Professional Documents
Culture Documents
De Asis vs. CA
De Asis vs. CA
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
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
OnSeptember7,1995,anotherComplaintformaintenance
180
180
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
De Asis vs. Court of Appeals
Plaintiffpraysforsuchotherreliefjustandequitableunderthe
3
premises.
181
VOL.303,FEBRUARY15,1999
181
Article2035,ibid.,provides,that:
Nocompromiseuponthefollowingquestionsshallbevalid:
(1) Thecivilstatusofpersons;
(2) Thevalidityofamarriageorlegalseparation;
(3) Anygroundforlegalseparation;
(4) Futuresupport;
(5) Thejurisdictionofcourts;
(6) Futurelegitime.
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
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. 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)
VOL.303,FEBRUARY15,1999
185
o0o
186