Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 621 views

    Joanie Surposa Uy vs. Jose Ngo Chua

    Uploaded by

    Glenn Fortes
    Joanie filed a petition for illegitimate filiation against Jose, claiming he had an illicit relationship with Irene and fathered her children. Jose denied this. The court found Joanie had previously filed a similar petition against Jose that resulted in a compromise agreement approved by the court. However, the Supreme Court ruled the compromise agreement was void as the status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. While the admissions in the agreement can be used against Joanie, they do not conclusively establish lack of filiation. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Joanie Surposa Uy vs. Jose Ngo Chua

    Uploaded by

    Glenn Fortes
    621 views1 page
    Joanie filed a petition for illegitimate filiation against Jose, claiming he had an illicit relationship with Irene and fathered her children. Jose denied this. The court found Joanie had previously filed a similar petition against Jose that resulted in a compromise agreement approved by the court. However, the Supreme Court ruled the compromise agreement was void as the status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. While the admissions in the agreement can be used against Joanie, they do not conclusively establish lack of filiation. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

    Original Title

    Uy v Chua

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Joanie filed a petition for illegitimate filiation against Jose, claiming he had an illicit relationship with Irene and fathered her children. Jose denied this. The court found Joanie had previously filed a similar petition against Jose that resulted in a compromise agreement approved by the court. However, the Supreme Court ruled the compromise agreement was void as the status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. While the admissions in the agreement can be used against Joanie, they do not conclusively establish lack of filiation. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    621 views1 page

    Joanie Surposa Uy vs. Jose Ngo Chua

    Uploaded by

    Glenn Fortes
    Joanie filed a petition for illegitimate filiation against Jose, claiming he had an illicit relationship with Irene and fathered her children. Jose denied this. The court found Joanie had previously filed a similar petition against Jose that resulted in a compromise agreement approved by the court. However, the Supreme Court ruled the compromise agreement was void as the status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. While the admissions in the agreement can be used against Joanie, they do not conclusively establish lack of filiation. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    JOANIE SURPOSA UY VS.

    JOSE NGO CHUA


    G.R. No. 183965, September 18, 2009

    FACTS:
    Joanie Surposa Uy (Joanie) filed before the RTC Branch 24 of Cebu City a petition for the
    issuance of a decree of illegitimate filiation against Jose Ngo Chua (Jose). She alleged that Jose,
    who was then married, had an illicit relationship with Irene Surposa (Irene) and had two children,
    her and Allan. Jose attended to Irene when the latter was giving birth to her and instructed that her
    birth certificate be filled out with the names of Irene's parents as father and mother. Jose financially
    supported her and Allan; had consistently and regularly given her allowances before she got
    married; and also provided her with employment. Both were introduced to each other and became
    known in the Chinese community as Jose's illegitimate children. During her wedding, Jose sent
    his brother Catalino Chua as his representative, who acted as father of the bride. Jose's relatives
    even attended the baptism of her daughter. Jose on the other hand, denied that he had an illicit
    relationship with Irene, and that Joanie was his daughter. During the trial, Jose filed a Demurrer
    to Evidence on the ground that present case had already been barred by res judicata. It turned out
    that Joanie had already filed a similar petition for the issuance of a decree of illegitimate affiliation
    against Jose and they eventually entered into a compromise agreement which was approved by
    RTC-Branch 9. The RTC granted the demurrer filed by Jose, hence this petition to the Supreme
    Court by Joanie.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the compromise agreement entered into between Joanie and Jose, duly
    approved by RTC-Branch 9 constitutes res judicata in the case still pending before RTC-Branch
    24.

    RULING:
    No. The Supreme Court held that the pending case is not barred by res judicata. The
    compromise agreement between Joanie and Jose is covered by the prohibition under Article 2035
    of the Civil Code since it intended to settle the question of Joanie's status and filiation and also
    waived away her rights to future support and future legitime as an illegitimate child of Jose. It is
    settled in law, 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. 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. The compromise
    agreement is void ab initio and vests no rights and creates no obligations. The decision rendered
    by RTC-Branch 9 without jurisdiction, is null and void and could not have attained finality or been
    considered a judgment on the merits. Nevertheless, the Court must clarify that even though the
    compromise agreement is void for being contrary to law and public policy, the admission made by
    Joanie therein may still be appreciated against her, but it does not, by itself, conclusively establish
    the lack of filiation. The resolution of the RTC is reversed and the case is remanded to RTC for
    further proceedings in accordance with the ruling of the Court.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy