A seafarer’s legitimate spouse and his legitimate and illegitimate children remains the beneficiaries of benefits as a result of his death even if the couple is already estranged, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In a ruling penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa for the High Court’s Third Division, the court ordered the release of death benefits to the heirs of deceased seafarer Pedrito G. Macalinao (Pedrito).

Pedrito married Cerena in 1981, and they had one child, Cindy.

However, the couple separated after four years. In 1990, while still married to Cerena, Pedrito entered into a second marriage with Elenita, and they had two children, Kenneth and Kristel. Cerena herself entered a second marriage in 1992, with Rene Paredes.

Elenita and Pedrito lived together until Pedrito's death in 2015 onboard a vessel owned by Excel Marine Co. Ltd./Fair Shipping Corporation (Excel Marine). His death benefits, totaling PHP 4,506,309.52, were the only property he left.

In 2016, Cerena and Cindy filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the settlement of Pedrito’s estate, including the declaration of nullity of Pedrito and Elenita’s marriage.

The RTC ruled that the death benefits formed part of Pedrito’s estate and should be divided according to the rules of succession. It also held that Elenita, despite being the nominated beneficiary, was not entitled to the death benefits due to the bigamous nature of her marriage to Pedrito.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's ruling.

However, the Supreme Court held that the death benefits did not form part of Pedrito’s estate, as they arose only upon his death and did not exist at the time of his death.

The Court noted that under Article 781 of the Civil Code what forms part of the estate is property existing at the time of death.

However, in the case of the death benefits from the employment contract between Excel Marine and Pedrito, these benefits only arose upon Pedrito’s death and did not exist at the time of his death.

The Court ruled that Elenita was disqualified as a beneficiary since her marriage to Pedrito was bigamous and void.

Elenita’s lack of knowledge about Pedrito’s existing marriage to Cerena was not considered a valid defense.

Despite Cerena entering into a bigamous marriage herself and being separated from Pedrito for 30 years, she remained his legal wife and thus a valid beneficiary.

The Court recognized that the POEA MC does not use a dependency test to determine qualified beneficiaries, unlike other laws such as the Social Security Act and the Government Service Insurance System Law. The Court noted that addressing this gap in the law is a matter for Congress.

In distributing the benefits among the legal heirs, the Court applied Articles 892 and 895 of the Civil Code, as amended by the Family Code. Under these provisions, if the surviving heirs include one legitimate child and illegitimate children, the legitimate child receives one-half of the estate, while the surviving spouse gets one-fourth, and the illegitimate children share the remaining one-fourth.

Therefore, the Supreme Court ordered that Pedrito's death benefits be distributed as follows: one-fourth to Cerena, one-half to Cindy, one-eighth to Kenneth, and one-eighth to Kristel.