Short answer. Yes, but only from his own property. Where a minor or insane person who caused damage has no parents or guardian, Article 2182 makes him answerable with his own property in an action brought against him, with a guardian ad litem appointed for the case.

What the law says

the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed

Civil Code, Article 2182 — Liability of the Minor's or Insane Person's Own Property. Read the full provision →

Why the teenager is the defendant at all

Ordinarily a claim like yours is not aimed at the young person. Article 2180 puts the damage caused by minor children who live in their company on the father, or on the mother in case of his death or incapacity, and on guardians for minors under their authority who live in their company. Article 2182 is what is left when none of those people exist. It does not create a second defendant alongside a parent; it applies precisely because there is no parent or guardian to answer, and it points the claim at the minor himself.

What “answerable with his own property” limits

The wording is shall be answerable with his own property, and that phrase is both the remedy and its ceiling. What you can reach is the property he actually owns, whatever he inherited, was given, or holds in his name. The article says nothing about future earnings, nothing about making relatives who took him in contribute, and nothing about a fund of any kind standing behind him. So the practical question is not whether he is liable but whether there is anything to satisfy a judgment. A liable defendant with no property produces a decision you cannot execute.

The guardian ad litem is part of the suit, not a substitute defendant

Article 2182 does not let you sue a child as though he were an adult defendant. It contemplates an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed, someone who stands in for him for the purposes of the case. That appointment is a feature of the litigation rather than a transfer of liability: the person appointed represents the minor's interest in the proceeding and does not thereby become answerable for the damage out of his own pocket. If the teenager has since reached majority, this part of the article has nothing left to do.

What actually decides the claim

Three things settle a claim of this kind, and only one of them is about the collision. First, fault or negligence, because the article assigns liability but does not supply it, and the rule that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, must pay for the damage done is Article 2176. Second, that there is genuinely no parent and no guardian, which is worth documenting rather than assuming. Third, what property stands in his name. Gather the police or barangay record, your repair estimate, and anything showing his household situation.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.