GR 163209; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163209 ; October 30, 2009
SPOUSES PRUDENCIO AND FILOMENA LIM, Petitioners, vs. MA. CHERYL S. LIM, for herself and on behalf of her minor children LESTER EDWARD S. LIM, CANDICE GRACE S. LIM, and MARIANO S. LIM, III, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Cheryl Lim, married to Edward Lim (son of petitioners), resided with their three minor children in the petitioners’ Forbes Park home. The family’s expenses were shouldered by Edward’s family business, from which he received a monthly salary of ₱6,000. In October 1990, Cheryl left the marital home with the children after a violent confrontation with Edward. She subsequently filed a complaint for support against Edward, his parents (the petitioners), and his grandparents.
The Regional Trial Court ordered Edward and petitioners to jointly provide ₱40,000 monthly support, with Edward liable for ₱6,000 and petitioners for the ₱34,000 balance. The trial court clarified that the petitioners’ liability arose from Edward’s inability to provide sufficient support. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners, as ascendants, are concurrently liable with the father, Edward, to provide support to the respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled affirmatively but modified the judgment. Petitioners are liable to provide support, but their obligation extends only to their grandchildren, the three minor children. The obligation of ascendants to support their descendants is clear under Article 199 of the Family Code. The Court rejected petitioners’ theory that their liability is triggered only upon the default of parental authority (e.g., its termination or suspension). The governing provisions are found in Title VIII on Support, not Title IX on Parental Authority.
The legal logic is that the obligation to provide legal support passes to ascendants not only upon the parents’ default but also due to their inability to provide sufficient support. The order of liability under Article 199 is sequential: the spouse first, then descendants, then ascendants. However, the obligation of ascendants can arise concurrently if the primary obligor (the father, in this case) lacks sufficient means. Since Edward’s ₱6,000 salary was deemed insufficient, the obligation extended to the next in line—the ascendants (petitioners). However, Cheryl, as a spouse, could not demand support from her parents-in-law, as the mutual obligation of support exists only between spouses. Thus, petitioners’ liability is limited to providing support for their three grandchildren. The Court affirmed the principle that familial support obligations are determined by both the order of relationship and the financial capacity of the obligors.