Facts:

Vircel D. Andres, as the legal guardian of the minor, Glen, filed an action for maintenance and support against Manuel de Asis. She alleged that Manuel is the father of Glen but as a father, he failed to provide support to his child. Manuel denied his paternity of Glen and alleged that he cannot be required to provide support for him. Vircel, thus, withdrew the complaint subject to the condition that Manuel will not pursue his counterclaim. Manuel agreed and the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. 

Six years later, Vircel filed a similar complaint against Manuel, this time in the name of Glen, represented by her legal guardian. Manuel moved to dismiss the case on the ground of res judicata but was denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals upheld the denial.


Issue: 

Whether or not the action for support is barred by res judicata


Held:

The right to receive support can neither be renounced nor transmitted to a third person. Furthermore, future support cannot be the subject of a compromise. 

The raison d’ etre behind the proscription against renunciation, transmission and/or compromise of the right to support is stated, thus:

“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 renounced; hence, support, which is the means to attain the former, cannot be renounced.
xxx
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.”

The manifestation sent by private respondent amounted to renunciation as it severed the vinculum that gives the subject minor, the right to claim support from his putative parent, the petitioner. Furthermore, the agreement entered into between the petitioner and private respondent for the dismissal of the counterclaim was in the nature of a compromise, which cannot be countenanced.  It violated the prohibition against any compromise of the right to support.  

Moreover, it is true that 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. 

Although in the case under scrutiny, the admission may be binding upon the respondent, such an admission is at most evidentiary and does not conclusively establish the lack of filiation.

Neither are we persuaded by petitioner’s theory that the dismissal with prejudice of case has the effect of res judicata  on the subsequent case for support. The right to support cannot be waived or transferred to third parties and future support cannot be the subject of compromise. 

Notwithstanding the dismissal of case and the lower court’s pronouncement that such dismissal was with prejudice, the second action for support may still prosper. (Manuel de Asis vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127578.  February 15, 1999)