294 SIGNEY v.

SSS

TOPIC: Unions under FC 148, 35, 37, 38

FACTS:

 Rodolfo Signey Jr. a member of the SSS, died on

May 21, 2001. In his member’s records, he had
designated petitioner Yolanda Signey (wife2) as
primary beneficiary and his four children with
her as secondary beneficiaries. Petitioner filed a
claim for death benefits with the public
respondent SSS. She revealed in her SSS claim
that the deceased had a common-law wife, Gina
Servano, with whom he had two minor children.
 Petitioner’s declaration was confirmed when
Gina herself filed a claim for the same death
benefits which she also declared that both she
and petitioner were common-law wives of the
deceased and that Editha (wife1) Espinosa was
the legal wife.
 Editha also filed an application for death
benefits with the SSS stating that she was the
legal wife of the deceased. SSS denied the death
benefit claim of the petitioner and found that
the marriage between the deceased and the
petitioner is null and void because of a prior
subsisting marriage contracted between the
deceased and Editha as confirmed by the local
civil registry of Cebu. However, it recognized
Ginalyn and Rodelyn, the minor children of the
deceased with Gina, as the primary
beneficiaries under the SSS Law.

ISSUE: Whether Edna is entitled to the SSS benefit of

Edgardo considering that there was a previous
subsisting marriage between Edgardo and Rosemarie at
the time of their marriage in 1992?

HELD: No, two different women as his spouse is already

an indication that only one of them can be the legal
spouse. As can be gleaned from the certification issued
by the NSO there is no doubt that Edgardo married
Rosemarie in 1982. Edna cannot be considered as the
legal spouse of Edgardo as their marriage took place
during the existence of a previously contracted
marriage. For said reason, the denial of Edna’s claim by
the SSC was correct.