Spouses Lim Vs Limg.r. No. 163209

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.
The obligation to provide legal support passes on to ascendants not only upon default of the parents but also for the
latters inability to provide sufficient support.
Only grandchildren, as blood relatives, are entitled to support from the grandparents, in case of disability by the parents
themselves. Mother not included
Ma. Cheryl married Edward in 1979. She then lived with him in his parents Prudencio and Filomenas house in Forbes Park, where
also lived Edwards grandmother Chua Giak. Ma. Cheryl and Edward begot three children, Lester Edward, Candice Grace and
Mariano III. Edward worked in the family business, which provided him with a monthly income of P6,000.00.
In 1990, Ma. Cheryl and her children moved out of the house after she caught Edward in a very compromising situation with Chua
Giaks in-house midwife.
Ma. Cheryl then filed an action for support against Edward, the spouses Lim, and Chua Giak. While ongoing trial, the court ordered
Edward to provide P6,000.00 monthly support. After trial, the court ordered the defendants to provide P40.000.00 monthly support
to Ma. Cheryl and her children, Edward shouldering P6,000.00 and the others the balance of P34,000.00 Filomena and Prudencio
asked for reconsideration of the decision, holding out that as grandparents, they are not required to support Ma. Cheryl and her
children. The court denied the motion, hence they filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, which also deemed their appeal,
unmeritorious.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court modified the decision as follows:
Neither the text of the law nor the teaching of jurisprudence supports this severe constriction of the scope of familial obligation to
give support. In the first place, the governing text are the relevant provisions in Title VIII of the Civil Code, as amended, on Support,
not the provisions in Title IX on Parental Authority. While both areas share a common ground in that parental authority encompasses
the obligation to provide legal support, they differ in other concerns including the duration of the obligation and its concurrence
among relatives of differing degrees. Thus, although the obligation to provide support arising from parental authority ends upon the
emancipation of the child, the same obligation arising from spousal and general familial ties ideally lasts during the obligees
lifetime.. Also, while parental authority under Title IX (and the correlative parental rights) pertains to parents, passing to ascendants
only upon its termination or suspension, the obligation to provide legal support passes on to ascendants not only upon default of the
parents but also for the latters inability to provide sufficient support. As we observed in another case raising the ancillary issue of an
ascendants obligation to give support in light of the fathers sufficient means:
Professor Pineda is of the view that grandchildren cannot demand support directly from their grandparents if they have parents
(ascendants of nearest degree) who are capable of supporting them. This is so because we have to follow the order of support
under Art. 199. We agree with this view.
xxx
Here, there is no question that Cheryl is unable to discharge her obligation to provide sufficient legal support to her children, then all
school-bound. It is also undisputed that the amount of support Edward is able to give to respondents, P6,000 a month, is insufficient
to meet respondents basic needs. This inability of Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently provide for their children shifts a portion of their
obligation to the ascendants in the nearest degree, both in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal19 lines, following the ordering in
Article 199. To hold otherwise, and thus subscribe to petitioners theory, is to sanction the anomalous scenario of tolerating extreme
material deprivation of children because of parental inability to give adequate support even if ascendants one degree removed are
more than able to fill the void.
However, petitioners partial concurrent obligation extends only to their descendants as this word is commonly understood to refer to
relatives, by blood of lower degree. As petitioners grandchildren by blood, only respondents Lester Edward, Candice Grace and
Mariano III belong to this category. Indeed, Cheryls right to receive support from the Lim family extends only to her husband
Edward, arising from their marital bond.Unfortunately, Cheryls share from the amount of monthly support the trial court awarded
cannot be determined from the records. Thus, we are constrained to remand the case to the trial court for this limited purpose.

Spouses Lim Vs Limg.r. No. 163209

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Lim Vs Limg.r. No. 163209

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Lim Vs Limg.r. No. 163209

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 163209 October 30, 2009, SPOUSES PRUDENCIO and FILOMENA LIM, Petitioners, vs. MA.

CHERYL S. LIM, for herself

You might also like