LLB III-B
RE: MARIO V. CHANLIONGCO 79 SCRA 364 A.M. No. 190
October 18, 1977
Topic/Doctrine: Legitime
FACTS:
This matter refers to the claims for retirement benefits filed by the heirs of the late ATTY.
MARIO V. CHANLIONGCO an attorney of the Supreme court .Atty. Chanliongco died ab intestato. The above named flied the appellants for benefits with the accruing and with the
Intimate Mario it appears that there are other deceased to namely, Mrs. Angelina C. , Jr., both born out of wedlock to Angelina R Crespo, and duly recognized by the deceased. Except Mario, Jr., who is only 17 years of age, all the claimants are of legal age.
ISSUE:
What, therefore, to be settled are the retirement benefits and the money value of leave, both of which are to be paid by this court as the deceased's last employer.
HELD:
WHEREFORE, THE CLAIMS ARE HEREBY APPROVED. THE FINANCE AND/OR
DISBURSING OFFICER OF THIS COURT IS ORDERED To pay IMMEDIATELY TO EACH AND EVERY CLAIMANT HE VARIOUS SUMS HEREUNDER INDICATED OPPOSITE THEIR NAMES, AS FOLLOWS:
RETIREMENT GRATUITY B. HER SHARE FROM MONEY VALUE OF TERMINAL LEAVE, UNPAID SALARY AND 10%
ADJUSTMENT
844.10
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE HER P10,611.61
4. MARIO CHANLIONGCO JR.
TO BE PAID THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, ANGELINA CRESPO):
A. HIS 2/16 SHARE OF RETIREMENT GRATUITY
P9,767.51
B. HIS SHARE FROM MONEY VALUE OF TERMINAL LEAVE, UNPAID SALARY AND 10%
ADJUSTMENT
844.10
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE HIM P10,611.61
SORRONDA, NIÑA MAY T.
LLB III-B
Vda. De Consuegra vs GSIS 37 SCRA 315, 325
FACTS:
Jose Consuegra was employed as a shop foreman of the Office of the District Engineer in Surigao Del Norte.When he was still alive, he contracted two marriages:
o First – Rosario Diaz; 2 children = Jose Consuegra Jr. and Pedro but both predeceased him o 2nd – Basilia Berdin; 7 children. (this was contracted in GF while the first marriage subsisted)
Being a GSIS member when he died, the proceeds of his life insurance were paid by the GSIS to Berdin and her children who were the beneficiaries named in the policy.
Since he was in the gov’t service for 22.5028 years, he was entitled to retirement insurance benefits, for which no beneficiary was designated.
Both families filed their claims with the GSIS, which ruled that the legal heirs were Diaz who is entitled to one-half or 8/16 of the retirement benefits and Berdin and her children were entitled to the remaining half, each to receive an equal share of 1/16.
Berdin went to CFI on appeal. CFI affirmed GSIS decision.
ISSUE:
To whom should the retirement insurance benefits be paid?
HELD:
Both families are entitled to half of the retirement benefits.The beneficiary named in the life insurance does NOT automatically become the beneficiary in the retirement insurance. When Consuegra, during the early part of 1943, or before 1943, designated his beneficiaries in his life insurance, he could NOT have intended those beneficiaries of his life insurance as also the beneficiaries of his retirement insurance because the provisions on retirement insurance under the GSIS came about only when CA 186 was amended by RA 660 on June 18, 1951.
Sec. 11(b) clearly indicates that there is need for the employee to file an application for retirement insurance benefits when he becomes a GSIS member and to state his beneficiary. The life insurance and the retirement insurance are two separate and distinct systems of benefits paid out from 2 separate and distinct funds.
In case of failure to name a beneficiary in an insurance policy, the proceeds will accrue to the estate of the insured. And when there exists two marriages, each family will be entitled to one-half of the estate.
SORRONDA, NIÑA MAY T.
LLB III-B
Del Rosario vs. Conanan G.R. No. L-37903
March 30, 1977
Topic/Doctrine: Share of Surviving Spouse Concurring With Legitimate Ascendants and Illegitimate Children (Article 1000 in relation to Article 343)
FACTS:
On November 13, 1972, petitioner filed with the court subject of which is the estate left by her late son, Felix L. del Rosario, who died in a plane crash on September 12, 1969 at Antipolo, Rizal.
The oppositor admits that petitioner is the legitimate mother of the late Felix L. Del Rosario. The latter admits that oppositor Dorotea Otera del Rosario, is the legitimate surviving wife of the deceased Felix Del Rosario. Petitioner also admits that Marilou Del Rosario, is the legally adopted child of the late Felix and Dorotea Otera del Rosario. They are the only surviving nearest relatives of Felix(deceased). A petition for summary settlement is allowed under the provision of the rules of court, the same rule specifically limits the action to estates the gross value of which does not exceed P10, 000.00. In the instant petition, however, clearly alleges that the value of the real properties alone left by the deceased Felix amounts to P33,000.00 which is obviously over and above the value of the estate allowed under the rules. The action taken by the petitioner construed as one filed under an intestate proceeding as the requirements provided by law for the same has not been complied with.
The contention of the petitioner that Article 343 is applicable in the instant case where it does not exclude the surviving parent of the deceased adopter, not only because a contrary view would defeat the intent of the framers of the law, but also because in intestate succession, where legitimate parents or ascendants concur with the surviving spouse of the deceased, the latter does not necessarily exclude the former from the inheritance.
The respondents countered petitioner’s record on appeal violates the material data rule in that it does not state when the notice of appeal and appeal bond were filed with the lower court in disregard of the requirement of Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court that the record on appeal must contain such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time. Further, the petitioner not being included as intestate heir of the deceased cannot be considered as a co-owner of or have any right over the properties sought to be partitioned and under the provisions of Section 1, Rule 69 in relation to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, such action must be commenced or instituted by the party in interest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the legitimate mother is included as intestate heir to be considered as
Co-owner with the surviving spouse and adopted child of Felix Del Rosario (deceased) over the
HELD:
YES. As provided under Article 343 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 1000 should apply in resolving their hereditary rights. Under Article 343, an adopted child surviving with legitimate parents of the deceased adopter, has the same successional rights as an acknowledged natural child, which is comprehended in the term “illegitimate children”. Consequently, the respective charges of the surviving spouse, ascendant and adopted child should be determined by Article 1000 of the New Civil Code, which reads: “Art. 1000.—If legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse and illegitimate children are left, the ascendants shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the other half shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children so that such widow or widower shall have one-fourth of the estate, the illegitimate children the other fourth.”Thus, Dorotea Otera del Rosario, the legitimate surviving wife, shall be entitled to ¼, Marilou Del Rosario, the legally adopted child gets ¼ , and the legitimate mother ½ . The adopted child in such case gets the rights of an acknowledged natural child (Articles 343, 341, and 1000 of the Civil Code), not of a legitimate child, otherwise the legitimate ascendant (the mother) would be excluded. The presence of adopted child does not exclude the legitimate parent or ascendant.