1) Jose Consuegra had two marriages and contracted life insurance through GSIS naming his second wife and children as beneficiaries.
2) Upon his death, both his first and second wives claimed his retirement benefits since he did not designate a beneficiary.
3) GSIS ruled retirement benefits should be split equally between his wives. The court confirmed this was correct since his second marriage was in good faith. When no beneficiary is designated, retirement benefits go to legal heirs.
1) Jose Consuegra had two marriages and contracted life insurance through GSIS naming his second wife and children as beneficiaries.
2) Upon his death, both his first and second wives claimed his retirement benefits since he did not designate a beneficiary.
3) GSIS ruled retirement benefits should be split equally between his wives. The court confirmed this was correct since his second marriage was in good faith. When no beneficiary is designated, retirement benefits go to legal heirs.
1) Jose Consuegra had two marriages and contracted life insurance through GSIS naming his second wife and children as beneficiaries.
2) Upon his death, both his first and second wives claimed his retirement benefits since he did not designate a beneficiary.
3) GSIS ruled retirement benefits should be split equally between his wives. The court confirmed this was correct since his second marriage was in good faith. When no beneficiary is designated, retirement benefits go to legal heirs.
1) Jose Consuegra had two marriages and contracted life insurance through GSIS naming his second wife and children as beneficiaries.
2) Upon his death, both his first and second wives claimed his retirement benefits since he did not designate a beneficiary.
3) GSIS ruled retirement benefits should be split equally between his wives. The court confirmed this was correct since his second marriage was in good faith. When no beneficiary is designated, retirement benefits go to legal heirs.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
9. VDA. DE CONSUEGRA V. GSIS 2.
Being a member of the Government Service Insurance System
G.R. No. L-28093 January 30, 1971 (GSIS, for short) when Consuegra died on September 26, 1965, Topic: Beneficiaries the proceeds of his life insurance were paid by the GSIS to Subject Matter: Retirement Benefits divided equally to both first petitioner Basilia Berdin and her children who were the and second wife beneficiaries named in the policy. 3. Having been in the service of the government for 22.5028 years, Petitioner: BASILIA BERDIN VDA. DE CONSUEGRA; JULIANA, Consuegra was entitled to retirement insurance benefits in the PACITA, MARIA LOURDES, JOSE, JR., RODRIGO, LINEDA and sum of P6,304.47 pursuant to Section 12(c) of Commonwealth LUIS, all surnamed CONSUEGRA Act 186 as amended by Republic Acts 1616 and 3836. Consuegra Respondent: GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, did not designate any beneficiary who would receive the COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, HIGHWAY DISTRICT retirement insurance benefits due to him. ENGINEER OF SURIGAO DEL NORTE, COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL 4. Respondent Rosario Diaz, the widow by the first marriage, filed SERVICE, and ROSARIO DIAZ a claim with the GSIS asking that the retirement insurance benefits be paid to her as the only legal heir of Consuegra, DOCTRINE: The insured in a life insurance may designate any person considering that the deceased did not designate any beneficiary as beneficiary unless disqualified to be so under the provisions of the with respect to his retirement insurance benefits. Civil Code. And in the absence of any beneficiary named in the life 5. Petitioner Basilia Berdin and her children, likewise, filed a insurance policy, the proceeds of the insurance will go to the estate of the similar claim with the GSIS, asserting that being the insured. beneficiaries named in the life insurance policy of Consuegra, When two women innocently and in good faith are legally united in holy they are the only ones entitled to receive the retirement matrimony to the same man, they and their children, born of said insurance benefits due the deceased Consuegra. wedlock, will be regarded as legitimate children and each family be 6. Resolving the conflicting claims, the GSIS ruled that the legal entitled to one half of the estate heirs of the late Jose Consuegra were Rosario Diaz, his widow by his first marriage who is entitled to one-half, or 8/16, of the ZALDIVAR, J retirement insurance benefits, on the one hand; and Basilia Berdin, his widow by the second marriage and their seven FACTS: children, on the other hand, who are entitled to the remaining 1. The late Jose Consuegra, at the time of his death, was employed one-half, or 8/16, each of them to receive an equal share of 1/16. as a shop foreman of the office of the District Engineer in the 7. Basilia Berdin and her children1 filed on October 10, 1966 a province of Surigao del Norte. In his lifetime, Consuegra petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction in the Court contracted two marriages, the first with herein respondent of First Instance of Surigao praying that they (petitioners Rosario Diaz, , on July 15, 1937, out of which marriage were therein) be declared the legal heirs and exclusive beneficiaries of born two children, namely, Jose Consuegra, Jr. and Pedro the retirement insurance of the late Jose Consuegra, and that a Consuegra, but both predeceased their father; and the second, writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining the which was contracted in good faith while the first marriage was implementation of the adjudication made by the GSIS. subsisting, with herein petitioner Basilia Berdin, on May 1, 8. TRIAL COURT: declared the petitioner Basilia Berdin Vda. de 1957, out of which marriage were born seven children, namely, Consuegra and her co-petitioners, all surnamed Consuegra, Juliana, Pacita, Maria Lourdes, Jose, Rodrigo, Lenida and Luz, beneficiary and entitled to one-half (1/2) of the retirement all surnamed Consuegra. benefit in the amount of P6,304.47 due to the deceased Jose Consuegra from the Government Service Insurance System or the amount of P3,152.235 to be divided equally among them in insurance benefits when he becomes a member of the GSIS, and the proportional amount of 1/16 each. Likewise, the respondent he should state in his application the beneficiary of his Rosario Diaz Vda. de Consuegra is hereby declared beneficiary retirement insurance. Hence, the beneficiary named in the life and entitled to the other half of the retirement benefit of the late insurance does not automatically become the beneficiary in the Jose Consuegra or the amount of P3,152.235. The case with retirement insurance unless the same beneficiary in the life respect to the Highway District Engineer of Surigao del Norte is insurance is so designated in the application for retirement hereby ordered dismissed. insurance. 9. Appellants’ contentions: that because the deceased Jose GSIS offers two separate and distinct systems of benefits to its Consuegra failed to designate the beneficiaries in his retirement members — one is the life insurance and the other is the insurance, the appellants who were the beneficiaries named in retirement insurance. These two distinct systems of benefits are the life insurance should automatically be considered the paid out from two distinct and separate funds that are beneficiaries to receive the retirement insurance benefits, to the maintained by the GSIS. exclusion of respondent Rosario Diaz. (a) Life insurance fund. — This shall consist of all ISSUE: To whom should this retirement insurance benefits of Jose premiums for life insurance benefit and/or earnings and savings Consuegra be paid, because he did not, or failed to, designate the therefrom. It shall meet death claims as they may arise or such beneficiary of his retirement insurance? equities as any member may be entitled to, under the conditions of his policy, and shall maintain the required reserves to the end HELD: It is Our view, therefore, that the respondent GSIS had correctly of guaranteeing the fulfillment of the life insurance contracts acted when it ruled that the proceeds of the retirement insurance of the issued by the System. late Jose Consuegra should be divided equally between his first living wife Rosario Diaz, on the one hand, and his second wife (b) Retirement insurance fund. — This shall consist of all Basilia Berdin and his children by her, on the other; and the lower contributions for retirement insurance benefit and of earnings court did not commit error when it confirmed the action of the GSIS, it and savings therefrom. It shall meet annuity payments and being accepted as a fact that the second marriage of Jose Consuegra to establish the required reserves to the end of guaranteeing the Basilia Berdin was contracted in good faith. fulfillment of the contracts issued by the System.
RATIO: If the employee failed or overlooked to state the beneficiary of
When Consuegra designated his beneficiaries in his life his retirement insurance, the retirement benefits will accrue to insurance he could not have intended those beneficiaries of his his estate and will be given to his legal heirs in accordance with life insurance as also the beneficiaries of his retirement law, as in the case of a life insurance if no beneficiary is named insurance because the provisions on retirement insurance under in the insurance policy. the GSIS came about only when Com. Act 186 was amended by In the recent case of Gomez vs. Lipana, L-23214, June 30, 1970, Rep. Act 660 on June 16, 1951. Hence, it cannot be said that this Court, in construing the rights of two women who were because herein appellants were designated beneficiaries in married to the same man — a situation more or less similar to Consuegra's life insurance they automatically became the the case of appellant Basilia Berdin and appellee Rosario Diaz beneficiaries also of his retirement insurance. — held "that since the defendant's first marriage has not been The provisions of subsection (b) of Section 11 of Commonwealth dissolved or declared void the conjugal partnership established Act 186, as amended by Rep. Act 660, clearly indicate that there by that marriage has not ceased. Nor has the first wife lost or is need for the employee to file an application for retirement relinquished her status as putative heir of her husband under the new Civil Code, entitled to share in his estate upon his death should she survive him. Consequently, whether as conjugal partner in a still subsisting marriage or as such putative heir she has an interest in the husband's share in the property here in dispute.... " And with respect to the right of the second wife, this Court observed that although the second marriage can be presumed to be void ab initio as it was celebrated while the first marriage was still subsisting, still there is need for judicial declaration of such nullity. And inasmuch as the conjugal partnership formed by the second marriage was dissolved before judicial declaration of its nullity, "[t]he only lust and equitable solution in this case would be to recognize the right of the second wife to her share of one-half in the property acquired by her and her husband and consider the other half as pertaining to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage."
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with
costs against petitioners-appellants. It is so ordered.