Anda di halaman 1dari 9

176

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
De Asis vs. Court of Appeals
*

G.R.No.127578.February15,1999.

MANUELDEASIS,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,
HON.JAIMET.HAMOY,Branch130,RTC,KalookanCity
andGLENCAMILANDRESDEASISrepresentedbyher
mother/guardianVIRCELD.ANDRES,respondents.
Parent and Child; Support; Compromise Agreements; Future
support cannot be the subject of a compromise.Therighttoreceive
supportcanneitherberenouncednortransmittedtoathirdperson.
Article301oftheCivilCode,thelawinpoint,reads:Art.301.The
right to receive support cannot be renounced, nor can it be
transmitted to a third person. Neither can it be compensated with
what the recipient owes the obligor. x x x Furthermore, future
supportcannotbethesubjectofacompromise.
Same; Same; Same; To allow renunciation or transmission or
compensation of the family right of a person to support is virtually
to allow either suicide or the conversion of the recipient to a public
burden.The raison detre behind the proscription against
renunciation, transmission and/or compromise of the right to
support is stated, thus: The right to support being founded upon
theneedoftherecipienttomaintainhisexistence,heisnotentitled
to renounce or transfer the right for this would mean sanctioning
the voluntary giving up of life itself. The right to life cannot be
renounced;hence,support,whichisthemeanstoattaintheformer,
cannotberenounced.xxxToallowrenunciationortransmissionor
compensationofthefamilyrightofapersontosupportisvirtually
toalloweithersuicideortheconversionoftherecipienttoapublic
burden.Thisiscontrarytopublicpolicy.
Same; Same; Same; An agreement for the dismissal of a
complaint for maintenance and support conditioned upon the
dismissal of the counterclaim is in the nature of a compromise
which cannot be countenanced.The manifestation sent in by
respondents mother in the first case, which acknowledged that it
would be useless to pursue its complaint for support, amounted to
renunciationasitseveredthevinculumthatgivestheminor,Glen
Camil, the right to claim support from his putative parent, the
petitioner.Furthermore,the
__________________
* THIRDDIVISION.

177

VOL.303,FEBRUARY15,1999

177

De Asis vs. Court of Appeals


agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondents
mother for the dismissal of the complaint for maintenance and
supportconditioneduponthedismissalofthecounterclaimisinthe
nature of a compromise which cannot be countenanced. It violates
theprohibitionagainstanycompromiseoftherighttosupport.
Same; Same; Paternity; Filiation; Paternity and filiation or the
lack of the same is a relationship that must be judicially established
and it is for the court to declare its existence or absenceit cannot
be left to the will or agreement of the parties.It is true that in
ordertoclaimsupport,filiationand/orpaternitymustfirstbeshown
between the claimant and the parent. However, paternity and
filiation or the lack of the same is a relationship that must be
judiciallyestablishedanditisforthecourttodeclareitsexistenceor
absence.Itcannotbelefttothewilloragreementoftheparties.
Same; Same; Judgments; Res Judicata; A former dismissal
predicated upon a compromise affecting the civil status of persons
and future support cannot have force and effect and can not bar the
filing of another action, asking for the same relief against the same
defendant.Neither are we persuaded by petitioners theory that
thedismissalwithprejudiceofCivilCaseQ88935hastheeffectof
res judicata on the subsequent case for support. The case of
Advincula vs. Advinculacomestothefore.xxxItappearsthatthe
former dismissal was predicated upon a compromise.
Acknowledgment,affectingasitdoesthecivilstatusofpersonsand
future support, cannot be the subject of compromise. (pars. 1 & 4,
Art.2035,CivilCode).Hence, the first dismissal cannot have force
and effect and can not bar the filing of another action, asking for
the same relief against the same defendant.

SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.
Certiorari.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Romualdo C. delos Santosforpetitioner.
Ismael J. Andresforprivaterespondent.
PURISIMA,J.:
PetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRevisedRulesof
CourtseekingtonullifythedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
178

178

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
De Asis vs. Court of Appeals

whichaffirmedthetrialcourtsOrders,datedNovember25,
1993 and February 4, 1994, respectively, denying
petitionersMotiontoDismisstheComplaintinCivilCase
No. C16107, entitled Glen Camil Andres de Asis, etc. vs.
Manuel de Asis,andthemotionforreconsideration.

Thepertinentfactsleadingtothefilingofthepetitionat
barare,asfollows:
OnOctober14,1988,VircelD.Andres,(the herein private
respondent) in her capacity as the legal guardian of the
minor, Glen Camil Andres de Asis, brought an action for
maintenanceandsupportagainstManueldeAsis,docketed
asCivilCaseNo.Q88935beforetheRegionalTrialCourt
of Quezon City, Branch 94, alleging that the defendant
ManueldeAsis(the petitioner here)isthefatherofsubject
minor Glen Camil Andres de Asis, and the former refused
and/or failed to provide for the maintenance of the latter,
despiterepeateddemands.
InhisAnswer,petitionerdeniedhispaternityofthesaid
minorandtheorizedthathecannotthereforeberequiredto
providesupportforhim.
On July 4, 1989, private respondent Vircel D. Andres,
through counsel, sent in a manifestation the pertinent
portionofwhich,reads:
1. That in his proposed Amended Answer, defendant
(herein petitioner) has made a judicial admission/
declaration that 1) defendant denies that the said
minor child (Glen Camil) is his child; 2) he
(petitioner) has no obligation to the plaintiff Glen
Camilxxx.
2. That
with
the
aforesaid
judicial
admissions/declarations by the defendant, it seems
futile and a useless exercise to claim support from
saiddefendant.
3. Thatundertheforegoingcircumstancesitwouldbe
more practical that plaintiff withdraws the
complaint against the defendant subject to the
condition that the defendant should not pursue
his
1
counterclaimintheaboveentitledcase,xxx.
__________________
1Rollo,p.7.

179

VOL.303,FEBRUARY15,1999

179

De Asis vs. Court of Appeals


By virtue of the said manifestation, both the plaintiff and
thedefendantagreedtomoveforthedismissalofthecase.
Actingthereupon,theRegionalTrialCourta quoissuedthe
followingOrderofAugust8,1989,dismissingCivilCaseNo.
Q88935withprejudice,towit:
Acting on the manifestation of Atty. Romualdo C. delos Santos,
counselforthedefendant,thatcounselfortheplaintiffAtty.Ismael
J. Andres has no objection that this case be withdrawn provided
that the defendant will withdraw the counterclaim, as prayed for,
letthecasebedismissedwithprejudice.
2
SOORDERED.

OnSeptember7,1995,anotherComplaintformaintenance

and support was brought against Manuel A. de Asis, this


timeinthenameofGlenCamilAndresdeAsis,represented
byherlegalguardian/mother,VircelD.Andres.Docketedas
CivilCaseNo.C16107beforeBranch130oftheRegional
TrialCourtofKalookan,thesaidComplaintprayed,thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
judgmentberenderedorderingdefendant:
1. To pay plaintiff the sum of not less than P2,000.00 per
month for every month since June 1, 1987 as support in
arrears which defendant failed to provide plaintiff shortly
afterherbirthinJune1987uptothepresent;
2. To give plaintiff a monthly allowance of P5,000.00 to be
paid in advance on or before the 5th of each and every
month;
3. Togiveplaintiffbywayofsupportpendentelite,amonthly
allowance of P5,000.00 per month, the first monthly
allowance to start retroactively from the first day of this
monthandthesubsequentonestobepaidinadvanceonor
beforethe5thofeachsucceedingmonth;
4. Topaythecostsofsuit.
_________________
2Ibid.,p.18.

180

180

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
De Asis vs. Court of Appeals

Plaintiffpraysforsuchotherreliefjustandequitableunderthe
3
premises.

On October 8, 1993, petitioner moved to dismiss the


Complaintonthegroundofres judicata,allegingthatCivil
Case C16107 is barred by the prior judgment which
dismissedwithprejudiceCivilCaseQ88935.
In the Order dated November 25, 1993 denying subject
motiontodismiss,thetrialcourtruledthatres judicata is
inapplicable in an action for support for the reason that
renunciation or waiver of future support is prohibited by
law. Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the said
Ordermetthesamefate.Itwaslikewisedenied.
Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for
Certiorari.ButonJune7,1996,theCourtofAppealsfound
thesaidPetitiondevoidofmeritanddismissedthesame.
Undaunted,petitionerfoundhiswaytothiscourtviathe
present petition, posing the question whether or not the
public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictioninupholdingthe
denial of the motion to dismiss by the trial court, and
holdingthatanactionforsupportcannotbebarredbyres
judicata.
To buttress his submission, petitioner invokes the
previous dismissal of the Complaint for maintenance and
support, Civil Case Q88935, filed by the mother and
guardian of the minor, Glen Camil Andres de Asis, (the

herein private respondent). In said case, the complainant


manifested that because of the defendants judicial
declaration denying that he is the father of subject minor
child, it was futile and a useless exercise to claim support
from defendant. Because of such manifestation, and
defendants assurance that he would not pursue his
counterclaimanymore,thepartiesmutuallyagreedtomove
forthedismissalofthecomplaint.Themotionwasgranted
by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, which then
dismissedthecasewithprejudice.
____________________
3Ibid.,pp.1819.

181

VOL.303,FEBRUARY15,1999

181

De Asis vs. Court of Appeals


Petitioner contends that the aforecited manifestation, in
effect, admitted the lack of filiation between him and the
minor child, which admission binds the complainant, and
sincetheobligationtogivesupportisbasedontheexistence
ofpaternityandfiliationbetweenthechildandtheputative
parent, the lack thereof negates the right to claim for
support.Thus,petitionermaintainsthatthedismissalofthe
Complaint by the lower court on the basis of the said
manifestationbarsthepresentactionforsupport,especially
sobecausetheorderofthetrialcourtexplicitlystatedthat
thedismissalofthecasewaswithprejudice.
Thepetitionisnotimpressedwithmerit.
The right to receive support can neither be renounced
nor transmitted to a third person. Article 301 of the Civil
Code,thelawinpoint,reads:
Art.301.Therighttoreceivesupportcannotberenounced,norcan
it be transmitted to a third person. Neither can it be compensated
withwhattherecipientowestheobligor.xxxFurthermore,future
supportcannotbethesubjectofacompromise.

Article2035,ibid.,provides,that:
Nocompromiseuponthefollowingquestionsshallbevalid:
(1) Thecivilstatusofpersons;
(2) Thevalidityofamarriageorlegalseparation;
(3) Anygroundforlegalseparation;
(4) Futuresupport;
(5) Thejurisdictionofcourts;
(6) Futurelegitime.

The raison detre behind the proscription against


renunciation, transmission and/or compromise of the right
tosupportisstated,thus:
Therighttosupportbeingfoundedupontheneedoftherecipient
tomaintainhisexistence,heisnotentitledtorenounceor

182

182

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
De Asis vs. Court of Appeals

transfer the right for this would mean sanctioning the voluntary
givingupoflifeitself.Therighttolifecannotberenounced;hence,
support, which is the means to attain the former, cannot be
renounced.
xxx
To allow renunciation or transmission or compensation of the
familyrightofapersontosupportisvirtuallytoalloweithersuicide
or the conversion of the recipient to a public burden. This is
4
contrarytopublicpolicy.

Inthecaseatbar,respondentminorsmother,whowasthe
plaintiff in the first case, manifested that she was
withdrawing the case as it seemed futile to claim support
from petitioner who denied his paternity over the child.
Since the right to claim for support is predicated on the
existence of filiation between the minor child and the
putativeparent,petitionerwouldlikeustobelievethatsuch
manifestation admitting the futility of claiming support
fromhimputstheissuetorestandbarsanyandallfuture
complaintforsupport.
Themanifestationsentinbyrespondentsmotherinthe
first case, which acknowledged that it would be useless to
pursueitscomplaintforsupport,amountedtorenunciation
asitseveredthevinculumthatgivestheminor,GlenCamil,
the right to claim support from his putative parent, the
petitioner. Furthermore, the agreement entered into
between the petitioner and respondents mother for the
dismissal of the complaint for maintenance and support
conditioneduponthedismissalofthecounterclaimisinthe
nature of a compromise which cannot be countenanced. It
violatestheprohibitionagainstanycompromiseoftheright
tosupport.
Thus, the admission made by counsel for the wife of the facts
allegedinamotionofthehusband,inwhichthelatterprayedthat
hisobligationtosupportbeextinguishedcannotbeconsideredasan
___________________
4 Arturo Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of

thePhilippines,Vol.1,pp.596,601.

183

VOL.303,FEBRUARY15,1999

183

De Asis vs. Court of Appeals


assenttotheprayer,andmuchless,asawaiveroftherighttoclaim
5
forsupport.

It is true that in order to claim support, filiation and/or


paternitymustfirstbeshownbetweentheclaimantandthe
parent. However, paternity and filiation or the lack of the
same is a relationship that must be judicially established

anditisforthecourttodeclareitsexistenceorabsence.It
cannotbelefttothewilloragreementoftheparties.
Thecivilstatusofasonhavingbeendenied,andthiscivilstatus,
from which the right to support is derived being in issue, it is
apparent that no effect can be given to such a claim until an
authoritative declaration has been made as to the existence of the
6
cause.

Althoughinthecaseunderscrutiny,theadmissionmaybe
bindingupontherespondent,suchanadmissionisatmost
evidentiary and does not conclusively establish the lack of
filiation.
Neitherarewepersuadedbypetitionerstheorythatthe
dismissal with prejudice of Civil Case Q88935 has the
effectofres judicataonthesubsequentcaseforsupport.The
7
case of Advincula vs. Advincula comes to the fore. In
Advincula,theminor,ManuelaAdvincula,institutedacase
for acknowledgment and support against her putative
father,ManuelAdvincula.Onmotionofbothpartiesandfor
the reason that the plaintiff has lost interest and is no
longer interested in continuing the case against the
defendant and has no further evidence to introduce in
support of the complaint, the case was dismissed.
Thereafter,asimilarcasewasinstitutedbyManuela,which
the defendant moved to dismiss, theorizing that the
dismissalofthefirstcaseprecludedthefilingofthesecond
case.
_________________
5Ibid.,pp.596597,citingCoral

vs. Gallego,39OfficialGazette3150.

6Tolentino,p.579citingFrancisco

vs. Zandueta,61Phil.752; Garcia

vs. CA,4SCRA689.
710SCRA189.

184

184

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
De Asis vs. Court of Appeals

Indisposingsuchcase,thisCourtruled,thus:
The new Civil Code provides that the allowance for support is
provisional because the amount may be increased or decreased
depending upon the means of the giver and the needs of the
recipient(Art.297);andthattherighttoreceivesupportcannotbe
renouncednorcanitbetransmittedtoathirdperson;neithercanit
be compensated with what the recipient owes the obligator (Art.
301). Furthermore, the right to support can not be waived or
transferredtothirdpartiesandfuturesupportcannotbethesubject
ofcompromise(Art.2035;Coralv.Gallego,38O.G.3135,citedinIV
Civil Code by Padilla, p. 648, 1956 Ed.). This being true, it is
indisputable that the present action for support can be brought,
notwithstanding the fact the previous case filed against the same
defendantwasdismissed.Anditalsoappearingthatthedismissalof
Civil Case No. 3553, was not an adjudication upon the merits, as
heretoforeshown,therightofhereinplaintiffappellanttoreiterate
hersuitforsupportandacknowledgmentisavailable,asherneeds

arise.Oncetheneedsofplaintiffarise,shehastherighttobringan
action for support, for it is only then that her cause of action
accrues.xxxxxx
It appears that the former dismissal was predicated upon a
compromise.Acknowledgment,affectingasitdoesthecivilstatusof
persons and future support, cannot be the subject of compromise.
(pars. 1 & 4, Art. 2035, Civil Code). Hence, the first dismissal
cannot have force and effect and can not bar the filing of another
action, asking for the same relief against the same defendant.
(emphasissupplied)

Conformably, notwithstanding the dismissal of Civil Case


Q88935 and the lower courts pronouncement that such
dismissalwaswithprejudice,thesecondactionforsupport
maystillprosper.
WHEREFORE, the petition under consideration is
hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of
AppealsAFFIRMED.Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Romero (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban and
GonzagaReyes, JJ.,concur.
185

VOL.303,FEBRUARY15,1999

185

De Asis vs. Court of Appeals


Petition dismissed, judgment affirmed.
Notes.An unrecognized spurious child has no rights
from his parents or to their estate. (Ilano vs. Court of
Appeals,230SCRA242[1994])
A blood test could eliminate all possibility that the
accused is the father of the child, if none of the putative
fathersphenotype(s)arepresentinthechildsbloodtype
whiletheconversedoesnotholdtrue(i.e.,thatthepresence
of identical phenotypes in both individuals establishes
paternity), the absence of the formers phenotype in the
childs would make his paternity biologically untenable.
(People vs. Cartuano, Jr.,255SCRA403[1996])
DNA, being a relatively new science, has not yet been
accorded official recognition by the courtspaternity will
stillhavetoberesolvedbyconventionalevidence.(Lim vs.
Court of Appeals,270SCRA1[1997])
Acknowledgment and support of the victims offspring
mayformpartofthecivilliabilityofpersonsguiltyofcrimes
againstchastity.(People vs.Adora,275SCRA441[1971])
For the success of an action to establish illegitimate
filiation under the second paragraph of Art. 172 of the
Family Code, a high standard of proof is required
specifically,toproveopenandcontinuouspossessionofthe
statusofanillegitimatechild,theremustbeevidenceofthe
manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed
fathertoconsiderthechildashis,bycontinuousandclear
manifestationsofparentalaffectionandcare,whichcannot
be attributed to pure charity. (Jison vs. Court of Appeals,
286SCRA495[1998])

o0o
186

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai