Digest Author: Dodot

Vda. De Consuegra v. GSIS (1971) 1. Petition: Appeal [From decision of Surigao del Norte CFI] Petitioner-appellants: Basilia Berdin Vda. De Consuegra; Juliana, Pacita, Maria Lourdes, Jose, Jr., Rodrigo, Lineda, and Luis, all surnamed Consuegra Respondent-appellees: GSIS, Commissioner of Public Highways, Highway District Engineer of Surigao del Norte, Commissioner of Civil Service, and Rosario Diaz Ponente: J. Zaldivar Date: 30 Jan 1971 Facts: NO. At the time Jose designated his life insurance beneficiaries, the provisions establishing a system for retirement benefits had yet to be effected [the relevant enabling law, Commonwealth Act 186, had been amended between the start of his tenure and the end] Thus, he could not have intended the beneficiaries for his life insurance policy to be the same ones for his asyet nonexistent retirement insurance policy CA 186, as amended by RA 660, clearly stipulated that beneficiaries for the retirement insurance should be stated in his application [Sec. 11 (b)] CA 186 (as amended) provides that there are separate sources of funds for the life insurance system and the retirement insurance system TO WHOME SHOULD THE BENEFITS GO? Life Insurance Policy Paid to whomever are named as the beneficiaries (not necessarily the legal heirs) in the case at bar, Basilia et al. Insurer is allowed to designate anybody as a beneficiary (unless disqualified by law) In the absence of listed beneficiaries, the life insurance benefits will go to the estate of the deceased GSIS Since there are no designated beneficiaries, the retirement insurance benefits will go to the estate HOW SHOULD THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS BE SPLIT? 50/50 nd Although 2 marriage is void ab initio (celebrated st while 1 marriage subsisting) no judicial declaration of nullity nd Thus, 2 wifes share to of the property must be recognized

Jose Consuegra (deceased) o Formerly employed at office of Dist. Engg, Surigao del Norte o Contracted 2 marriages in lifetime Rosario Diaz (respondent) 15 Jun 1937 (married) 2 children (both predeceased father) Basilia Berdin (petitioner) 1 May 1957 (married) st Contracted while 1 was subsisting, but in good faith 7 children Upon death of Jose GSIS paid life insurance to Basilia Berdin et al. o Jose had NOT designated any beneficiaries Rosario filed claim: that insurance benefits be paid to her as the only legal heir of Jose o Basila et al. filed similar claim: said that they should be the only beneficiaries of the retirement insurance, because they are the listed beneficiaries of Joses life insurance GSIS ruled: o of total retirement benefits to Rosario o of total retirement benefits to Basilia et al. (1/16 share per person) Unhappy with ruling, Basilia et al. filed mandamus w/ prelim injunction before Surigao del Norte CFI o Prayed that they be declared the legal heirs and exclusive beneficiaries CFI decided, affirmed GSIS ruling o When two women innocently and in good faith are legally united in holy matrimony to the same man each family will be entitled to one half of the estate. Basilia et al. then filed appeal to SC

Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts: Commonwealth Act No. 186 [Creating GSIS], as amended by Republic Act. No. 660 Issues: 1. In the absence of designated beneficiaries, are assigned beneficiaries in life insurance policy also the default assigned beneficiaries in a retirement insurance policy? [NO]

Opinions: No separate opinions Disposition: Decision appealed from, affirmed. Principles: Property Relations Between Husband and Wife Property Regimes of Unions Without Marriage

Ruling/Ratio: