SC: Bigamous marriages don’t count in inheritance law

Inquirer file photo

MANILA, Philippines — Only the legal spouse and legitimate or illegitimate children of a deceased seafarer are entitled to benefits under his Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) contract, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In an April 3 decision made public only on Tuesday, the high court’s Third Division ordered the release of P4.5 million in death benefits due to deceased seafarer Pedrito Macalinao’s heirs, including his long-estranged legal spouse.

READ: High court rethinks inheritance rule

“Faced with the uncommon question of who between the long-estranged legal spouse and the subsequent spouse by a bigamous marriage may claim rights to the compensation and benefits for a seafarer’s death, the Court finds … that only the surviving legitimate spouse may receive the proceeds of the death benefits alongside the deceased spouse’s children from both marriages,” it said in a 44-page decision penned by Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa.

READ: SC ups rights of children outside wedlock

Based on records, Macalinao married Cerena in 1981 and had one child, Cindy, but the couple separated after four years.

In 1990, while he was still married to Cerena, Macalinao married Elenita and had two children with her. Two years later, Cerena also married Rene Paredes.

Elenita and Macalinao lived together until he died in 2015 onboard the vessel of Excel Marine Co. Ltd./Fair Shipping Corp. His death benefits amounted to P4.5 million.

POEA memo

In 2016, Cerena and Cindy filed a petition for the settlement of his estate, which included as a secondary issue the declaration of nullity of Macalinao and Elenita’s marriage, before a regional trial court (RTC).

The RTC ruled that the death benefits formed part of the seaman’s estate and that, under POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, they shall be divided among the beneficiaries in accordance with the rules on succession.

It also held that while Elenita was the nominated beneficiary, she was not entitled to his death benefits as their marriage was bigamous and void—a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The high court, meanwhile, referred to the POEA memorandum to determine the division of the proceeds from the benefits while the beneficiaries were identified according to the rules of compulsory and intestate succession.

“Only Cerena and all three of Pedrito’s children may receive the [subject’s] death benefits; Elenita is not a legal beneficiary,” it said.