Short answer. Yes. Where the person obliged unjustly refuses or fails to give support when it is urgently needed, any third person may furnish it and claim reimbursement from the one who should have paid. The article says it applies particularly where a parent refuses a child under the age of majority.
What the law says
When the person obliged to support another unjustly refuses or fails to give support when urgently needed by the latter, any third person may furnish support to the needy individual, with right of reimbursement from the person obliged to give support.
Family Code, Article 207 — Urgent Support Refused: Third-Party Reimbursement. Read the full provision →
What the law says
When, without the knowledge of the person obliged to give support, it is given by a stranger, the latter shall have a right to claim the same from the former, unless it appears that he gave it without intention of being reimbursed.
Family Code, Article 206 — Reimbursing a Stranger Who Gave Support. Read the full provision →
A right of reimbursement, not a favour
Article 207 turns an act of decency into a claim: when the person obliged to support another unjustly refuses or fails to give support when urgently needed by the latter, any third person may furnish support to the needy individual, with right of reimbursement from the person obliged to give support. The grandmother who pays the hospital bill, the aunt who covers a term's tuition and the neighbour who feeds the child for a month are not making gifts by default. The article closes with a sentence saying it applies particularly to a father or mother who fails a child under the age of majority.
Three things have to line up
First, the person you are claiming from must actually have been obliged to give support — the article does not create an obligation, it presupposes one. Second, the refusal must be unjust. A parent who is genuinely destitute has not unjustly refused; a parent who has means and will not use them has. Third, the need must be urgent, which is what separates this from ordinary help. Groceries advanced during a lean month and an emergency operation are not in the same category, and the further the expense sits from urgency, the weaker the claim becomes.
The companion rule where the obligor never knew
Article 206 covers the situation from a different angle: when, without the knowledge of the person obliged to give support, it is given by a stranger, the latter shall have a right to claim the same from the former, unless it appears that he gave it without intention of being reimbursed. Two points follow. Ignorance is no answer — a parent who did not know cannot keep the benefit for free. But intention matters, so a helper who made it plain at the time that the money was a gift cannot change their mind about it afterwards.
What makes the claim provable later
Reimbursement claims are usually lost on evidence rather than on principle, because the help was given in a crisis and documented afterwards, if at all. Pay in a traceable way and keep the receipts in your own name. Keep the message or letter in which the parent was asked and refused, because that exchange is what makes the refusal unjust rather than merely absent. Note what the money was for and why it could not wait. A short written record made at the time is worth more than a detailed recollection produced two years later.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Edward V. Lacson vs. Maowee Daban Lacson, et al, G.R. No. 150644, August 28, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Family Code, Article 206 — Reimbursing a Stranger Who Gave Support
- Family Code, Article 201 — Amount of Support: Means and Needs