SSS v.Jarque, G.R. No. 165545, March 24, 2006

FACTS: On April 25, 1955, Clemente G. Bailon and Alice P. Diaz contracted marriage in Barcelona, Sorsogon. On October 9, 1970, Bailon filed before the CFI of Sorsogon a petition to declare Alice presumptively dead. On December 10, 1970, the CFI granted the petition. Close to 13 years after his wife Alice was declared presumptively dead or on August 8, 1983, Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita Jarque in Casiguran, Sorsogon. She was designated as SSS beneficiary of Bailon. SSS cancelled the claim of respondent Teresita Jarque of her monthly pension for death benefits on the basis of the opinion rendered by its legal department that her marriage with Bailon was void as it was contracted during the subsistence of Bailon’s marriage with Alice. Teresita protested the cancellation of her monthly pension for death benefits asserting that her marriage with Bailon was not declared before any court of justice as bigamous or unlawful. Hence, it remained valid and subsisting for all legal intents and purposes.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent marriage of Clemente Bailon and respondent Teresita Jarque may terminate by mere reappearance of the absent spouse of Bailon

HELD: The second marriage contracted by a person with an absent spouse endures until annulled. It is only the competent court that can nullify the second marriage pursuant to Article 87 of the Civil Code and upon the reappearance of the missing spouse, which action for annulment may be filed. The two marriages involved here falls under the Civil Code. Under the Civil Code, a subsequent marriage being voidable, it is terminated by final judgment of annulment in a case instituted by the absent spouse who reappears or by either of the spouses in the subsequent marriage. Under the Family Code, no judicial proceeding to annul a subsequent marriage is necessary. Thus Article 42 thereof provides the subsequent marriage shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio. If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken to terminate the subsequent marriage, either by affidavit or by court action, such absentee‘s mere reappearance will not terminate such marriage. Since the second marriage has been contracted because of a presumption that the former spouse is dead, such presumption continues inspite of the spouse‘s physical reappearance. In the case at bar, as no step was taken to nullify Bailon & Jargue’s marriage, Teresita is proclaimed to be rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of Bailon.