G.R. No. 127578 - De Asis vs. Court of Appeals

Filing of the first support case (Civil Case No. Q-88-935, RTC Quezon City, Branch 94)

On October 14, 1988, Vircel D. Andres, as legal guardian of her minor daughter Glen Camil Andres de Asis, filed a complaint for maintenance and support against Manuel de Asis, alleging paternity and failure to provide support.
In his Answer, petitioner denied that he was the father of the minor and asserted he had no obligation to support her.

On July 4, 1989, plaintiff’s counsel filed a manifestation stating that petitioner’s proposed Amended Answer judicially admitted (a) denial of paternity and (b) no obligation to support, making further prosecution “futile and a useless exercise.”
By joint motion, the parties asked for dismissal; on August 8, 1989, RTC Branch 94 dismissed Civil Case No. Q-88-935 with prejudice, conditioned on petitioner’s withdrawal of his counterclaim.

Filing of the second support case (Civil Case No. C-16107, RTC Kalookan, Branch 130)

On September 7, 1995, Glen Camil Andres de Asis, represented by her mother/guardian Vircel D. Andres, filed a new Complaint for maintenance and support against Manuel de Asis.
The Complaint prayed for: (a) arrearages of not less than ₱2,000 per month since June 1, 1987; (b) a monthly allowance of ₱5,000 in advance; (c) pendente lite support of ₱5,000 monthly; and (d) costs of suit.

On October 8, 1993, petitioner moved to dismiss Civil Case No. C-16107 on the ground of res judicata, invoking the prior dismissal with prejudice of Q-88-935.
On November 25, 1993, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that res judicata does not apply to support actions because the right to future support cannot be renounced; a motion for reconsideration was denied on February 4, 1994.
On June 7, 1996, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s Orders.

Petitioner contended the RTC and CA erred by refusing to recognize the binding effect of the first dismissal with prejudice and judicial admissions, thus barring the second suit by res judicata.
He maintained that the mother’s manifestation amounted to a waiver of the minor’s right to support, extinguishing any future claims.

Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals gravely abused their discretion in denying the motion to dismiss based on res judicata.
Whether an action for support can be barred by a prior dismissal with prejudice.
Whether the right to receive future support may be renounced, transmitted, or compromised by the parties.