Not subject to compromise

The status, filiation or paternity of a person, or his/her legal standing or position in relation to a parent cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement. This is the ruling in this case of Ana.

Ana was one of the two children of Ina, a single mother. She was born on April 27, 1969 when her mother was having an illicit affair with Al, a married Filipino-Chinese businessman. When Ina gave birth to Ana, Al was even around and attended to her needs although he gave the instruction that Ana’s birth certificate should be filled out in such a way that Ana’s paternity and filiation could not be traced to him. But Al financially supported Ana and her brother Fred. He had regularly and consistently given her allowances. While Ana was still in high school, Al provided her with employment at their family lumber and construction supplies business. Later Al recommended her employment in another company. Ana and Fred were known in the Chinese community as Al’s illegitimate children. When Ana got married, Al even sent his brother Lino as his representative who acted as father of the bride. Al’s relatives also attended the baptism of Ana’s first child.

But Ana still wanted to formally establish her illegitimate filiation. So on October 27, 2003 she filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Petition for the issuance of a decree of illegitimate filiation against Al. In answer, Al denied that he had illicit relationship with Ina and that Ana was his daughter.

During the hearing Ana testified that Al was the only father she knew; that he took care of all her needs until she finished college; and that he came to visit her on special family occasions. She also presented documentary evidence to prove her illegitimate filiation.

Instead of presenting evidence Al filed a Demurrer to Evidence. He presented another decision in another case of the same nature where Ana had already filed a similar petition against him and where a Compromise Agreement (CA) was entered between him and Ana dated February 18, 2000. In said agreement Ana admitted and acknowledged that there is no blood relationship between her and her brother Fred on one hand and Al on the other hand. This CA was approved by the other court and became the decision in said other case.

Based on this other decision, the RTC granted Al’s demurrer to evidence and dismissed Ana’s petition. Was the RTC correct?

No. Public policy demands that there be no compromise on the status and filiation of a child. Paternity and filiation or the lack of it 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. Thus under Article 2035 of the Civil Code, “no compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: the civil status of persons… future support…future legitime”.

The CA dated February 18, 2000 obviously intended to settle the question of Ana’s status and filiation, i.e., whether she is an illegitimate daughter of Al, that Ana and her brother are not the children of Al. Although unmentioned, it was the necessary consequence of such compromise that Ana also waived away her rights to future support and future legitime as an illegitimate child. The CA is therefore contrary to law and public policy. It produces no legal effect at all. It is void ab initio and vests no rights and creates no obligation. So the RTC order must be set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings (Uy vs. Chua, G.R. 183965, September 18, 2009. 600 SCRA, 806). 

* * *

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]