JOANIE SURPOSA UY v. JOSE NGO CHUA, GR No.

183965, 2009-09-18
Facts:
Petitioner Joanie Surposa Uy filed on 27 October 2003 before the RTC a Petition for the
issuance of a decree of illegitimate filiation against respondent.
Petitioner alleged in her Complaint that respondent, who was then married, had an illicit
relationship with Irene Surposa (Irene). Respondent and Irene had two children,
namely, petitioner and her brother, Allan.
In his Answer to the Complaint, filed on 9 December 2003, respondent denied that he
had an illicit relationship with Irene, and that petitioner was his daughter. Hearings then
ensued during which petitioner testified that... respondent was the only father she knew;
that he took care of all her needs until she finished her college education; and that he
came to visit her on special family occasions. She also presented documentary
evidence to prove her claim of illegitimate filiation.
on
27 March 2008, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that the
Decision dated 21 February 2000 of RTC-Branch 9 in Special Proceeding No. 8830-
CEB had already been barred by res judicata in Special Proceeding
It turned out that prior to instituting Special Proceeding No. 12562-CEB on 27 October
2003, petitioner had already filed a similar Petition for the issuance of a decree of
illegitimate affiliation against respondent. It was docketed as Special Proceeding No.
8830-CEB,... assigned to RTC-Branch 9. Petitioner and respondent eventually entered
into a Compromise Agreement in Special Proceeding No. 8830-CEB, which was
approved by RTC-Branch 9 in a Decision
Under consideration is a Compromise Agreement filed by the parties on February 18,
2000, praying that judgment be rendered in accordance therewith, the terms and
conditions of which follows:
"1. Petitioner JOANIE SURPOSA UY declares, admits and acknowledges that there is
no blood relationship or filiation between petitioner and her brother Allan on one hand
and [herein respondent] JOSE NGO CHUA on the other. This declaration, admission or
acknowledgement... is concurred with petitioner's brother Allan, who although not a
party to the case, hereby affixes his signature to this pleading and also abides by the
declaration herein.
As a gesture of goodwill and by way of settling petitioner and her brother's (Allan) civil,
monetary and similar claims but without admitting any liability, [respondent] JOSE NGO
CHUA hereby binds himself to pay the petitioner the sum of TWO MILLION PESOS
(P2,000,000.00) and... another TWO MILLION PESOS (P2,000,000.00) to her brother,
ALLAN SURPOSA. Petitioner and her brother hereby acknowledge to have received in
full the said compromise amount.
Petitioner and her brother (Allan) hereby declare that they have absolutely no more
claims, causes of action or demands against [respondent] JOSE NGO CHUA, his heirs,
successors and assigns and/or against the estate of Catalino Chua, his heirs,
successors and assigns and/or... against all corporations, companies or business
enterprises including Cebu Liberty Lumber and Joe Lino Realty Investment and
Development Corporation where defendant JOSE NGO CHUA or CATALINO NGO
CHUA may have interest or participation.
[Respondent] JOSE NGO CHUA hereby waives all counterclaim or counter-demand
with respect to the subject matter of the present petition.
Pursuant to the foregoing, petitioner hereby asks for a judgment for the permanent
dismissal with prejudice of the captioned petition. [Respondent] also asks for a
judgment permanently dismissing with prejudice his counterclaim."... the Court notes
that from the RTC Resolution granting respondent's Demurrer to Evidence, petitioner
went directly to this Court for relief. This is only proper, given that petitioner is raising
pure questions of law in her instant Petition
Issues:
whether the Compromise Agreement entered into between petitioner and respondent,
duly approved by RTC-Branch 9 in its Decision dated 21 February 2000 in Special
Proceeding No. 8830-CEB, constitutes res judicata in Special Proceeding No.
12562-CEB still pending before RTC-Branch 24.
Ruling:
The court rules in the negative.
A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions,
avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.[18] In Estate of the late
Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic,[19] the Court pronounced that a... judicial compromise
has the effect of res judicata. A judgment based on a compromise agreement is a
judgment on the merits.
It must be emphasized, though, that like any other contract, a compromise agreement
must comply with the requisites in Article 1318 of the Civil Code, to wit: (a) consent of
the contracting parties; (b) object certain that is the subject matter of the contract; and
(c) cause of... the obligation that is established. And, 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. It produces no legal effect at all.[
ART. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:
(1) The civil status of persons;
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
(4) Future support;
(5) The jurisdiction of courts;
(6) Future legitime. (Emphases ours.)
The Compromise Agreement between petitioner and respondent, executed on 18
February 2000 and approved by RTC-Branch 9 in its Decision dated 21 February 2000
in Special Proceeding No. 8830-CEB, obviously intended to settle the question of
petitioner's status and filiation,... i.e., whether she is an illegitimate child of respondent.
In exchange for petitioner and her brother Allan acknowledging that they are not the
children of respondent, respondent would pay petitioner and Allan P2,000,000.00 each.
Although unmentioned, it was a... necessary consequence of said Compromise
Agreement that petitioner also waived away her rights to future support and future
legitime as an illegitimate child of respondent. Evidently, the Compromise Agreement
dated 18 February 2000 between petitioner and respondent is covered by... the
prohibition under Article 2035 of the Civil Code.
It is settled, then, in law and jurisprudence, that the status and filiation of a child cannot
be compromised. Public policy demands that there be no compromise on the status and
filiation of a child.[22] 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.[23]
Being contrary to law and public policy, the Compromise Agreement dated 18 February
2000 between petitioner and respondent 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.