The case of Elenita Macalinao, et al. v. Cerina Macalinao (G.R. No. 250613, April 3, 2024)
Photo from Canva free photo
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. In this regard, preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term ‘greater weight of the evidence’ or ‘greater weight of the credible evidence.
Who are qualified to claim the death benefits of a decedent? – The Supreme Court answered this question in the case of Elenita Macalinao, et al. v. Cerina Macalinao (G.R. No. 250613, April 3, 2024) when it ruled that the only persons qualified to claim death benefits of a decedent are the legitimate spouse and the legitimate and illegitimate children.
In this case, the Supreme Court likewise ruled that death benefits do not form part of the hereditary estate of the decedent.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On June 5, 1981, Pedrito G. Macalinao (Pedrito) and herein respondent Cerena Negapatan Macalinao (Cerena) were married. They were blessed with one child, Cindy. However, after four years, Pedrito and Cerena separated in fact.
On April 3, 1990, with his marriage with Cerena subsisting, Pedrito entered into marriage with Elenita, after which they lived together as husband and wife for 25 years until Pedrito’s death on June 26, 2015.
Before his death, Pedrito worked as a seafarer employed by Excel Marine Co. Ltd. He died on board a vessel of Excel Marine. His death benefits were determined to be in the amount of PhP4,506,309.52. Excel Marine issued a check in the same amount and deposited the same to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City where Cerena and Cindy filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage of Pedrito and Elenita. The case was amended to and Cerena and Cindy filed an Amended Petition for the Settlement of the Estate of deceased Pedrito after determination that the true intention of filing the petition was to undertake a settlement of the estate of Pedrito.
The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and declared the marriage between Pedrito and Elenita as null and void for being bigamous. The RTC further ruled that Elenita is not entitled to the death benefits since her marriage with Pedrito is bigamous, thus void.
Elenita Macalinao (Elenita) and her illegitimate children Kenneth and Kristel appealed the case to the Court of Appeals who denied the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the RTC. They filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The issues before the Supreme Court are the following:
(1) Do proceeds of the death benefits from part of the Pedrito’s estate?
(2) How and among whom should the proceeds of the death benefits be distributed?
In its Decision, the Supreme Court ruled resolved that:
(1) The proceeds of the death benefits are directly payable to the beneficiaries not as a form of inheritance, but as proceeds from a death benefit;
The death benefits that the heirs of a deceased seafarer are entitled to shall be paid in accordance with the rules of succession, in that they may only be paid to those who are considered as the seafarer’s legal heirs in the proportion as provided under the said rules. This reference to the rules of succession, however, does not extend to say that the death benefits are part and parcel of the seafarer’s hereditary estate or inheritance.
Here, while the subject death benefits do not form part of Pedrito’s estate, they nevertheless flow and are paid to his qualified beneficiaries as “death proceeds or compensation,” with the reference to the rules on succession only for purposes of determining who are qualified beneficiaries may be, and their entitled apportionments thereto.
Thus, that death compensations and other benefits do not form part of a decedent’s estate for purposes of computing the estate tax is consistent with the idea that they belong with other survivorship benefits that do not form part of the decedent’s properties, but are nonetheless payable to the decedent’s legal heirs not as inheritance but as forms of benefit.
(2) The only qualified beneficiaries to claim the death benefits are Cerena as the legitimate surviving spouse, Cindy as Pedrito’s legitimate child from the first marriage, and Kenneth and Kristel, as Pedrito’s illegitimate children from the bigamous marriage.
The marriage between Pedrito and Elenita is clearly bigamouse and void ab initio. Consequently, Elenita may not be considered the legal heir of Pedrito since her union with him was not one which existed within a valid marriage, and her children with him, Kenneth and Kristel, were correctly determined by the lower courts as illegitimate.
The fact that Cerena herself entered into a bigamous marriage with Rene does not validate the bigamous marriage between Pedrito and Elenita. In law and in fact, the bigamous marriage entered into by one spouse with another is completely distinct from and irrelevant to the bigamous nature of the marriage of Pedrito and Elenita cannot be cured by any successful imputation of fault or bad faith on the part of Cerena in herself contracting a bigamous marriage.
Cerena may receive from the death benefits alongside all of Pedrito’s children since she is Pedrito’s legal spouse, and does not suffer from any of the disqualifications of heirs as provided for in the New Civil Code.
Cerena is the legitimate spouse of Pedrito at the time of his death, and her 30-year separation de facto from the latter, as well as her subsequent marriage to Rene, do not negate her right to the subject death benefits proceeding from Pedrito’s death. For while Pedrito and Cerena have already been separated in fact for 30 years when Pedrito died, and while Pedrito had already been living with Elenita for a little over 25 years before he passed, the passage of time did not negate what no court declaration has nulled – that Pedrito’s marriage with Cerena remained valid, and that it is only Cerena who may be considered as the legal spouse.
The marriage between Pedrito and Cerena did not prescribe, nor was it eroded by the strength of relational commitments later entered into by both with other pesons. The validity of Pedrito’s first marriage stood until his death, and its legal ramifications similarly persisted. No passage of time can successfully militate against the core legal premise of a marriage – that it remains to be an inviolable social institution upon which a society is built and for the weight that it shoulders, may not be fickle or dangerous in its impermanence, but steady and enduring until annulled or voided not on a whim but by a court order.
Cindy, Kenneth, and Kristel should also, alongside Cerena, receive from the death benefits so awarded as they are, under Article 887 of the New Civil Code, compulsory heirs of Pedrito.
(3) The death benefits shall be distributed among them in accordance with Articles 9999 and 983 of the New Civil Code.
The distribution of the subject death benefits in accordance with the provisions on succession under the New Civil Code and the Family Code, as discussed above, shall be: (1) to Cerena, the surviving legitimate spouse of Pedrito, one-fourth of the total death benefits; (2) to Cindy as the lone legitimate child of Pedrito, one-half of the total death benefits; (3) to Kenneth, as one of the two illegitimate children of Pedrito, one-eighth of the total death benefits; and (4) to Kristel, as the other illegitimate child of Pedrito, one-eighth of the total death benefits.
The amount of FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINE PESOS and 52/100 (PhP4,506,309.52) deposited under the name of “Heiirs of Pedrito G. Macalinao” as death benefits shall be distributed and released to Cerena, Cindy, Kenneth, and Kristel as follows:
- One-Fourth (1/4) to Cerena N. Macalinao, in the amount of One Million One Hundred Twenty-Six Pesos and 38/100 (PhP1,126,577.38);
- One-Half (1/2) to Cindy N. Macalinao, in the amount of Two Million Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Four Pesos and 76/100 (PhP2,253,154.76);
- One-Eighth (1/8) to Kenneth V. Macalinao, in the amount of Five Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Eight Pesos and 69/100 (PhP563,288.69); and
- One-Eighth (1/8) to Kristel V. Macalinao, in the amount of Five Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Eight Pesos and 69/100 (PhP563,288.69).
In ruling so, the Supreme Court notes that the benefits for the death of a seafarer cannot be awarded to a spouse with whom he has shared 25 years of his life, but whose union is illegal in the eyes of the law; and that said benefits instead belongs to the legal spouse and the three children who survive him, who regardless of the marital circumstances they were born into, are unqualifiedly entitled to the benefit provided by law for their unquantifiable loss of a father.
Under the 2023 DOLE Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits, pursuant to the Employees’ Compensation Program (Presidential Decree No. 626), any work-related injury or sickness, resulting to disability or death of a covered employee is compensable under the Employees’ Compensation Program.
An accident may be considered to have arisen out of and in the course of employment when it happened:
- At the workplace;
- While performing official functions;
- Outside of the workplace, but performing an order or instruction of the employer;
- When going to or coming home from work;
- While in a company shuttle bus; or
- During a company-sponsored activity.
In the same manner, no compensation will be allowed to an employee or the dependents if the injury, sickness, disability or death is due to:
- Intoxication;
- Willful intention to injure or kill himself or another; or
- Notorious negligence.
Source:
Elenita Macalinao, et al. v. Cerina Macalinao (G.R. No. 250613, April 3, 2024)
Related Article/s:
Death and Funeral Benefits under the Social Security Act of 2018
What is the rule on compensability of sickness, injury, disability or death?
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.