Joanie Surposa Uy v. Jose Ngo Chua

Summary

This Supreme Court case involves a petition for illegitimate filiation where the respondent claimed res judicata based on a prior compromise agreement. In 2000, the parties entered into a compromise in a similar filiation case where petitioner acknowledged no blood relationship with respondent in exchange for monetary settlement. When petitioner filed a new filiation case in 2003, the RTC dismissed it based on res judicata. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that compromise agreements on civil status are prohibited under Article 2035 of the Civil Code and are void ab initio. Such void agreements cannot create res judicata as they are contrary to law and public policy. The Court emphasized that paternity and filiation must be judicially established and cannot be left to parties' agreement. The case was remanded for continuation of proceedings, establishing that questions of civil status, future support, and legitime cannot be compromised.