[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
314 views1 page

De Asis Vs Ca

Vircel filed an action in 1988 seeking maintenance and support from Manuel for Glen de Asis, but later withdrew the complaint in 1989 when Manuel denied paternity. In 1995, Vircel filed another complaint against Manuel seeking support. Manuel argued the case was barred by res judicata. The Court held that (1) the right to support cannot be compromised or waived, making the agreement to dismiss the first case invalid; (2) whether a filial relationship exists must be decided by the court, not the parties; and (3) res judicata did not apply because future support cannot be compromised, so the minor was not barred from bringing the new action.

Uploaded by

sarah abutazil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
314 views1 page

De Asis Vs Ca

Vircel filed an action in 1988 seeking maintenance and support from Manuel for Glen de Asis, but later withdrew the complaint in 1989 when Manuel denied paternity. In 1995, Vircel filed another complaint against Manuel seeking support. Manuel argued the case was barred by res judicata. The Court held that (1) the right to support cannot be compromised or waived, making the agreement to dismiss the first case invalid; (2) whether a filial relationship exists must be decided by the court, not the parties; and (3) res judicata did not apply because future support cannot be compromised, so the minor was not barred from bringing the new action.

Uploaded by

sarah abutazil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

De Asis vs CA

De Asis vs. CA
GR No. 127578, February 15, 1999
FACTS:
Vircel Andres as legal guardian of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, filed an action in 1988 for
maintenance and support against the alleged father Manuel De Asis who failed to provide
support and maintenance despite repeated demands. Vircel later on withdrew the
complaint in 1989 for the reason that Manuel denied paternity of the said minor and due
to such denial, it seems useless to pursue the said action. They mutually agreed to move
for the dismissal of the complaint with the condition that Manuel will not pursue his
counter claim. However in 1995, Vircel filed a similar complaint against the alleged
father, this time as the minors legal guardian/mother. Manuel interposed maxim of res
judicata for the dismissal of the case. He maintained that since the obligation to give
support is based on existence of paternity between the child and putative parent, lack
thereof negates the right to claim support.
ISSUE: WON the minor is barred from action for support.
HELD:
The right to give support cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted to a third
person. The original agreement between the parties to dismiss the initial complaint was
in the nature of a compromise regarding future support which is prohibited by law. With
respect to Manuels contention for the lack of filial relationship between him and the child
and agreement of Vircel in not pursuing the original claim, the Court held that existence
of lack thereof of any filial relationship between parties was not a matter which the
parties must decide but should be decided by the Court itself. While it is true that in order
to claim support, filiation or paternity must be first shown between the parties, but the
presence or lack thereof must be judicially established and declaration is vested in the
Court. It cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties. Hence, the first dismissal
cannot bar the filing of another action asking for the same relief (no force and effect).
Furthermore, the defense of res judicata claimed by Manuel was untenable since future
support cannot be the subject of any compromise or waiver.

You might also like