De Asis vs. Court of Appeals

The right to receive future support cannot be renounced, transmitted, or compromised; consequently, a prior dismissal with prejudice of a complaint for support does not bar a subsequent action for support via res judicata. Because the right to support is founded on the recipient's need to maintain existence, any agreement or manifestation waiving future support is void, and filiation cannot be left to the agreement of the parties but must be judicially established.

Private respondent Vircel D. Andres, acting as legal guardian of her minor child Glen Camil Andres de Asis, filed a complaint for maintenance and support against Manuel de Asis, alleging that de Asis was the minor's father and had refused to provide support. De Asis denied paternity. Faced with this denial, Andres manifested that pursuing the support claim seemed futile and agreed to withdraw the complaint on the condition that de Asis withdraw his counterclaim. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice based on this joint manifestation. Several years later, Andres filed a second complaint for support on behalf of the minor, prompting de Asis to move for dismissal on the ground of res judicata.

• First Action for Support: On October 14, 1988, Vircel D. Andres filed Civil Case No. Q-88-935 for support against Manuel de Asis on behalf of minor Glen Camil, alleging de Asis was the father and had failed to provide support. De Asis answered by denying his paternity of the minor.
• Manifestation and Dismissal: On July 4, 1989, Andres manifested that because de Asis had judicially denied paternity, claiming support seemed futile. She proposed withdrawing the complaint provided de Asis withdrew his counterclaim. On August 8, 1989, the RTC dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to the parties' joint manifestation.
• Second Action for Support: On September 7, 1995, Andres filed a new complaint for support, Civil Case No. C-16107, in the RTC of Kalookan, seeking monthly support in arrears, a monthly allowance, and support pendente lite.
• Motion to Dismiss: On October 8, 1995 (mistyped as 1993 in the decision), de Asis moved to dismiss the second complaint on the ground of res judicata, citing the prior dismissal with prejudice.
• Lower Court Rulings: The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, holding that res judicata does not apply to actions for support because renunciation or waiver of future support is prohibited by law. The Court of Appeals dismissed de Asis's petition for certiorari challenging the RTC's orders.

• Petitioner argued that the prior dismissal with prejudice of Civil Case Q-88-935 bars the subsequent action for support under the principle of res judicata.
• Petitioner maintained that the mother's manifestation in the first case—admitting the futility of claiming support due to his denial of paternity—effectively bound the minor and constituted an admission of the lack of filiation, which negates the right to support.
• Petitioner contended that the explicit "with prejudice" pronouncement in the first dismissal order precludes any future complaint for support between the same parties.

• Respondent countered that res judicata is inapplicable to actions for support because the right to future support cannot be renounced or compromised under the Civil Code.
• Respondent argued that the dismissal of the first case was predicated upon a compromise regarding future support, which is prohibited by law, rendering the dismissal incapable of barring a subsequent suit.
• Respondent implicitly asserted that filiation cannot be negated by the mere agreement or manifestation of the parties and must be judicially established.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss based on res judicata.
• Substantive Issues: Whether an action for support is barred by res judicata by reason of a prior dismissal with prejudice of a previous support case; whether a manifestation by a minor's guardian acknowledging the futility of a support claim due to denied paternity constitutes a valid renunciation of the right to future support.

• Procedural: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in affirming the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss, as the principle of res judicata is inapplicable to the present action for support.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a subsequent action for support. The right to receive support cannot be renounced, transmitted, or compensated (Article 301, Civil Code), and future support cannot be the subject of a compromise (Article 2035, Civil Code). The mother's manifestation in the first case, which acknowledged the futility of claiming support and led to the dismissal, amounted to a renunciation and compromise of future support, which is void for being contrary to public policy. Furthermore, paternity and filiation cannot be left to the agreement of the parties but must be judicially established; thus, the mother's manifestation did not conclusively establish the lack of filiation. Because the right to support is provisional and based on need, a minor may bring an action for support as needs arise, notwithstanding a prior dismissal.

• Non-renunciability and Non-compromisability of Future Support — The right to receive support is founded on the recipient's need to maintain existence and cannot be renounced, transmitted to a third person, or compensated with what the recipient owes the obligor (Article 301, Civil Code). Future support cannot be the subject of a compromise (Article 2035, Civil Code). The Court applied this doctrine to void the mother's manifestation, which effectively waived future support in exchange for the dismissal of the counterclaim, holding that such an agreement cannot bar a subsequent action for support.
• Prosidentiality of Support — The allowance for support is provisional, and the amount may be increased or decreased depending upon the means of the giver and the needs of the recipient (Article 297, Civil Code). Because support is provisional, a prior dismissal does not bar a subsequent action, as the right to bring an action for support accrues when the needs arise.
• Judicial Establishment of Filiation — Paternity and filiation, or the lack thereof, must be judicially established; it cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties. The Court held that the mother's admission of the futility of the claim due to the putative father's denial of paternity was at most evidentiary and did not conclusively establish the lack of filiation.

• "The right to support being founded upon the need of the recipient to maintain his existence, he is not entitled to renounce or transfer the right for this would mean sanctioning the voluntary giving up of life itself. The right to life cannot be renounce; hence, support which is the means to attain the former, cannot be renounced."
• "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. This is contrary to public policy."
• "It is true that in order to claim support, filiation and/or paternity must first be shown between the claimant and the parent. However, 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 absence. It cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties."

• Advincula v. Advincula, 10 SCRA 189 — Controlling precedent. The Court followed this case, which held that a prior dismissal of a support case, especially one predicated upon a compromise on acknowledgment and future support, does not bar a subsequent action for support because the right to support cannot be waived or compromised and is provisional in nature.
• Coral v. Gallego, 38 O.G. 3135 — Cited as authority for the proposition that future support cannot be the subject of compromise.
• Francisco v. Zandueta, 61 Phil. 752 and Garcia v. CA, 4 SCRA 689 — Cited as authority for the principle that civil status, from which the right to support is derived, must be judicially established and cannot be left to the agreement of the parties.

• Article 301, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that the right to receive support cannot be renounced, transmitted to a third person, or compensated with what the recipient owes the obligor. The Court applied this provision to hold that the mother's manifestation, which effectively renounced the minor's right to future support, was void.
• Article 2035, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that no compromise upon future support shall be valid. The Court applied this provision to invalidate the agreement between the parties to dismiss the first case in exchange for the dismissal of the counterclaim, characterizing it as an invalid compromise on future support.
• Article 297, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that the allowance for support is provisional, subject to increase or decrease depending on the means of the giver and the needs of the recipient. Cited in Advincula to support the ruling that a subsequent action for support may be filed as needs arise.

Romero, Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ.