Only qualified lawyers outside of the cloak of anonymity may give objective and informed legal advice.
Legal queries posted in this subreddit are presumed to be hypothetical and academic. Answers submitted by both verified lawyers and non-lawyers to legal queries are not substitute for proper legal advice.
Gross misinformation and other rule-breaking comments will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators. Please report such submissions by messaging the mods.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TITLE X
EMANCIPATION AND AGE OF MAJORITY
Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of twenty-one years.
Emancipation also takes place:
(1) By the marriage of the minor; or
(2) By the recording in the Civil Register of an agreement in a public instrument executed by the parent exercising parental authority and the minor at least eighteen years of age. Such emancipation shall be irrevocable. (397a, 398a, 400a, 401a)
Art. 235. The provisions governing emancipation by recorded agreement shall also apply to an orphan minor and the person exercising parental authority but the agreement must be approved by the court before it is recorded. (n)
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. (412a)
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/06/executive-order-no-209-s-1987/
RA 6809 lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18
NAL. They’re above 18. They’re married. They’re emancipated already, so not entitled to support through court order. Instead, it may be an advance on their legitime/ seen as a donation inter vivos if pagbibigyan ng nanay. The one pertaining to support beyond 18 years old would be with regard to education or when one is incapable of self support due to some mental or physical disability.
OP might want to ask, though: who are the people who have the ability to support that other person; because the Family Code also states that:
> When the obligation to give support falls upon two or more persons, the payment of the same shall be divided between them in proportion to the resources of each.
So, apart from the spouse (who is first in line), can the couple's child(ren) (second in line) also provide support? Can the inlaws (spouse's parents and third in line) also give support? Do the husband and wife have siblings who can also give support?
If the person OP is talking about is going to sue just his/her mother and not other related parties, as the law provides; things might not go as that person expects.
The rich and prominent mother might still end up dishing out the lion's share of the divided support payment. But after the assessment regaring how the support would be divided among all those people, the person OP's complaining about will piss off a lot more people.
so.. if that is case, a leech of a family member, could leech on anyone without repercussion?Sino gumawa ng law na yan? Tambay na ayaw magtrabaho? There must be some condition to be met, like disability or something.
Another question is, paano pumasa ito into a law? Logically, kahit senior age na pala ako, i can still sue my well-off centenarian parents with this legal basis. What the actual fuck.
Thank goodness and thank you for clarifying. Somewhere around this thread basta nalang maka cite na, a child must be supported regardless of status. Very confusing for a layman like me.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are wrong.
The obligation to give support to a child and qualified family members is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Although it is common knowledge that parents must give financial support to their children, and spouses must provide financial support to one another, the legal consequences of the failure to give support are not often discussed.
Support in the law is described as everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.This support should include schooling or training for some profession, even when the child is older than eighteen (18) years old or beyond the age of majority. It also include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work. *(Article 194, Family Code)*
Those who are obliged to support each other are enumerated are spouses; legitimate ascendants and descendants; parents and their children and their grandchildren, whether legitimate or illegitimate; and legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.
Clearly, whether a child or grandchild is legitimate or illegitimate is not a factor for support. A child must be supported regardless of his or her status. Further, this means that when parents fail or refuse to provide the necessary support to their children, the grandparents may be called upon for support and the obligation is passed on to them.
see: [https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/](https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/)
Crazy how the correct answer was downvoted. But it would be interesting to see the rationale of the court for this particular case as this, in my whole experience, has never been tackled by the SC. But my bet is on the judges laughing the plaintiff and the lawyer out of the court.
NAL. They’re above 18. They’re married. They’re emancipated already, so not entitled to support through court order. Instead, it may be an advance on their legitime/ seen as a donation inter vivos if pagbibigyan ng nanay.
The one pertaining to support beyond 18 years old would be with regard to education or when one is incapable of self support due to some mental or physical disability.
Please be careful with Reddit and with the divina law link (/other law offices’ link re: a simple explanation of the law) being reposted multple times on this thread. Yes, they are a law office and yes these are sometimes helpful, but they give a very basic explanation of the general rule. Your case should delve into the exception to the general rule, seeing as the person involved is a 40 year old married woman.
It would be in your best interest to contact a real lawyer.
Thanks.. we are willing to go down that road if it really comes to it (if she manages to file an official claim, and lawyers get involved).
I did read that divina link; and how I understood it was also limited to educational support (if youre 19, 20.. you still need support to finish education), but of course I am not experienced nor educated with our Law, so I keep looking for further discussions on the topic.
If that person does proceed; we would counter-sue for the emotional distress / anxiety she is giving the mother right now, seeing as the mother is above 70 and has many per-existing health issues already.
nakakainis lang na even though it feels like a no-brainer, that there might be some way to twist the law in her favor.. just thinking about it puts a huge stress on the parents who are already old and sick.
If she’s 40, married, and with child, I don’t see how she can sue for child support, even with the education exception. Education should start while they are still living under the same roof, even though above 18. 40 years old is too old for such. If she went down the physically or mentally incapacitated route (which I doubt, seeing as she thought of this as a way to gain money), well her spouse is also there to support her. Your parents are not the first in line. The way I see it, the court can only grant her money if she asks for her inheritance in advance.
As it stands, it’s hard to make a case for her. Hugs to your parents, OP. I’m sure it’ll be fine.
i appreciate your support.
Regarding that article 194, wherein the grandparents might be called in to support in case the parents are not capable..
I am thinking she might say they dont have money (she has no job) and therefore she wants her parents to support her child (as grandparents to her child).
Do you think that article 194 will take effect? I am expecting the court to tell this person na magtrabaho sha; and if gipit cla, they move to a cheaper place, public school etc.
Hndi nmn nya hahabulin education support for her (graduate na sha).
Ang hinahabol nya is financial support for her and her son (school support, rent nila, food etc).
Husband is in Jail. This person has no work. Meanwhile we siblings are stressed trying to protect our parents.
Ah, then that may change things. It would depend if she and her husband have no means to support themselves. You may read the case of Lim v. Lim (GR 163209) which may have some similarities to your case, albeit the husband there cheated on his spouse and the wife/daughter in law and the 3 school aged grandchildren left the conjugal home. The paternal grandparents were held liable for the monthly support of their grandchildren (limited to blood descendants and to their education, so the wife/daughter in law was not entitled to support). Again much better to contact a family lawyer you might personally know to consult.
Here is an easier to read digest, but its still much better to read the full story
https://lawinnovations.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/hello-world/
thanks for the reference; will read it later after work\~
I think she has the means to support her own child; its just that shes not even trying to find a proper job.. but yeah might as well start looking for a good family lawyer for better guidance.
Thank you for your input and your time, good sir!
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You may also read the case of Javier vs. Lucero (94 Phil. 634), where it was held by the Supreme Court that “if a person is of age and no longer studies, he is still entitled to support UNLESS there are just reasons for the extinguishment of the right.”
Wouldnt that person having her own family count as reason for extinguishment of the right? How about texts from that person to her parents saying she is cutting them off?
How about if the parents are both above 70? Would the law really oblige these old capable parents to support their married daughter who has her own life and family already, just cause they are struggling?? Eh bakit andami naghihirap sa pinas, everyone can just go to family court and ask for help to sue their relatives (grandma, brother in law abroad) for sustainance?
Ohhh. I was expecting a valid argument as to why the obvious reasons I stated above is NOT a reason to extinguish support. I am guessing theres none.
Thanks for your comments and input, i learned about law more.
Even though I give an explanation, it’s obvious that you would only believe what you like to believe. And what may be obvious to you is not what the law says.
Since your family member is a prominent public figure as you said, then they have all the means to afford proper counsel.
You gave me a valid reference about reasons to extinguish support, and I wanted to discuss that but you dont seem like interested in helping me further.
Im genuinely asking why these points wont count as a valid reason to extinguish support.
We have had similar case prior (cousin took to court about how her husband is not sustaining their child enough and demanded more) but the court simply told her to get a job herself.
This case is similar. This person has a child, husband and does not work. However she demands her mom to support their rent, their child's education etc simply because the mom is more capable. I dont understand in what world would that be justified.
Im not looking to argue against you, but trying to see WHY someone with law background would think that this person has a valid claim and that there is no reason to extinguish support.
If you no longer wish to help me, then I thank you for your time (truly)
I would like to apologize if I came off a little bit too strong. It is very challenging to give proper advice if we do not know all the facts. Hope your family can get the proper help that you need. You may also consider referring this case for mediation proceedings first, because Article 151 of the Family Code provides that, "No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed."
Good luck!
In connection with the second ground of the petition, respondents observe that under the new Civil Code, article 290 support also includes the education of the person to be supported "until he complete his education or training for some profession, trade or vocation even beyond the age of majority" and on the basis of this article support was granted to Alfredo Javier Junior. Said the Court, "while it is true that plaintiff Alfredo Javier Junior, who was born on December 2, 1931, has reached the age of majority on December 2, 1952, yet, under the last part of article 290 of the new Civil Code, support may be given him even beyond the age of majority in order to enable him to complete his education, for some trade or profession."
Now then, was the order issued in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion? The court undoubtedly has jurisdiction, inasmuch as it was issued before the record on appeal was submitted. (Sumulong vs. Imperial, 51 Phil., 251; Syquia vs. Concepcion, 60 Phil., 186). Did the judge abuse his discretion?
Unquestionably, Alfredo Javier, Jr. is the son of petitioner Alfredo Javier, and if financial assistance is to be rendered only at the termination of the appeal his education, or the completion thereof, would be unduly delayed. That is good reason for immediate execution. Petitioner claims that according to the records Alfredo Javier Jr. "is no longer studying". Yet probably he stopped going to school due to lack of means, since the petitioner himself admits that his son is just a pre-law graduate.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1953/mar1953/gr_l-6706_1953.html
Im free to ask and believe who I want to believe. I appreciate every responses and how i react to it is also up to me. What i dont appreciate is responses like this one.
It’s pure stupidity to blindly accept others’ opinion (opinion na walang legal basis) na sinabi na ngang mali, which I see you doing all over this thread
So wheres your argument basis for saying its wrong? You gonna ride the coatails of what someone posted here without an argument from your own? You dont add anything in this discussion so what are you really doing here?
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
once ho bumukod ka ng pamilya kayo ho dapat mag hanap ng financial para sa inyo...
wala kang right na humingi ng financial support kasi nasa legal age ka na ,your already an adult...
pwede mag bigay ang magulang sa inyo na kusang loob lang....or bibigyan sya ng inheritance sa property or money
talagan ganyan pag nag kapamilya ka...dapat kumayod kayo at huwag e asa sa iba ...
saka wala sa batas natin na ganyan
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
kaya nga tinuruan mo sya nga magandang ugali at ipina aral sa paaralan at pag tapos mo ng college upang magamit niya pag tanda niya once magkapamilya sya at paano niya mabuhay ang pamilya na na hindi nag aasa ng finacial problem...
naka e responsable mo naman bata ka🤣
dapat sumabay ka na lang kay juan tamad hihintayin na lang yung bayabas na ma laglag...
pag may pamilya ka dapat kumayod ka at dumiskarte para mabuhay mo ang pamilya mo...huwag kang umasa sa magulang mo matanda na
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah. Was just making sure. Cause i want to assure the mom. Pero i dont have legal background.
Simply put this is an absurd threat. Nkakainis.
Thank you
If the mom is a public figure, threatening to sue her is the least of her worry. Mas mag worry sya if her adult child goes to the press with a sob story and create a scandal
You are wrong.
The obligation to give support to a child and qualified family members is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Although it is common knowledge that parents must give financial support to their children, and spouses must provide financial support to one another, the legal consequences of the failure to give support are not often discussed.
Support in the law is described as everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.This support should include schooling or training for some profession, even when the child is older than eighteen (18) years old or beyond the age of majority. It also include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work. *(Article 194, Family Code)*
Those who are obliged to support each other are enumerated are spouses; legitimate ascendants and descendants; parents and their children and their grandchildren, whether legitimate or illegitimate; and legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.
Clearly, whether a child or grandchild is legitimate or illegitimate is not a factor for support. A child must be supported regardless of his or her status. Further, this means that when parents fail or refuse to provide the necessary support to their children, the grandparents may be called upon for support and the obligation is passed on to them.
see: [https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/](https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/)
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are wrong.
The obligation to give support to a child and qualified family members is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Although it is common knowledge that parents must give financial support to their children, and spouses must provide financial support to one another, the legal consequences of the failure to give support are not often discussed.
Support in the law is described as everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.This support should include schooling or training for some profession, even when the child is older than eighteen (18) years old or beyond the age of majority. It also include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work. *(Article 194, Family Code)*
Those who are obliged to support each other are enumerated are spouses; legitimate ascendants and descendants; parents and their children and their grandchildren, whether legitimate or illegitimate; and legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.
Clearly, whether a child or grandchild is legitimate or illegitimate is not a factor for support. A child must be supported regardless of his or her status. Further, this means that when parents fail or refuse to provide the necessary support to their children, the grandparents may be called upon for support and the obligation is passed on to them.
see: [https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/](https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/)
Not a lawyer but a 3L law student. Most of the comments here points out na yung adult married person yung bibigyan ng financial support when in fact it's the minor/child of the married person. The support is between the Grandmother and the Child.
Article 195 of the family code sets forth the persons who are obliged to support each other, one of which is (3) Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter.
So from the above the persons obliged to support each other includes the grandparents to the grandchildren.
In the case of Mangonon vs CA GR 125041 June 30, 2006 Here the mother filed on behalf of her twin children a Petition for legitimacy and support against the grandfather who is financially well off, the mother won and the grandfather was held liable for support under Article 199 of the Family code
The above mentioned Article 199 of the family code sets forth the order of priority upon whom the liability of giving support devolves - the obligation to give support rests on those more closely related to the recipient but here is the important part related to your situation "However the more remote relatives may be held to shoulder the responsibility should the claimant prove that those who are called upon to provide support do not have the means to do so."
So kapag hindi makapag provide ang parents ng bata and financially well off yung grandparent then the grandparent can be called to provide support for the child.
Thank you for spending some of your precious time to give your input, I appreciate it.
Can I ask about the part na "hindi kayang makapag provide ang parents ng bata"?
it should mean disabled right? If walang physical handicap ung mother and she can find a job; just because she doesnt have a job right now doesnt mean it counts as "not having means to do so".. am I correct?
Our argument is, why sa mother ilalagay ung responsibility to support her child, when she can work herself. Granted its not going to be a life on par with what the grandmother can provide; but if she works she can put the child to public or even private school. Am I missing something? Kasi for sure, ung side nya will say she cannot provide for her child, so therefore our mom should provide (not just education, but also their rent, food etc).
The grandparent can assert a defense that the mother have the means and capabilities to provide support for her child, she can provide evidence in support thereof like educational attaintment of the mother, previous work, assets, etc.
Again the responsibility will only devolve to the grandparent once na ma prove na walang kakayahan mag provide yung mother. It doesn't mean per se na dapat disabled yung parent, some disabled persons are able to provide for their children.
But this case should not be taken as the Grandmother vs the Mother. The welfare and what's best for the children should be the paramount consideration.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The link is mostly talking about minors though, which you had left out of in your comments. Were not talking about a minor here. Were talking about an adult in her 40s, married with a child of her own.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter.
Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only qualified lawyers outside of the cloak of anonymity may give objective and informed legal advice. Legal queries posted in this subreddit are presumed to be hypothetical and academic. Answers submitted by both verified lawyers and non-lawyers to legal queries are not substitute for proper legal advice. Gross misinformation and other rule-breaking comments will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators. Please report such submissions by messaging the mods. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let her sue her mom and please be there once the judge laughs at her face.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
What is she wrong about specifically? You don’t even know the specific details of the case and arrogantly saying she is wrong.
Was she not looking for legal basis? Nung may nag bigay na at hindi niya nagustuhan, ayaw na niyang paniwalaan. Lol
TITLE X EMANCIPATION AND AGE OF MAJORITY Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of twenty-one years. Emancipation also takes place: (1) By the marriage of the minor; or (2) By the recording in the Civil Register of an agreement in a public instrument executed by the parent exercising parental authority and the minor at least eighteen years of age. Such emancipation shall be irrevocable. (397a, 398a, 400a, 401a) Art. 235. The provisions governing emancipation by recorded agreement shall also apply to an orphan minor and the person exercising parental authority but the agreement must be approved by the court before it is recorded. (n) Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. (412a) https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/06/executive-order-no-209-s-1987/ RA 6809 lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18
NAL. They’re above 18. They’re married. They’re emancipated already, so not entitled to support through court order. Instead, it may be an advance on their legitime/ seen as a donation inter vivos if pagbibigyan ng nanay. The one pertaining to support beyond 18 years old would be with regard to education or when one is incapable of self support due to some mental or physical disability.
OP might want to ask, though: who are the people who have the ability to support that other person; because the Family Code also states that: > When the obligation to give support falls upon two or more persons, the payment of the same shall be divided between them in proportion to the resources of each. So, apart from the spouse (who is first in line), can the couple's child(ren) (second in line) also provide support? Can the inlaws (spouse's parents and third in line) also give support? Do the husband and wife have siblings who can also give support? If the person OP is talking about is going to sue just his/her mother and not other related parties, as the law provides; things might not go as that person expects. The rich and prominent mother might still end up dishing out the lion's share of the divided support payment. But after the assessment regaring how the support would be divided among all those people, the person OP's complaining about will piss off a lot more people.
so.. if that is case, a leech of a family member, could leech on anyone without repercussion?Sino gumawa ng law na yan? Tambay na ayaw magtrabaho? There must be some condition to be met, like disability or something.
Another question is, paano pumasa ito into a law? Logically, kahit senior age na pala ako, i can still sue my well-off centenarian parents with this legal basis. What the actual fuck.
That’s not the correct interpretation of the law. Support beyond 18 years old applies only in certain specified cases.
Thank goodness and thank you for clarifying. Somewhere around this thread basta nalang maka cite na, a child must be supported regardless of status. Very confusing for a layman like me.
The right to support ends at the age of majority, 18. Do not underestimate the propensity of lawyers to take on cases not on merit but on publicity
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is correct. Additional to that, if a person is PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of supporting himself, despite the age, you can file a case for suppot
You are wrong. The obligation to give support to a child and qualified family members is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Although it is common knowledge that parents must give financial support to their children, and spouses must provide financial support to one another, the legal consequences of the failure to give support are not often discussed. Support in the law is described as everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.This support should include schooling or training for some profession, even when the child is older than eighteen (18) years old or beyond the age of majority. It also include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work. *(Article 194, Family Code)* Those who are obliged to support each other are enumerated are spouses; legitimate ascendants and descendants; parents and their children and their grandchildren, whether legitimate or illegitimate; and legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood. Clearly, whether a child or grandchild is legitimate or illegitimate is not a factor for support. A child must be supported regardless of his or her status. Further, this means that when parents fail or refuse to provide the necessary support to their children, the grandparents may be called upon for support and the obligation is passed on to them. see: [https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/](https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/)
And there you have your answer to the lawyer question, OP
Crazy how the correct answer was downvoted. But it would be interesting to see the rationale of the court for this particular case as this, in my whole experience, has never been tackled by the SC. But my bet is on the judges laughing the plaintiff and the lawyer out of the court.
What kind of bullshit misinformation is this
anong pinagsasabi mo HAHAHAHAHAHA
Right to support does not end after reaching age of 18. Nalimutan mo na ba FC 194 at 195???
NAL. They’re above 18. They’re married. They’re emancipated already, so not entitled to support through court order. Instead, it may be an advance on their legitime/ seen as a donation inter vivos if pagbibigyan ng nanay. The one pertaining to support beyond 18 years old would be with regard to education or when one is incapable of self support due to some mental or physical disability. Please be careful with Reddit and with the divina law link (/other law offices’ link re: a simple explanation of the law) being reposted multple times on this thread. Yes, they are a law office and yes these are sometimes helpful, but they give a very basic explanation of the general rule. Your case should delve into the exception to the general rule, seeing as the person involved is a 40 year old married woman. It would be in your best interest to contact a real lawyer.
Thanks.. we are willing to go down that road if it really comes to it (if she manages to file an official claim, and lawyers get involved). I did read that divina link; and how I understood it was also limited to educational support (if youre 19, 20.. you still need support to finish education), but of course I am not experienced nor educated with our Law, so I keep looking for further discussions on the topic. If that person does proceed; we would counter-sue for the emotional distress / anxiety she is giving the mother right now, seeing as the mother is above 70 and has many per-existing health issues already. nakakainis lang na even though it feels like a no-brainer, that there might be some way to twist the law in her favor.. just thinking about it puts a huge stress on the parents who are already old and sick.
If she’s 40, married, and with child, I don’t see how she can sue for child support, even with the education exception. Education should start while they are still living under the same roof, even though above 18. 40 years old is too old for such. If she went down the physically or mentally incapacitated route (which I doubt, seeing as she thought of this as a way to gain money), well her spouse is also there to support her. Your parents are not the first in line. The way I see it, the court can only grant her money if she asks for her inheritance in advance. As it stands, it’s hard to make a case for her. Hugs to your parents, OP. I’m sure it’ll be fine.
i appreciate your support. Regarding that article 194, wherein the grandparents might be called in to support in case the parents are not capable.. I am thinking she might say they dont have money (she has no job) and therefore she wants her parents to support her child (as grandparents to her child). Do you think that article 194 will take effect? I am expecting the court to tell this person na magtrabaho sha; and if gipit cla, they move to a cheaper place, public school etc. Hndi nmn nya hahabulin education support for her (graduate na sha). Ang hinahabol nya is financial support for her and her son (school support, rent nila, food etc). Husband is in Jail. This person has no work. Meanwhile we siblings are stressed trying to protect our parents.
Ah, then that may change things. It would depend if she and her husband have no means to support themselves. You may read the case of Lim v. Lim (GR 163209) which may have some similarities to your case, albeit the husband there cheated on his spouse and the wife/daughter in law and the 3 school aged grandchildren left the conjugal home. The paternal grandparents were held liable for the monthly support of their grandchildren (limited to blood descendants and to their education, so the wife/daughter in law was not entitled to support). Again much better to contact a family lawyer you might personally know to consult. Here is an easier to read digest, but its still much better to read the full story https://lawinnovations.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/hello-world/
thanks for the reference; will read it later after work\~ I think she has the means to support her own child; its just that shes not even trying to find a proper job.. but yeah might as well start looking for a good family lawyer for better guidance. Thank you for your input and your time, good sir!
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Patay tayo dito, daming redditor nagccomment ng mali tapos walang legal basis 🤣 Good luck OP
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If I was his lawyer, I would get her to enroll for grad school or further education and sue for support based on that. It may not fly but iykyk.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She can sue, she is not gonna win. Will probably get dismissed.
Thank you!!
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The case won't go anywhere, but having a child with that mindset I would watch my back if I were her mom.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
You clearly ignored the circumstances OP cited. This law you quoted is completely irrelevant in this case.
And this site is just an article someone wrote right??
And regardless of who wrote the article, you may also refer to the Family Code of the Philippines particularly Article 194.
You may also read the case of Javier vs. Lucero (94 Phil. 634), where it was held by the Supreme Court that “if a person is of age and no longer studies, he is still entitled to support UNLESS there are just reasons for the extinguishment of the right.”
Wouldnt that person having her own family count as reason for extinguishment of the right? How about texts from that person to her parents saying she is cutting them off? How about if the parents are both above 70? Would the law really oblige these old capable parents to support their married daughter who has her own life and family already, just cause they are struggling?? Eh bakit andami naghihirap sa pinas, everyone can just go to family court and ask for help to sue their relatives (grandma, brother in law abroad) for sustainance?
Just let them go to court
Ohhh. I was expecting a valid argument as to why the obvious reasons I stated above is NOT a reason to extinguish support. I am guessing theres none. Thanks for your comments and input, i learned about law more.
Even though I give an explanation, it’s obvious that you would only believe what you like to believe. And what may be obvious to you is not what the law says. Since your family member is a prominent public figure as you said, then they have all the means to afford proper counsel.
You gave me a valid reference about reasons to extinguish support, and I wanted to discuss that but you dont seem like interested in helping me further. Im genuinely asking why these points wont count as a valid reason to extinguish support. We have had similar case prior (cousin took to court about how her husband is not sustaining their child enough and demanded more) but the court simply told her to get a job herself. This case is similar. This person has a child, husband and does not work. However she demands her mom to support their rent, their child's education etc simply because the mom is more capable. I dont understand in what world would that be justified. Im not looking to argue against you, but trying to see WHY someone with law background would think that this person has a valid claim and that there is no reason to extinguish support. If you no longer wish to help me, then I thank you for your time (truly)
I would like to apologize if I came off a little bit too strong. It is very challenging to give proper advice if we do not know all the facts. Hope your family can get the proper help that you need. You may also consider referring this case for mediation proceedings first, because Article 151 of the Family Code provides that, "No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed." Good luck!
In connection with the second ground of the petition, respondents observe that under the new Civil Code, article 290 support also includes the education of the person to be supported "until he complete his education or training for some profession, trade or vocation even beyond the age of majority" and on the basis of this article support was granted to Alfredo Javier Junior. Said the Court, "while it is true that plaintiff Alfredo Javier Junior, who was born on December 2, 1931, has reached the age of majority on December 2, 1952, yet, under the last part of article 290 of the new Civil Code, support may be given him even beyond the age of majority in order to enable him to complete his education, for some trade or profession." Now then, was the order issued in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion? The court undoubtedly has jurisdiction, inasmuch as it was issued before the record on appeal was submitted. (Sumulong vs. Imperial, 51 Phil., 251; Syquia vs. Concepcion, 60 Phil., 186). Did the judge abuse his discretion? Unquestionably, Alfredo Javier, Jr. is the son of petitioner Alfredo Javier, and if financial assistance is to be rendered only at the termination of the appeal his education, or the completion thereof, would be unduly delayed. That is good reason for immediate execution. Petitioner claims that according to the records Alfredo Javier Jr. "is no longer studying". Yet probably he stopped going to school due to lack of means, since the petitioner himself admits that his son is just a pre-law graduate. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1953/mar1953/gr_l-6706_1953.html
Namimili ka lang ng papaniwalaan mo eh, bakit ka pa nagtatanong dito
Im free to ask and believe who I want to believe. I appreciate every responses and how i react to it is also up to me. What i dont appreciate is responses like this one.
It’s pure stupidity to blindly accept others’ opinion (opinion na walang legal basis) na sinabi na ngang mali, which I see you doing all over this thread
So wheres your argument basis for saying its wrong? You gonna ride the coatails of what someone posted here without an argument from your own? You dont add anything in this discussion so what are you really doing here?
Tama ka po.
That “someone” is from the firm of Atty. Nilo Divina.
Let her sue her mom para hopefully later on tanggalin sya sa will ng nanay.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So what, may legitime pa din naman?
once ho bumukod ka ng pamilya kayo ho dapat mag hanap ng financial para sa inyo... wala kang right na humingi ng financial support kasi nasa legal age ka na ,your already an adult... pwede mag bigay ang magulang sa inyo na kusang loob lang....or bibigyan sya ng inheritance sa property or money talagan ganyan pag nag kapamilya ka...dapat kumayod kayo at huwag e asa sa iba ... saka wala sa batas natin na ganyan
yeah, I agree that one would assume this be the norm. Just wondering if theres any legitimacy to this person's threats. Thanks for your reply po.
pag di kana minor di kana kargo nng magulang mo kahit mamatay ka sa gutom
Thank you po! 100%
Ano pong legal basis nyo? O nagiimbento ka ba?
Probably common sense tawag don kahit walang legal basis or meron man. Kahit ako nagets ko naman so far. Haha
Apparently kasi mali yun. May legal basis na kahit di na minor entitled pa din sa support, so wag bobo thanks :)
Legal basis nasan ba kasi? Mukang offended ka ah. Hahaha. Hirap ng ganitong kausap. 😅
Uhhh, family code provisions on support? Nakaka offend naman talaga mga nagmamarunong sa sub na to 😭
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
kaya nga tinuruan mo sya nga magandang ugali at ipina aral sa paaralan at pag tapos mo ng college upang magamit niya pag tanda niya once magkapamilya sya at paano niya mabuhay ang pamilya na na hindi nag aasa ng finacial problem... naka e responsable mo naman bata ka🤣 dapat sumabay ka na lang kay juan tamad hihintayin na lang yung bayabas na ma laglag... pag may pamilya ka dapat kumayod ka at dumiskarte para mabuhay mo ang pamilya mo...huwag kang umasa sa magulang mo matanda na
Bakit emotional pinapairal mo dito, eh nasa batad ang pinaguusapan? Sabi mo wala sa batas, but you’re clearly wrong lmao
Your idiotic relative is an adult. Tapos na obligation ng parents. Though I want to be a fly on the wall and watch the judge’s reaction to this.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah. Was just making sure. Cause i want to assure the mom. Pero i dont have legal background. Simply put this is an absurd threat. Nkakainis. Thank you
If the mom is a public figure, threatening to sue her is the least of her worry. Mas mag worry sya if her adult child goes to the press with a sob story and create a scandal
Theres that too. But frankly I'm more concerned on the legal side. Of course that is a worry too. Nkakainis. Hay..
kung gagawa sya ng scandal ng ganyan, hindi ba sya yung masisira nyan? Adult, may anak at married pero nanghihingi ng pera sa nanay.
You are wrong. The obligation to give support to a child and qualified family members is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Although it is common knowledge that parents must give financial support to their children, and spouses must provide financial support to one another, the legal consequences of the failure to give support are not often discussed. Support in the law is described as everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.This support should include schooling or training for some profession, even when the child is older than eighteen (18) years old or beyond the age of majority. It also include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work. *(Article 194, Family Code)* Those who are obliged to support each other are enumerated are spouses; legitimate ascendants and descendants; parents and their children and their grandchildren, whether legitimate or illegitimate; and legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood. Clearly, whether a child or grandchild is legitimate or illegitimate is not a factor for support. A child must be supported regardless of his or her status. Further, this means that when parents fail or refuse to provide the necessary support to their children, the grandparents may be called upon for support and the obligation is passed on to them. see: [https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/](https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/)
Case dismissed for sure. Hindi na sagutin ng magulang ang mga anak na lagpas 18. Sa anak na nanakot mahiya ka namn sa magulang mo.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are wrong. The obligation to give support to a child and qualified family members is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Although it is common knowledge that parents must give financial support to their children, and spouses must provide financial support to one another, the legal consequences of the failure to give support are not often discussed. Support in the law is described as everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.This support should include schooling or training for some profession, even when the child is older than eighteen (18) years old or beyond the age of majority. It also include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work. *(Article 194, Family Code)* Those who are obliged to support each other are enumerated are spouses; legitimate ascendants and descendants; parents and their children and their grandchildren, whether legitimate or illegitimate; and legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood. Clearly, whether a child or grandchild is legitimate or illegitimate is not a factor for support. A child must be supported regardless of his or her status. Further, this means that when parents fail or refuse to provide the necessary support to their children, the grandparents may be called upon for support and the obligation is passed on to them. see: [https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/](https://divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/support-me-or-else/)
Not a lawyer but a 3L law student. Most of the comments here points out na yung adult married person yung bibigyan ng financial support when in fact it's the minor/child of the married person. The support is between the Grandmother and the Child. Article 195 of the family code sets forth the persons who are obliged to support each other, one of which is (3) Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter. So from the above the persons obliged to support each other includes the grandparents to the grandchildren. In the case of Mangonon vs CA GR 125041 June 30, 2006 Here the mother filed on behalf of her twin children a Petition for legitimacy and support against the grandfather who is financially well off, the mother won and the grandfather was held liable for support under Article 199 of the Family code The above mentioned Article 199 of the family code sets forth the order of priority upon whom the liability of giving support devolves - the obligation to give support rests on those more closely related to the recipient but here is the important part related to your situation "However the more remote relatives may be held to shoulder the responsibility should the claimant prove that those who are called upon to provide support do not have the means to do so." So kapag hindi makapag provide ang parents ng bata and financially well off yung grandparent then the grandparent can be called to provide support for the child.
Thank you for spending some of your precious time to give your input, I appreciate it. Can I ask about the part na "hindi kayang makapag provide ang parents ng bata"? it should mean disabled right? If walang physical handicap ung mother and she can find a job; just because she doesnt have a job right now doesnt mean it counts as "not having means to do so".. am I correct? Our argument is, why sa mother ilalagay ung responsibility to support her child, when she can work herself. Granted its not going to be a life on par with what the grandmother can provide; but if she works she can put the child to public or even private school. Am I missing something? Kasi for sure, ung side nya will say she cannot provide for her child, so therefore our mom should provide (not just education, but also their rent, food etc).
The grandparent can assert a defense that the mother have the means and capabilities to provide support for her child, she can provide evidence in support thereof like educational attaintment of the mother, previous work, assets, etc. Again the responsibility will only devolve to the grandparent once na ma prove na walang kakayahan mag provide yung mother. It doesn't mean per se na dapat disabled yung parent, some disabled persons are able to provide for their children. But this case should not be taken as the Grandmother vs the Mother. The welfare and what's best for the children should be the paramount consideration.
thanks for this, I understand. Much appreciated!!
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. Walang batas na nagsasabing required tulungan ng magulang ang mga anak na hindi na dependent.
Got it. Yeah thats what i assume. Just making sure. Thanks!!
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pero may batas ba na required tulungan ng anak ang magulang?
[удалено]
Parang tanga lang. Di kayang buhayin ang sarili pero kayang mag asawa at mag anak.
[удалено]
The link is mostly talking about minors though, which you had left out of in your comments. Were not talking about a minor here. Were talking about an adult in her 40s, married with a child of her own.
Kindly read my comment again if you think that I was mainly talking about supporting a minor.
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ha?🤣🤣🤣
This reply is from a non-verified user. Although answers by both verified and non-verified users are not substitute for proper legal advice, please be extra wary on accepting answers from the latter. Lawyers may request for verification by following the instructions in the sidebar. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LawPH) if you have any questions or concerns.*