THE Supreme Court has ruled that benefits arising from a seafarer’s death under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration contract should be awarded only to the surviving legitimate spouse, despite her being long estranged from the seafarer, alongside the seafarer’s legitimate and illegitimate children.
In a ruling promulgated on April 3, 2024, the High Court’s Third Division through Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa ordered the release of death benefits due the heirs of deceased seafarer Pedrito Macalinao.
Records of the case showed that Macalinao married Cerena in 1981. They had one child, Cindy. They separated after four years.
In 1990, with his marriage to Cerena still existing, Macalinao married another woman and had two children, Kenneth and Kristel.
Cerena herself contracted a second marriage in 1992, with Rene Paredes.
Macalinao and his second wife, Elenita, lived together until his death in 2015 while working abroad.
His death benefits amounted to P4,506,309.
In 2016, Cerena and Cindy filed before the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court a petition for the settlement of Macalinao’s estate, which included as a secondary issue the declaration of nullity of his and Elenita’s marriage.
The RTC ruled in 2018 that the death benefits formed part of Macalinao’s estate and that under POEA rules, they shall be divided among the beneficiaries in accordance with the rules on succession.
The RTC also held that Elenita, despite being the nominated beneficiary, is not entitled to Macalinao’s death benefits because their marriage is bigamous and void.
The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC ruling.
ESTATE
But the SC held that the death benefits do not form part of Macalinao’s estate, adding that under Article 781 of the Civil Code, what forms part of the estate is property existing at the time of death.
In the case of the death benefits from the employment contract between Excel Marine and Macalinao, the SC said these benefits only arose upon his death and did not exist at the time of his death.
Citing the POEA rules on the division of proceeds from the death benefits, the SC held that benefits for the seafarer’s death are payable to the seafarer’s beneficiaries consistent with the rules of succession under the Civil Code, adding that such benefits are payable to the legal heirs not as inheritance but as proceeds from a death benefit.
The beneficiaries, however, according to the SC, must be determined in accordance with the rules of compulsory and intestate succession.
With this, it held that Macalinao’s second wife “is disqualified” as a beneficiary since she is not his legal spouse, and their marriage was clearly bigamous and void from the beginning.
BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE
The SC also dismissed Elenita’s claim that she did not know of Macalinao’s existing marriage to Cerena when they married.
“That Cerena herself entered into a bigamous marriage with another does not validate Pedrito and Elenita’s bigamous marriage. This, along with the fact that Cerena has been separated from Pedrito for 30 years, likewise does not disqualify Cerena, Pedrito’s legal wife, as one of his beneficiaries,” the SC explained.
As to the distribution of the benefits among the legal heirs, the SC clarified that when the concurring primary compulsory heirs are the surviving spouse, one legitimate child, and illegitimate children, Article 892 of the Civil Code shall apply, subject to Article 895 of the same law, as amended by Article 176 of the Family Code.
Under Article 892, if only one legitimate child survives, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-fourth of the estate.
On the other hand, Article 895, as amended by the Family Code, provides that if illegitimate children survive with legitimate children, the shares for each of the former shall consist of one-half of the share of each legitimate child, provided that the share of the surviving spouse must first be fully satisfied.
