GR 127578; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127578 February 15, 1999
MANUEL DE ASIS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JAIME T. HAMOY, Branch 130, RTC, Kalookan City and GLEN CAMIL ANDRES DE ASIS represented by her mother/guardian VIRCEL D. ANDRES, respondents.
FACTS
In 1988, Vircel D. Andres, as guardian, filed a complaint for maintenance and support against Manuel de Asis on behalf of the minor Glen Camil Andres de Asis, alleging paternity. De Asis denied paternity in his Answer. Subsequently, in 1989, Andres filed a manifestation stating that given the defendant’s judicial denial of paternity, claiming support seemed “futile and a useless exercise,” and moved to withdraw the complaint provided the defendant withdrew his counterclaim. The Quezon City RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case “with prejudice.” In 1993, a new and identical complaint for support was filed in Kalookan City. De Asis moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, citing the prior dismissal with prejudice.
ISSUE
Whether the principle of res judicata bars the subsequent action for support.
RULING
No, res judicata does not bar the subsequent action. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the denial of the motion to dismiss. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the right to support under the Civil Code. Article 301 explicitly provides that the right to receive support cannot be renounced nor transmitted to a third person. Furthermore, Article 2035 states that future support cannot be the subject of a compromise. Therefore, any waiver, renunciation, or compromise agreement regarding future support is void and without legal effect. The 1989 dismissal, though labeled “with prejudice,” was based on a manifestation that effectively constituted a renunciation of the claim due to the perceived futility of the action. This renunciation is prohibited by law. Consequently, the dismissal cannot constitute a bar to a new action, as the right to support is recurring and arises from need; a cause of action accrues each time support is needed. The Court cited the precedent in Manuel v. Hon. Court of Appeals, which held that a prior dismissal of a support case, even if based on a compromise, cannot bar a subsequent action because future support is not a proper subject of compromise. Thus, the second action for support may proceed.