Short answer. There is no fixed table or percentage. The amount is set in proportion to two moving figures, what the giver can afford and what the recipient actually needs, so a court fixes a peso figure only after seeing both sides' finances, and the same child can be owed different amounts by different obligors.
What the law says
shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient
Family Code, Article 201 — Amount of Support: Means and Needs. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the payment of the same shall be divided between them in proportion to the resources of each
Family Code, Article 200 — Dividing the Support Obligation; Competing Claims. Read the full provision →
A proportion, not a formula
People arrive expecting a percentage of salary, and the Code does not give one. Support shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient — two quantities, weighed against each other, in the circumstances of this family and no other. That is why no lawyer can quote you a figure over the phone, and why a number a friend was awarded tells you almost nothing about yours. It also cuts both ways: a modest earner is not ordered to pay what a wealthy one would, and a child with unusual medical or schooling needs is not confined to what an average child costs.
What each half of the proportion is proved with
The giver's side is about capacity, not just the payslip he chooses to show. Income, the business he runs, property that produces something, and the other people he is genuinely obliged to support all belong in the picture. The recipient's side is the actual cost of the child's life as it is now: rent and food attributable to the child, tuition and school expenses, medicines and treatment, fares. Documents beat assertions on both sides. Receipts, enrolment records, prescriptions and bank records are what turn a claimed need into a proved one, and their absence is the most common reason an award lands lower than a parent expected.
When more than one relative is obliged
Where the obligation falls on two or more people, the payment of the same shall be divided between them in proportion to the resources of each. So the better-off obligor carries the larger share rather than everyone paying equally. Article 200 also lets a judge, in case of urgent need and by special circumstances, order just one of them to furnish the support provisionally, leaving that person to claim the others' shares afterwards. The practical effect is that a child in immediate need is not left waiting while the adults argue among themselves about who should be paying what.
The figure is a snapshot, not a settlement
Whatever amount is fixed reflects the resources and the needs as they stood on that day. Article 202 lets it be reduced or increased proportionately when either changes, so a figure agreed when a child was six is not the figure that will suit a child of sixteen, and a payer whose income genuinely collapses is not stuck with a number set in better times. Treat the award as something to be revisited rather than settled once, and keep the evidence of both sides' circumstances as it accumulates — that record is what a later application will stand or fall on.
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.
- BBB vs. AAA, G.R. No. 193225, February 9, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- People of the Philippines vs. Egap Madsali, Sajiron Lajim and Maron Lajim, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- People of the Phil. vs. Mario Constantino, G.R. No. 176069, October 5, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jose Lam vs. Adriana Chua, G.R. No. 131286, March 18, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Family Code, Article 200 — Dividing the Support Obligation; Competing Claims
- Family Code, Article 202 — Support Rises and Falls With Circumstances