, 2005 and ordering the SSS to pay Lourdes pension benefits to be reckoned from December 1997 onwards. The CA explained that:

We do not share the view of the Social Security Commission that there was "absence of a real marital relationship"[.] If at all, the falsity of the marriage certificate may only mean the "absence of proof of a real marital relationship" which the petitioner tried to remedy by submitting in evidence a number of documents which may prove the existence of their marriage. TAaCED

We reiterate that the respondent should have considered these documents submitted by the petitioner, and not entirely relied on the "unsubstantiated" statement of the SAFO and thereafter disregarded without ado the other documents adduced by the petitioner.

Indeed, although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place. Other evidence may be presented to prove marriage.

As early as Pugeda v. Trias, the Supreme Court has held that marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant evidence. In that case, the Supreme Court said:

"testimony by one of the parties to the marriage, or by one of the witnesses to the marriage, has been held to be admissible to prove the fact of marriage. . . ."

Among the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of her claim are the following: (1) an affidavit of late registration of marriage contract entered into on March 24, 1969; (2) a photocopy of their marriage contract with the signatures of the bride and the groom and the officiating officer and the witnesses[;] (3) PAG-IBIG beneficiary nomination form with the petitioner as his wife and their four children as beneficiaries; and (4) the joint affidavits of the relatives of the deceased member attesting to the fact that the petitioner is the only spouse of the deceased member.

It must also be noted that the deceased himself during his lifetime "stated" that the petitioner was his wife as borne by the SSS forms wherein the deceased Petronilo Enobiso added as dependents his "housewife" Lourdes Enobiso, and sons and daughter. HSIDTE

This jurisprudential attitude towards marriage is based on the prima facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. Given the undisputed fact that the deceased and the petitioner lived together as husband and wife, we find that the presumption of marriage was not rebutted in this case.

To this presumption, the respondent argued "that while the rules create a presumption in favor of the petitioner, she is the one in possession of the evidence that "lawful contract of marriage" in the form of the original marriage contract purporting to have been entered into and executed with the late deceased member Petronilo Enobiso way back on March 24, 1969 before one Jesus O. Martinez, Acting City Judge of an unspecified city court in Caloocan City. And while, one who goes against the presumption ordinarily has the burden of proof to establish otherwise, in the instant case of the petitioner, the burden of proving such "lawful contract of marriage" is shifted to her because the proof of the questioned marriage is in her possession.

True, the petitioner is the one in possession of the evidence to prove her being the legal spouse of the deceased SSS member, and thus, she is duty-bound to present the same, we stress however that contrary to the apparent perception of the respondent, it is not only a marriage contract which may prove the same.

Through the other documents presented by the petitioner, we hold that she was able to prove her marital relationship with the deceased SSS member.

It bears noting that a Certified True Copy of a Marriage Contract, and a Marriage Certificate from the National Statistics Office were among those submitted by the petitioner. These are public documents whose trustworthiness, absent any evidence that they were tampered, cannot be disputed.

"Section 44, Rule 130, of the Revised Rules of Court provides: "Entries in official records. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated." The trustworthiness of public documents and the value given to the entries made therein could be grounded on 1) the sense of official duty in the preparation of the statement made, 2) the penalty which is usually affixed to a breach of that duty, 3) the routine and disinterested origin of most such statements, and 4) the publicity of record which makes more likely the prior exposure of such errors as might have occured. CSTHca

In those aforesaid public documents, it is stated that one Petronilo Enobiso and Lourdes Enobiso with Marriage License No. 2746492 were married on March 24, 1969 by one Jesus G. Martinez, Acting City Judge of Caloocan.

There is no finding that these documents presented by the petitioner are likewise falsified. In fact, the respondent did not allege that they are. There is thus, no reason to disregard them altogether and defeat the claim of the petitioner on the sole basis of an allegedly fake marriage certificate she previously submitted. At the least, the respondent should have looked into the validity of the petitioner's claim.

xxx xxx xxx

The respondent even went to question the late registration of the marriage contract of the petitioner, and her affidavit in support of the same, . . . .

The late registration could not be taken against the petitioner, or without any evidence of the falsity of her claim, outrightly consider the same as falsified. In the first place, failure to send a copy of a marriage contract for record purposes does not invalidate the marriage. Secondly, it was not the petitioner's duty to send a copy of the marriage contract to the civil registrar. Instead, this charge fell upon the solemnizing officer. 20 (Underlining ours)

In a resolution issued on June 3, 2008, the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration 21 filed by the SSS.

In the petition 22 now before us, the SSS raises fifteen issues. 23 Those can be summarized as follows:

(a) Is the presumption that Petronilo and Lourdes were validly married sufficiently rebutted by the fact of the absence of a recording in the Office of the Civil Registrar (OCR) that the union indeed took place?

(b) Does Lourdes' failure to offer the testimony of the solemnizing officer and witnesses, who were present during her wedding with Petronilo, fatal to her cause? IcTCHD

(c) Did Lourdes submit ample proofs to establish that she was indeed Petronilo's wife, hence, entitled to receive death and pension benefits from the SSS?

In support of the instant petition, the SSS reiterated in detail the arguments it had presented in the proceedings below, with emphasis on the averment that the marriage of Lourdes and Petronilo, which took place in 1969, was not promptly recorded with the OCR.

Our Ruling

We find no reversible error committed by the CA.

In Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 24 we held that:

Generally, we are not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions[.]25(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In the case before us, the findings of the SSC and the CA were at odds with each other. Hence, we take exception and allow a re-calibration of the evidence offered by the contending parties.

Being inter-related, we shall resolve the substantive issues jointly.

Section 3 (aa) of Rule 31 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but maybe contradicted or overcome by other evidence:

xxx xxx xxx

(aa) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;

In Sevilla v. Cardenas, 26 we held that:

Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in the constant violation of decency and of law. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is 'that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.' Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio — Always presume marriage. 27 CDAHaE

The SSS points out that in 1997, the OCR had declared that no record was extant relative to the supposed solemnization of Petronilo and Lourdes' marriage. 28 Further, Marriage License No. 2746492, which was issued on March 24, 1969, was not in the names of Petronilo and Lourdes, but of Engracio Mendoza and Nelia Braga. 29 The SSS thus concluded that the foregoing had amply refuted the presumption that Petronilo and Lourdes were married to each other.

We do not agree.

Sarmiento v. CA 30 is instructive anent the question of what other proofs can be offered to establish the fact of a solemnized marriage, viz.:

In Trinidad vs. Court of Appeals, et al., this Court ruled that as proof of marriage may be presented: a) testimony of a witness to the matrimony; b) the couple's public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock; c) the birth and baptismal certificate of children born during such union; and d) the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents. 31 (Citation omitted)

In the instant petition, Lourdes and Petronilo's marriage was not promptly recorded with the OCR. It is also true that the testimonies of the solemnizing officer and principal witnesses to the wedding ceremony, which took place in 1969, were not offered. However, Petronilo's siblings unequivocally declared that Lourdes was married to their brother and that the couple had nine children. Moreover, the PAG-IBIG nomination form indicated Lourdes and her four children as Petronilo's beneficiaries. In the Member's Data Change or Addition Report forms submitted by Petronilo to the SSS, Lourdes was likewise named as a beneficiary and a "housewife". 32

In the absence of any malicious motives on the part of Petronilo's siblings in executing their Joint Affidavit, there is no reason to cast doubt upon its veracity. Further, the forms separately submitted on different occasions by Petronilo to PAG-IBIG and the SSS lead to the inescapable conclusion that he publicly acknowledged Lourdes as his wife and that he clearly intended to confer on her the status of being among his beneficiaries. Petronilo diligently paid his contributions to the SSS from 1968 until he died in 1993. If there is any doubt at all as to the existence of their marriage, it better be resolved in a manner that his intent shall be given life and not thwarted. SCaIcA

It is also worth mentioning that apart from Lourdes, no other heirs or beneficiaries had surfaced to file with the SSS any claims relative to Petronilo's death.

We, therefore, agree with the CA that the lack of prompt recording with the OCR does not amply rebut the presumption that Lourdes was Petronilo's wife. This especially holds true in the light of our declaration in Vda. de Jacob that the "failure to send a copy of a marriage contract for record purposes does not invalidate the marriage." It is not the duty of the couple to send a copy of the marriage contract to the civil registrar.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated June 29, 2007 and June 3, 2008, respectively, are AFFIRMED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Penned by Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate Justices Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 169-181.

2.Id. at 238-239.

3.Id. at 83-86.

4.Id. at 89.

5.Id. at 108.

6.Please see Marriage Contract; id. at 109.

7.Please see Member's Data Change or Addition Report filed on July 18, 1975; id. at 72.

8.Please see Member's Data Change or Addition Report filed on January 4, 1977; id. at 73.

9.Please see Member's Data Change or Addition Report filed on December 26, 1980; id. at 74.

10.Please see Member's Data Change or Addition Report filed on January 26, 1989; id. at 75.

11.Please see Certificate of Death; id. at 118.

12.Id. at 253.

13.Id. at 240.

14.Id. at 109.

15.Id. at 78.

16.Id. at 83-86.

17.Id. at 84-85.

18.Id. at 92-106.

19.Id. at 169-181.

20.Id. at 176-180, citing Balogbog v. CA, 336 Phil. 252, 258 (1997); Vda. De Jacob v. CA, 371 Phil. 693, 707 (1999).

21.Id. at 182-215.

22.Id. at 4-62.

23.Id. at 11-15.

24.G.R. No. 190515, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 656.

25.Id. at 660.

26.529 Phil. 419 (2006).

27.Id. at 435, citing Vda. de Jacob, supra note 20, at 708-709.

28.Rollo, p. 247.

29.Id. at 244.

30.364 Phil. 613 (1999).

31.Id. at 620.

32.Rollo, pp. 72-75.