Only children, legal spouse get sole rights to seafarer's death benefits — SC

MANILA, Philippines — Benefits from a seafarer’s death under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration contract must be granted exclusively to the surviving legal spouse, even if they were estranged from the seafarer, instead of being shared among the seafarer’s legitimate and illegitimate children, the Supreme Court said (SC).

In a 44-page decision promulgated on April 3, 2024, the high court ruled the release of death benefits to the heirs of the late seafarer Pedrito Macalinao.

The case stemmed when Cerena Macalinao, Pedrito’s first wife, and his daughter Cindy filed before a Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition in 2016 for the settlement of Pedrito’s estate following his death.

The only asset he left upon his death was his death benefits totaling P4,506,309.52.

In the petition, Cerena and Cindy also eyed the nullity of the marriage of Pedrito and his second wife Elenita.

The RTC decided that Pedrito's death benefits were included in his estate. Citing POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, the court said that the benefits should be distributed among the beneficiaries according to succession rules.

The RTC also ruled that Elenita, despite being named as the beneficiary, is not eligible to receive Pedrito's death benefits as their marriage was invalid due to being bigamous.

This prompted Elenita to appeal the court’s decision before the Court of Appeals (CA).

They argued that Cerena, who contracted a marriage with a certain Rene, is not entitled to take the benefits of Pedrito. 

However, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the RTC, emphasizing the invalidity of the marriage of Elenita and Pedrito.

The CA also affirmed that Cindy, being the legitimate child, is the legal heir of Pedrito and not his children with Elenita. 

The petitioners Elenita and her children then appealed to the SC to assail the CA’s decision.

The SC also pointed out that despite Cerena’s marriage being bigamous, it is not a ground for her to be disqualified as the legal heir and beneficiary of Pedrito. 

“While Elenita's submission may be true, i.e., that Cerena also already entered into a subsequent, bigamous marriage with another, such is not among the grounds