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 minor’s 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 Manuel’s 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.
De Asis vs CA
GR No. 127578, February 15, 1999

FACTS:
Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian had various properties. They
both died intestate. The special proceedings for administration of the properties
were filed with the trial court. Vicente's sister Victoria B. Lirio filed for issuance of
letters of administration in favor of the nephew. Marissa opposed the petition,
saying that she is the sole heir of deceased Vicente and that she is capable of
administering his estate. She submitted the pieces of documentary evidence
and testified that the spouses treated her as their own daughter. The relatives of
Vicente tried to prove through testimonial evidence, that the spouses failed to
beget a child during their marriage. Victoria categorically declared that Marissa
was not the biological child of the spouses who were unable to physically
procreate.

Trial court relied on Arts. 166 and 170 of the Family Code and ruled in favor of
Marissa. On appeal, the CA reversed the lower court decision and declared
Marissa Benitez-Badua is not the biological child of the late spouses.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Marissa Benitez-Badua is the legitimate child and the sole heir of
the late spouses.

HELD:
No. The SC find no merit to the petition.

Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code cannot be applied in the case
at bar. The above provisions do not contemplate a situation where a child is
alleged not to be the biological child of a certain couple.

In Article 166, it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of the child by:
(1) it was physically impossible for him to have sexual intercourse, with his wife
within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of
the child;
(2) that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been
his child;
(3) that in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written
authorization or ratification by either parent was obtained through mistake,
fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence.

Articles 170 and 171 speak of the prescription period within which the husband
or any of his heirs should file an action impugning the legitimacy of the child. In
this case, it is not where the heirs of the late Vicente are contending that Marissa
is not his child or a child by Isabel, but they are contending that Marissa was not
born to Vicente and Isabel.

Marissa was not the biological child of the dead spouses. Marissa's Certificate of
Live Birth was repudiated by the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate
of the late Isabel by Vicente, saying that he and his brother-in-law are the sole
heirs of the estate.