Laws & Jurisprudence
No Compromise With Respect To Issues Under The Family Code In Relation To R.A. 9262
6:07 PM
AAA
has her first child borne from a previous relationship, a boy named
CCC. During the relationship with BBB, AAA bore two more children
namely, DDD and EEE. BBB and AAA married in civil rights and
thereafter, the birth certificates of the children, including CCC’s,
was amended to change their civil status to legitimated by virtue of
the said marriage.
The
relationship, both admit, was far from ideal and has had its share of
happy moments and heated arguments. BBB alleges that AAA’s
irrational jealousy has caused their frequent arguments. AAA, on the
other hand, alleges that their heated arguments were often due to
BBB’s incessant womanizing. The breaking point for AAA came when
BBB’s alleged mistress, insulted and humiliated AAA in public, in
the presence of BBB himself who did nothing to stop the same.
Extremely hurt, AAA decided to leave the conjugal home with the
children and lived temporarily at a friend’s house.
While
living separately from BBB, AAA discovered that BBB was not paying
the rentals due on the condominium unit they were occupying, forcing
AAA to move out. AAA was likewise compelled to find work to support
the family, after BBB has started to be remiss in his financial
obligations to the family. AAA likewise feels threatened after
discovering [that BBB] was stalking her and/or their children. Citing
the foregoing as constituting economic and psychological abuse, AAA
filed an application for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order
with a request to make the same permanent after due hearing, before
the Regional Trial Court.
Finding
good ground in AAA’s application, the RTC issued a Temporary
Protection Order (TPO) which was thereafter, made permanent by virtue
of a Decision of the RTC. BBB filed before the CA an appeal to
challenge the RTC Decision. The CA affirmed the factual findings and
dispositions of the RTC, but ordering the remand of the case for the
latter to determine in the proper proceedings who shall be awarded
custody of the children. Hence, this instant petition for review on
certiorari.
Pending
the Court’s deliberation of the instant case, BBB filed a
Manifestation and Motion to Render Judgment Based on a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA). BBB alleges that he and AAA had entered into a
compromise anent the custody, exercise of parental authority over,
and support of DDD and EEE. BBB claims that DDD and EEE are now under
his sole care and custody, which allegedly renders moot the provision
in the PPO relative to support. BBB points out that CCC is not his
biological son. Impliedly then, BBB justifies why CCC is not entitled
to receive support from him, being not his biological son.
ISSUE:
1.
Is the petition a proper subject of a compromise agreement?
2.
Is CCC, AAA's child from previous relationship, not entitled to
receive support from the petitioner, BBB?
RULING:
On
the first issue, the instant petition is not a proper subject of
a compromise agreement. The Court cannot take the simplest course of
finally writing finis to the instant petition by rendering a judgment
merely based on compromise as prayed for by BBB due to reasons
discussed below.
Alleging
psychological violence and economic abuse, AAA anchored her
application for the issuance of a TPO and a PPO on the basis of the
provisions of R.A. No. 9262. In the instant petition, what is
essentially being assailed is the PPO issued by the RTC and which was
affirmed by the CA. The rules, however, intend that cases filed under
the provisions of R.A. No. 9262 be not subjects of compromise
agreements.
It
bears stressing that Section 23(d) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Re: Rule
on Violence Against Women and Their Children) explicitly prohibits
compromise on any act constituting the crime of violence against
women. While AM No. 10-4-16-SC (Re: Rule on Court-Annexed Family
Mediation and Code of Ethical Standards for Mediators) on the other
hand, directs the referral to mediation of all issues under the
Family Code and other laws in relation to support, custody,
visitation, property relations and guardianship of minor children,
excepting therefrom those covered by R.A. No. 9262.
The
Court notes BBB’s manifestation that he and AAA had arrived at an
amicable settlement as regards the issues of custody, exercise of
parental authority over, and support of DDD and EEE. While these
matters can be lawful subjects of compromise, AAA’s vacillation
compels the Court to exercise prudence by directing the RTC to
resolve with finality the aforesaid issues. The parties are, however,
not precluded from entering into a compromise as regards the
aforesaid issues, but the Court now requires the RTC’s direct
supervision lest the parties muddle the issues anew and fail to put
an end to their bickering.
On
the second issue, CCC is entitled to receive support from the
petitioner, BBB. Article 177 of the Family Code provides that "only
children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the
time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any
impediment to marry each other may be legitimated." Article 178
states that "legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid
marriage between parents."
In
the case at bar, the parties do not dispute the fact that BBB is not
CCC’s biological father. Such being the case, it was improper to
have CCC legitimated after the celebration of BBB and AAA’s
marriage. Clearly then, the legal process of legitimation was trifled
with. BBB voluntarily but falsely acknowledged CCC as his son.
Article 1431 of the New Civil Code pertinently provides:
Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
At
least for the purpose of resolving the instant petition, the
principle of estoppel finds application and it now bars BBB from
making an assertion contrary to his previous representations. He
should not be allowed to evade a responsibility arising from his own
misrepresentations. He is bound by the effects of the legitimation
process. CCC remains to be BBB’s son, and pursuant to Article 179
of the Family Code, the former is entitled to the same rights as
those of a legitimate child, including the receipt of his father’s
support.
Notwithstanding
the above, there is no absolute preclusion for BBB from raising
before the proper court the issue of CCC’s status and filiation.
However, BBB cannot do the same in the instant petition.
G.R.
No. 193225, February 9, 2015
BBB,
Petitioner, vs. AAA, Respondent.
REYES,
J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments