Short answer. For damage he causes, yes. The law that lowered majority to eighteen expressly preserved the duty and responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below twenty-one years of age under the Civil Code's rule on vicarious liability. For his contracts and debts, no.
What the law says
Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below twenty-one years of age
RA 6809, Section 3 — Effect Of Emancipation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Emancipation 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
RA 6809, Section 3 — Effect Of Emancipation. Read the full provision →
Authority ends, one responsibility does not
The section says both things in the same breath. Emancipation 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 — and then Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below twenty-one years of age, in the terms of the Civil Code's provision on vicarious liability. The asymmetry is intentional. Parents lose the power to control and keep an exposure for the consequences, for three more years.
What the preserved liability actually is
It is the Civil Code's rule making parents answerable for damage caused by their children who live in their company. It is a liability in delict — for injury, for harm to property, for the ordinary accidents and wrongs that produce a claim for damages — and it rests on the parents' own failure of diligence rather than on any authority over the young adult. That is precisely why lowering the age of majority did not disturb it: the duty being enforced is the parents' own, so ending parental authority does not end it.
What it does not reach
It is not a general guarantee of a young adult's obligations. A loan he takes, a lease he signs, a card he opens, a purchase he cannot pay for — none of these become the parents' problem, because he is qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life and answers for his own agreements. A creditor telling parents they are liable for an eighteen-year-old's debt is not describing this provision. Note too the words living in their company: the liability is tied to the household, and a young adult who has genuinely moved out changes that picture.
The practical shape of the gap
Between eighteen and twenty-one a parent has no legal say in where the young adult goes, what he signs or how he spends, and may still be sued for the harm he causes at home or on the road. Two consequences follow. Insurance arrangements covering the household are worth checking against that reality rather than assumed. And where a family is genuinely worried, the answer is a conversation and a paper trail of what was in fact done to supervise — because diligence is the defence the underlying rule provides.
Related provisions
- RA 6809, Section 1 — Majority At Eighteen
- RA 6809, Section 3 — Effect Of Emancipation
- RA 6809, Section 4 — Existing Instruments Protected