Leonardo and Belinda had a common-law relationship where they had one child. In 1980, Leonardo became disabled and began receiving his permanent total disability pension from the Social Security System (SSS). Upon retirement, he started receiving his regular pension from the SSS.

In 1981, he married Belinda. Upon his death in 2009, Belinda applied for the continuation of Leonardo’s benefits under the survivorship provision of the SSS law. The SSS, however, denied her claim.

It opined that she did not qualify as a beneficiary since she married Leonardo only after he became disabled. The SSS cited the specific provision of the SSS law which mandates that the beneficiary must have been married to the pensioner at the time of his permanent disability. Clearly, her situation did not fall under that.

Despite her ardent pleas, SSS did not grant her request. This made her question SSS’ ruling before the Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, the appellate court did not side with her. It ruled that the provision of the law regarding beneficiaries was clear. Since she did not fall under the qualification of a beneficiary, the court could not give an interpretation to include her.

Determined to get a resolution in her favor, she pleaded her case before the Supreme Court. She argued her case based on equal protection and deprivation of property without due process of law. And the Supreme Court, in an en banc decision at that, ruled in Belinda’s favor.

It said: “The Court finds that the proviso ‘as of the date of disability’ under Section 13-A(c) is unfounded and inharmonious with the spirit behind the enactment of the Social Security Law. The unqualified denial of claims for benefits filed by surviving legitimate spouses who contracted their marriages to the pensioner-spouses after the latter’s disability evidently discriminates against common-law relationships which are common and even recognized by the Family Code as family units and unions.

“Evidently, the classification espoused by Section 13-A(c) does not rest on real and substantial distinctions and is not germane to the purpose of the Social Security Law. It is arbitrary and too sweeping as it considers all marriages contracted after the date of the pensioners’ disability as a sham, regardless of the circumstances of the case.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the proviso ‘as of the date of disability’ violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.”

Concerning the deprivation of property without due process, the High Court said:

“Although the subject matter in Montesclaros involved retirement benefits under Presidential Decree No. 1146, or the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977, the pronouncement therein that retirement benefits are protected property interest of the retirees applies by analogy to workers covered by the Social Security Law, such as Leonardo.

“Considering his compulsory contributions to the SSS, Leonardo’s pension did not constitute a mere gratuity but formed part of his compensation. Corollary thereto, petitioner’s right to receive the survivorship pension was already established because surviving spouses of deceased pensioners are entitled to it. Thus, the unceremonious denial thereof is an outright confiscation of petitioner’s right in violation of the due process clause.

“As it appears, Section 13-A(c) creates a conclusive presumption: that marriages contracted after the SSS member already suffered a disability are for an illicit purpose. The presumption is dangerous as it assumes a fact which is not necessarily true. This amounts to a deprivation of property without being afforded the opportunity to be heard.

“All told, the Court strikes down the proviso ‘as of the date of disability’ in Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law for being an infringement on the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. it is incumbent upon the SSS to grant petitioner’s claim for survivorship pension, which accrued from the death of her husband, Leonardo.”

The facts and quoted redacted portions of the decision are from Belinda D.R. Dolera v. SSS (G.R. No. 253940, 24 October 2023).