Article 194 of the Family Code

The Family Code of the Philippines

Executive Order No. 209      July 6, 1987

Art. 194. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.

The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the preceding paragraph shall include his schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work.

           

Article 194 defines the nature of support that one may demand from his/her spouse, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters. Included in this legally demandable support are those that are necessary for family’s

1)      sustenance

2)      dwelling

3)      clothing

4)      medical attendance

5)      education

6)      transportation

Found in the same article is the proviso regarding the extent or the amount that maybe demanded: “in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.” This means that demand for support must be within the financial capacity to whom the same is demanded. The same article defines what constitute education and transportation:

Education

            - schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority

Transportation

            - expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work

            Illegitimate children are also entitled to support as provided for by Article 195. The cases of Agustin vs CA (G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005) and Dolina vs Vallecera (G.R. No. 182367, December 15, 2010) illustrate the remedy for a woman in case the father of her illegitimate child denies family support. That is to “file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.” The woman must first prove filiation and then ask for support. If the father still refuses, the she can file an action based on the provisions of RA 9262 (VAWC) to compel the alleged father for support.

            To prove filiation, the woman may compel the alleged father for DNA paternity test. She must however bear in mind that the action for compulsory recognition prescribes when such alleged father dies. In other words, she cannot sit on her rights and later on, lay claims on the estate of the alleged father if the latter dies without a final judgement on compulsory recognition.

Case Digest

Dolina vs Vallecera

G.R. No. 182367, December 15, 2010

Facts:

Seeking protection under RA 9262 (VAWC), Dolina filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order against Vallecera in February 2008. Dolina alleged that Vallecera fathered her child as evidenced by latter’s Certificate of Live Birth which listed Vallecera as the child’s father.

Vallecera opposed the petition. He denied fathering the child and that his signature in the birth certificate was forged. He denied living with Dolina and her child. According to him, Dolina was harassing and forcing him to acknowledge her child and provide financial support.

The Regional Trial Court denied Dolina’s petition and admonished her for not filing first a petition for the compulsory recognition of her child.

           

Issue:

            Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina’s action for temporary protection and denied her application for temporary support for her child.

Ruling:

            Yes. The RTC correctly dismissed Dolina’s action for temporary protection and denied her application for temporary support for her child.

            According to the Supreme Court, only those who are entitled may seek protection afforded by RA 9262. To be entitled, Dolina must have an existing intimate relationship with Vallecera or she was domiciled in the same place as Vallecera. Her only recourse, to be entitled of protection afforded by RA 9262 was to first prove Vallecera’s filiation with her child and then demand support. Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.

            Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the RTC in dimissing Dolina’s petition.

-------------------------

by Permanent Class Number 4 in Persons and Family Relations, LSPU, First Semester, SY2019-2020

Date Last Updated: 29Nov2019