Short answer. Generally, no. The Civil Code lets rights be waived only if the waiver is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, and future support exists precisely to protect a person's basic needs, which makes a blanket advance waiver of it legally problematic.
What the law says
Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
Civil Code, Article 6 — Waiver of Rights. Read the full provision →
The general rule: rights can be waived
Article 6 states the Civil Code's general position on waiver: as a rule, a person may give up a right that belongs to them. This reflects a basic respect for individual autonomy — the law does not force people to insist on every right they hold. But the article immediately qualifies that freedom with a list of exceptions, and it is those exceptions that decide whether a particular waiver, like giving up future support, will actually be recognized as valid.
The exceptions that limit what can be waived
A waiver fails if it is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or if it is prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. These are not narrow, technical exceptions — they are broad categories built to stop people from signing away protections the legal system considers too important to leave to private agreement. Whether a waiver of future support falls into one of these categories depends on what that support is meant to protect.
Why future support is treated as a hard case
Support between spouses and among certain relatives exists to guarantee a person's basic subsistence — food, shelter, medical care, and similar necessities — for as long as the underlying family relationship and need continue. Because that need is ongoing and can change over time, a waiver made now, before the need even arises, risks leaving a person without recourse precisely when they need it most. That is the kind of outcome Article 6's reference to public policy and morals exists to guard against, which is why an advance, blanket waiver of future support sits on shaky ground even though rights can generally be waived.
What this does not resolve
Article 6 is a general rule about waiver, not a support-specific provision, so it does not by itself spell out exactly which support arrangements can or cannot be waived, or what happens to support already accrued and unpaid versus support that has not yet become due. It tells you the test a waiver must pass — not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, good customs, or third-party rights — rather than giving a ready-made answer for every family situation. Anyone considering giving up a right to future support should weigh their specific circumstances against that test rather than assume the waiver will automatically hold.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Domingo Naldo, Jr.,et al. vs. Corporate Protection Services, Phils., Inc, G.R. No. 243139, April 3, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lunining S. Brazil, Salvacion L. Garcera and Rita S. De Mesa vs. STI Education Ser. Group Inc. and Monico V. Jacob, G.R. No. 233314, November 21, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Raymond A. Son, Raymond S. Antiola, and Wilfredo E. Pollarco, vs. University of Santo Tomas, et al, G.R. No. 211273, April 18, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. vs. HR Construction Corp, G.R. No. 187521, March 14, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →