De Asis v. Court of Appeals (1999)
For Manuel to pay for the cause of the suits
FACTS:
A petition for certiorari has been filed Manuel de
Asis, praying that the Court review the decision of
the RTC and CA, which denied his initial plea for
the dismissal of a maintenance and support case,
imputing him as the father of Glen Camil Andres
de Asis, therefore, liable for support of the latter.
Vircel D. Andres, the mother of and as the legal
guardian of the minor Glen, filed such case.
However, Vircel Andres withdrew such support
case in 1989, by being persuaded by Manuel’s
“judicial admission/declaration” in denying his
paternity vis-à-vis Glen and thus, Vircel saw it
futile to continue with the case after Manuel’s
renouncement. Also, Vircel and Manuel had
agreed that should Vircel withdraw her petition on
behalf of her child Manuel would not pursue a
counterclaim. RTC acknowledged such agreement
and dismissed the case. However, on 1995, 6
years after her initial petition, Vircel filed another
complaint for maintenance and support hoping to
get the following:
1. Support of not less than 2,000 pesos
monthly for every month since June 1, 1987
2. Give Glen Camil a monthly allowance of
5,000 pesos on the 5th day of every month
3. Give plaintiff 5,000 peso monthly allowance
as support pendent lite
4.
Petitioner Manuel replied that the subsequent
support case should be dismissed on the ground
of res judicata but the RTC and CA both dismissed
his move to dismiss. In his plea to the SC, Manuel
adds that Vircel’s withdrawal of an earlier claim
for support was, in effect, an admission of lack of
filiation in her part.
ISSUE:
W/N the RTC and CA acted with grave abuse of
discretion in denying Manuel’s motion to dismiss
and holding that action for support cannot be
barred by res judicata.
HELD:
NO.
Right to receive support can neither renounced
nor transmitted to a third person (Art. 301 of Civil
Code not adopted in Family Code). Also, future
support cannot be subject of a compromise (Par. 4
of Art. 2035 of Civil Code). Paternity and filiation
are for the courts to decide and not through
agreements or the will of the parties. Petition is
DISMISSED.
Note: Court expounded that the reason for the
proscription against renunciation or compromise
of the right to support is that support was
established in order for the recipient to maintain
his existence. Allowing such renunciation or conversion of recipient to a public burden, making
compromise will virtually institute suicide or such contrary to public policy.