Short answer. Yes, and it must be. Under Article 226 of the Family Code, the fruits and income of a child's property are to be applied primarily to the child's own support and education. Parents have the right to manage and receive those fruits, but that right is expressly limited to the child's benefit first.
What the law says
The right of the parents over the fruits and income of the child's property shall be limited primarily to the child's support and secondarily to the collective daily needs of the family.
Family Code, Article 226 — Ownership of the Child's Property; Parents' Usufruct. Read the full provision →
The child owns the property — parents manage it
Article 226 is clear about ownership: property acquired by an unemancipated child through their own work, industry, or by any title — whether gratuitous or onerous — belongs to the child. The parents do not own it. What parents hold is a right of administration and a right to the fruits and income of that property, similar to a usufruct. This arrangement lets parents handle the practical management of the child's assets without giving them ownership over what the child has legitimately acquired.
How the income must be applied
Article 226 is equally clear about how the income must be used. The parents' right over fruits and income is limited primarily to the child's support and secondarily to the collective daily needs of the family. This means the child's own income goes to the child first — covering maintenance, education, medical care, and other necessities appropriate to the child's standing. Only if those needs are fully covered may any remainder be applied to the family's daily needs. The income cannot be freely redirected to other purposes.
Exclusively devoted to the child's support
The first sentence of Article 226 adds a further restriction: the child's property itself — not just its income — shall be devoted exclusively to the latter's support and education, unless the title or transfer provides otherwise. This means that beyond the income, the capital of the child's property is safeguarded for the child's benefit. A parent cannot encumber or dispose of that property for family expenses generally. The law protects the child's patrimony from being absorbed into family obligations at the expense of the child's own welfare.
When the child earns more than is needed
The secondary application to family needs only arises when there is surplus income after the child's support and education are provided for. If the child's income is modest and barely covers their own needs, there is nothing left for family expenses under this provision. Parents cannot take from the child's income for household costs while leaving the child's own support unprovided. The order of priority is mandatory: child first, family second, and only from what remains after the primary obligation is met.
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.
- Ma. Dulce C. Fernandez vs. Enrique C. Fernandez, G.R. No. 266145, August 19, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →