Group 4 Future Legitime Not A Subject of Compromise (Article 2035[6], New Civil Code)

Members: Nadine C. Abenoja

Jessa Gwen N. Bation
Kara Denise Valleser-Dupio
Dominic Benjamin L. Lajot

Case: G.R. No. 183965 Joanie Surposa Uy vs. Jose Ngo Chua (September 18, 2009)

Nature of the Case: Petition for Review under Rule 45

Facts:

Petitioner filed a petition for the issuance of a decree of illegitimate filiation against
Respondent on October 27, 2003.

Petitioner alleged that:

o She (together with her brother Allan) is an illegitimate child of the Respondent
o Respondent was present at the time of her birth and under the formers instruction,
her birth certificate was falsified, indicating his maternal grandfathers name as
her father
o Respondent financially supported her until she got married. In fact, when she was
still in high school, she was able to work in the Respondents family business.
o It was a well-known fact in the Chinese community that she and her brother were
the Respondents illegitimate children. In fact the Respondent sent his brother to
the Petitioners wedding to stand in for him as the father-of-the-bride. The
Respondents relatives also attended the baptism of the Petitioners daughter.

The Respondent denied all of the petitioners allegations in his Answer. After a series of
hearings, the respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence on the ground of res judicata, there
being a previous final decision dated February 23, 2000, involving the same controversy.

In the previously decided petition instituted by the same Petitioner against the Respondent
for the issuance of a decree of illegitimate filiation, the parties arrived at a Compromise
Agreement which the Court approved in its decision dismissing the petition with prejudice,
which eventually attained finality, there being no appeal taken.

Under the Compromise Agreement, the petitioner (and her brother), in consideration of
the amount of TWO MILLION PESOS, acknowledged that there is no filiation between
her (and her brother) and the respondent and the parties waived and released any and all
claims and liabilities they may have against each other and their respective successors.

In view of the prior judgment, the RTC granted the Respondents Demurrer to Evidence
and dismissed the petition. The petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was likewise
denied, hence the instant recourse to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether or not the court-approved Compromise Agreement between the parties was valid?

Ruling:

NO. A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal

concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. It must be emphasized
though that like any other contract, the terms and conditions of a compromise agreement must not
be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. Any compromise
agreement that is contrary to law or public policy is null and void, and vests no rights in, and holds
no obligation for, any party.

Public policy demands that there be no compromise on the status and filiation of a child. 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 unmentioned, it was a necessary consequence of the Compromise Agreement between

the parties that the petitioner also waived away her rights to future support and future legitime as
an illegitimate child of the respondent. Evidently, the said Compromise Agreement is covered by
the prohibition under Article 2035 of the Civil Code.

Being contrary to law and public policy, the Compromise Agreement between the parties is
void ab initio and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It produces no legal effect at all. The
void agreement cannot be rendered operative even by the parties' alleged performance (partial or
full) of their respective prestations.

Neither can it be said that the RTC, by approving the Compromise Agreement in its decision,
already made said contract valid and legal. Obviously, it would already be beyond the jurisdiction
of RTC to legalize what is illegal. No court can allow itself to be used as a tool to circumvent the
explicit prohibition under Article 2035 of the Civil Code. A judgment void for want of jurisdiction
is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right or the creator of any obligation. All acts
performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never
become final, and any writ of execution based on it is void.

Nevertheless, even though the Compromise Agreement is void for being contrary to law and public
policy, the admission petitioner made therein may still be appreciated against her in subsequent
proceedings. However, while petitioners admission may have evidentiary value, it does not, by
itself, conclusively establish the lack of filiation.

The case was REMANDED to the RTC for respondents presentation of evidence and further
proceedings.