Belated move

This is another case involving a claim for the retirement benefits of a deceased employee.

The retiree here was Samuel, a GSIS employee who died without a family of his own. He had one sister, Anna, single, and three brothers: Vic who had two sons, Romy and Juan; Cris who had a son Mac; and Jim who had six children, Cary, Manny, Andy, Lisa, Tina and Dave. Samuel’s three brothers predeceased him. So his surviving heirs were Anna and his nine nephews and nieces.

Shortly after the death of Samuel, an undated and an unsigned application form for retirement accomplished by him was found among his personal belongings. In said form he named his sister Anna as the sole beneficiary although it was never submitted to the GSIS.

Subsequently, Anna and six of his nephews and nieces, namely, Romy, Juan, Cary, Manny, Andy and Tina executed a document entitled “Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate among Heirs” wherein properties were already allocated to said nephews and nieces. The Deed also provides among other things that ‘for any amount due the decedent Samuel, holder of GSIS Policy No 73557, our Aunt Anna, as the decedent’s only living sister, is hereby recognized as the sole and only beneficiary with the right to file, sign and receive whatever retirement pay due to the decedent Samuel.”Said document was not signed by Mac, Lisa and Dave.

A day after signing the document however, the nephews and nieces particularly the six who signed it, wrote a letter to the GSIS Manager claiming that they inadvertently signed the same, without properly having understood that they were waiving their claims on the benefits legally accruing to the decedent Samuel.

So the GSIS had to file an action in court against Anna and her nephews and nieces to determine who among them are entitled to the retirement benefits of the deceased Samuel. Anna claimed that as sister of Samuel she was the sole beneficiary based on the accomplished but unsigned application form and on the Extra Judicial Settlement executed by her and her nephews and nieces. The latter however contested her claim and insisted that they are entitled to share in the proceeds by right of representation of their deceased fathers who were the brothers of Samuel.

After the parties stipulated and agreed on the foregoing facts the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Anna. The court said that the accomplished but unsigned form of application for retirement which was not filed with the GSIS was really invalid. But nonetheless she is entitled to the benefits because her nephews and nieces recognized her as the sole beneficiary in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement which is presumed to be regular in the absence of fraud or mistake attending its execution. This Deed is binding even on the non-signatory heirs who had agreed or accepted other benefits under the said deed said the court. Was the court correct?

The court is not correct in awarding the benefits solely to Anna. The intestate heirs Mac, Lisa and Dave who did not sign the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement cannot be considered as having recognized Anna as the sole beneficiary of Samuel’s retirement money. No evidence was presented to prove that these non-signatory heirs had agreed or accepted benefits under said Deed since the case was submitted for decision based only on the stipulation of facts among the parties and this fact is not among those they stipulated or agreed upon. But the six other nephews and nieces who signed the Deed and who have been allocated properties therein are no longer entitled to the retirement benefits. Their repudiation of their signatures a day after affixing them is a self-serving act, more indicative of a belated intention to squirm out of a disadvantageous transaction after they entered into it with open eyes. This is no ground for setting aside said deed as far as they are concerned.

So Mac, Lisa and Dave should also inherit and share in the retirement benefits per stirpes or by right of representation of their fathers. Mac as the only son of Cris will get the entire 1/4 , while Lisa and Dave, being 2 of the 6 children of Jim are entitled to sixth of one-fourth (1/6x1/4) equivalent to 1/24 of the hereditary mass (Government Service Insurance System vs. Custodio, L-26170, January 27, 1969, 26 SCRA 658).

*      *      *

Email: attyjosesison@gmail.com

