Short answer. No. Article 2035 lists six matters on which no compromise is valid, and both are on it: the civil status of persons and the jurisdiction of courts. A person's status and a court's authority are fixed by law, not by private agreement, so any settlement bargaining them away is void.
What the law says
No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: (1) The civil status of persons; (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation; (3) Any ground for legal separation; (4) Future support; (5) The jurisdiction of courts; (6) Future legitime.
Civil Code, Article 2035 — What Can Never Be Compromised. Read the full provision →
A short list the law puts off-limits
The law strongly favours compromise, and parties are free to settle most disputes on whatever terms they choose. But some subjects are withheld from private bargaining because they involve more than the two people at the table. Article 2035 sets them out: No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: (1) The civil status of persons; (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation; (3) Any ground for legal separation; (4) Future support; (5) The jurisdiction of courts; (6) Future legitime. An agreement on any of these is not merely weak — it is invalid, and no court will give it effect.
Status and marriage are matters of law
Whether a person is married, single, legitimate, or a citizen is determined by law and declared by the courts, not settled by the persons concerned. Parties cannot agree that a marriage is valid or void, that someone is or is not another's child, or that grounds for legal separation do or do not exist. These questions carry consequences for others — children, heirs, the State — so they are removed from the reach of a private deal. The same reasoning bars trading away future support and future legitime, protections the law reserves and does not let a person renounce in advance.
Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement
The inclusion of "the jurisdiction of courts" reflects a basic rule: jurisdiction over the subject matter is granted by law, and no stipulation of the parties can create it where the law withholds it or remove it where the law grants it. This is often confused with venue — the place where a case is filed — which parties can and do agree upon. Venue is a matter of convenience the parties may fix; jurisdiction is a matter of authority they cannot. A settlement clause purporting to enlarge or oust a court's jurisdiction is simply ineffective.
What you can still settle
The bar is on the protected questions themselves, not on their property consequences once the law has resolved them. You cannot compromise whether a marriage is valid, but the spouses can settle how existing property is divided. You cannot bargain away future support, but past-due support already earned may be compromised. Where a settlement mixes a forbidden subject with permissible ones, only the offending part fails. The practical lesson is to keep the agreement to money and property outcomes and leave questions of status, grounds and jurisdiction to be decided where the law places them — in court.