De Asis v. CAFacts:On 1988, Vircel D. Andres brought an action for maintenance and support against Manuel de Asis and alleges that the defendant is the father of subject minor Glen Camil Andres dde Asis and the former refused and/or failed to provide for the maintenance of the latter, despite repeated demands. Petitioner denied his paternity of the said minor and theorized that he cannot therefore be required to provide support for him. On 1989, Vircel and Manuel agreed to move for the dismissal of the case subject to the condition that the defendant should not pursue his counterclaim. On 1995, another Complaint for maintenance and support was brought against Manuel A. de Asis, this time in the name of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, represented by her legal guardian/mother, Vircel D. Andres. Petitioner moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of res judicata. Trial court ruled that res judicata is inapplicable in an action for support for the reason that renunciation or waiver of future support is prohibited by law. Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari. The Court of Appeals found the said Petition devoid of merit and dismissed the same. Petitioner contends that because of the defendants judicial declaration denying that he is the father of subject minor child, it was futile and a useless exercise to claim support from defendant. Because of such manifestation and defendants assurance that he would not pursue his counterclaim anymore, the parties mutually agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint, in effect, admitted the lack of filiation between him and the minor child, which admission binds the complainant, and since the obligation to give support is based on the existence of paternity and filiation between the child and the putative parent, the lack thereof negates the right to claim for support.Issue:Whether or not the minor is barred from the action of support.Held:No. The minor is not barred from the action of support.The Supreme Court ruled that the right to receive support can neither be renounced nor transmitted to a third person. Art. 301. The right to receive support cannot be renounced, nor can it be transmitted to a third person. Neither can it be compensated with what the recipient owes the obligor.Furthermore, future support cannot be the subject of a compromise. The raison d etre behind the proscription against renunciation, transmission and/or compromise of the right to support is stated, thus:The right to support being founded upon the need of the recipient to maintain his existence, he is not entitled to renounce or transfer the right for this would mean sanctioning the voluntary giving up of life itself. The right to life cannot be renounced; hence, support, which is the means to attain the former, cannot be renounced. xxxTo allow renunciation or transmission or compensation of the family right of a person to support is virtually to allow either suicide or the conversion of the recipient to a public burden. This is contrary to public policy.The agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondents mother for the dismissal of the complaint for maintenance and support conditioned upon the dismissal of the counterclaim is in the nature of a compromise which cannot be countenanced. It violates the prohibition against any compromise of the right to support.