Short answer. Yes. Article 2166 lets any third person who furnishes support to a needy individual, such as an orphan or an indigent person, recover from the one legally bound to support them who unjustly refused. The rule expressly covers a father or mother who unjustly refuses to support a child under eighteen, so a stranger who steps in can be reimbursed.
What the law says
any third person may furnish support to the needy individual, with right of reimbursement from the person obliged to give support
Civil Code, Article 2166 — Support Given to an Orphan or Insane Person. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The provisions of this article apply when the father or mother of a child under eighteen years of age unjustly refuses to support him.
Civil Code, Article 2166 — Support Given to an Orphan or Insane Person. Read the full provision →
Reimbursement without a prior agreement
The law does not want a needy person to go without help simply because the one bound to support them refuses. Article 2166 treats the good Samaritan's outlay as a quasi-contract: even with no agreement to repay, any third person may furnish support to the needy individual, with right of reimbursement from the person obliged to give support. The third person is not a mere volunteer who must swallow the cost. Having supplied what the law required the obligor to give, he steps into a claim for reimbursement against the person who should have paid in the first place.
The conditions: a real duty and an unjust refusal
The right to recover is not open to anyone who spends money on another. Three things must line up. There must be a person legally obliged to give support, such as a parent or another relative the law charges with that duty. That person must have unjustly refused, meaning without a valid reason. And the recipient must genuinely be needy, an orphan, an insane or other indigent person unable to provide for themselves. Where those conditions are met, the third person's help fills the gap the obligor wrongfully left open, and the law lets him recover it.
It expressly reaches a refusing parent
The provision spells out its most common application. The provisions of this article apply when the father or mother of a child under eighteen years of age unjustly refuses to support him. So a relative, neighbour, or institution that feeds, shelters, or schools a child whose own parent will not do so is not acting for free. The cost becomes a debt of the parent who abandoned the duty, and the person who carried it can claim reimbursement from that parent.
How to protect your claim
Because the recovery rests on standing in for a duty the obligor refused, keep proof of what that duty was and what you actually supplied. Records of the expenses, and evidence that the person bound to give support was asked and unjustly declined, turn a generous act into an enforceable claim. The point of Article 2166 is that stepping in to help a helpless person should not leave you out of pocket while the truly responsible party escapes; the reimbursement right makes sure it does not.