Versoza v. Versoza

Summary

The Supreme Court established that Article 222 of the Civil Code, requiring earnest efforts at compromise between family members before filing suit, does not apply to actions seeking future support. The Court held that future support cannot be subject to valid compromise under Article 2035, as it involves matters of public interest and morality essential for sustenance. The right to support is non-renunciable and indispensable for life. Since the complaint sought future support among other reliefs, the lower court erred in dismissing it for failure to allege compromise efforts. The case clarified the interaction between Articles 222 and 2035 of the Civil Code, establishing that compromise requirements are subject to the prohibition against compromising future support. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case with instructions to admit the amended complaint.