Signey case:

ISSUE: who between petitioner and the illegitimate children of the deceased are the
primary beneficiaries lawfully entitled to the social security benefits

CA: it held that based on Section 8(e) of R. A. No. 8282, a surviving spouse claiming
death benefits as a dependent must be the legal spouse. Petitioners presentation of a
marriage certificate attesting to her marriage to the deceased was futile, according to
the appellate court, as said marriage is null and void in view of the previous marriage of
the deceased to Editha as certified by the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City.
The appellate court also held that the law is clear that for a child to be qualified
as dependent, he must be unmarried, not gainfully employed and must not be 21 years
of age, or if over 21 years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been
permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally. And in
this
case,
only
the
illegitimate
children
of
the
deceased
with
Gina namely, Ginalyn and Rodelyn, are the qualified beneficiaries as

they were still minors at the time of the death of their father. Considering petitioner is
disqualified to be a beneficiary and the absence of any legitimate children of the
deceased, it follows that the dependent illegitimate minor children of the deceased
should be entitled to the death benefits as primary beneficiaries

ISSUE ON THE SC: whether petitioners marriage with the deceased is valid. The
second issue is whether petitioner has a superior legal right over the SSS benefits as
against the illegitimate minor children of the deceased.
SC: No merit
Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her
right thereto by substantial evidence. Since petitioner is disqualified to be a beneficiary
and because the deceased has no legitimate child, it follows that the dependent
illegitimate minor children of the deceased shall be entitled to the death benefits as
primary beneficiaries. The SSS Law is clear that for a minor child to qualify as a

dependent,[29] the only requirements are that he/she must be below 21 years of age,
not married nor gainfully employed.[30]

In this case, the minor illegitimate children Ginalyn and Rodelyn were born on 13 April
1996 and 20 April 2000, respectively. Had the legitimate child of the deceased and
Editha survived and qualified as a dependent under the SSS Law, Ginalyn and Rodelyn
would have been entitled to a share equivalent to only 50% of the share of the said
legitimate child. Since the legitimate child of the deceased predeceased him, Ginalyn
and Rodelyn, as the only qualified primary beneficiaries of the deceased, are entitled to
100% of the benefits.
Bartolome Case:
John Colcol, SSS member, died on 1983. Johns adoptive parent Cornelio Colocol is already
dead,thus, his legitimate parents claimed that thy are the only left beneficiaries, sought for the death
benefits of John.
SSS denied.
SC:

The ECC Rule limiting death benefit claims to the legitimate parents is contrary to law.
Rule XV, Sec. 1(c)(1) of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation deviates from
the clear language of Art. 167 (j) of the Labor Code, as amended Hence, it was held
that Rule XV of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation is patently a
wayward restriction of and a substantial deviation from Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code
when it interpreted the phrase dependent parents to refer to legitimate parents.'
As the law does not define dependent parents, it should be understood to have a
general and inclusive scope. Thus, the term parents in the phrase dependent parents
in the afore-quoted Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code is used and ought to be taken in its
general sense and cannot be unduly limited to legitimate parents as what the ECC did.
The phrase dependent parents should, therefore, include all parents, whether
legitimate or illegitimate and whether by nature or by adoption. When the law does not
distinguish, one should not distinguish. Plainly, dependent parents are parents,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, biological or by adoption, who are in need of support
or assistance.
The law is clear that the biological parents retain their rights of succession to the estate
of their child who was the subject of adoption. While the benefits arising from the death
of an SSS covered employee do not form part of the estate of the adopted child, the
pertinent provision on legal or intestate succession at least reveals the policy on the

rights of the biological parents and those by adoption vis--vis the right to receive
benefits from the adopted.
As a result, it was held that Cornelios death at the time of Johns minority resulted in
the restoration of petitioners parental authority over the adopted child.
John, in his SSS application, named petitioner as one of his beneficiaries for his benefits
under RA 8282, otherwise known as the Social Security Law. While RA 8282 does not
cover compensation for work-related deaths or injury and expressly allows the
designation of beneficiaries who are not related by blood to the member unlike in PD
626, Johns deliberate act of indicating petitioner as his beneficiary at least evinces that
he, in a way, considered petitioner as his dependent. Consequently, the confluence of
circumstances from Cornelios death during Johns minority, the restoration of
petitioners parental authority, the documents showing singularity of address, and
Johns clear intention to designate petitioner as a beneficiary effectively made
petitioner, to Our mind, entitled to death benefit claims as a secondary beneficiary
under PD 626 as a dependent parent.

In sum, the Decision of the ECC dated March 17, 2010 is bereft of legal basis. Cornelios
adoption of John, without more, does not deprive petitioner of the right to receive the
benefits stemming from Johns death as a dependent parent given Cornelios untimely
demise during Johns minority. Since the parent by adoption already died, then the
death benefits under the Employees Compensation Program shall accrue solely to
herein petitioner, Johns sole remaining beneficiary.