Short answer. Parents have a limited right over the fruits and income of their unemancipated child's property — but it is strictly bounded. Under Article 226 of the Family Code, that right goes first to the child's own support and education, and only secondarily to the collective daily needs of the family.
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 outright
Article 226 starts with an important baseline: property earned by the child through work, or received by the child through gift or other transfer, belongs to the child in ownership. The parents do not become co-owners simply because they are the child's legal guardians. The property is devoted primarily to the child's own support and education. Any contrary arrangement in the deed of gift or title may alter this, but absent such a provision, the child is the owner.
The parents' limited right over fruits and income
Article 226 recognizes that parents do have a right over the fruits and income that the child's property generates — rental income, interest, dividends, or other returns. But this right is limited and prioritized in a specific order. First priority: the fruits and income go to the child's own support and education. Second priority: whatever remains after the child's needs are met may be applied to the collective daily needs of the family. Parents cannot pocket the income for their own private use or apply it to personal debts.
What 'secondarily to the collective daily needs of the family' means
The secondary use — family needs — is exactly that: secondary. It only comes into play after the child's support and education are fully funded from the property's fruits. And even then, the use is limited to collective daily needs — ordinary household expenses that benefit the family as a whole, including the child. This is not a license for parents to draw freely on the child's income for their own convenience or lifestyle. Expenditures beyond daily household needs, or those that benefit only the parents, are not authorized by Article 226.
When the child's property income is not enough for both
If the child's property generates enough income only for the child's support and education, nothing flows to the family's collective needs. The child's needs take absolute precedence. If even the child's needs cannot be met from the property's income, the parents remain obligated to support the child from their own resources — their duty to support the child does not disappear simply because the child holds some assets. The usufruct right of parents over the child's property income is a benefit that exists only after the child is adequately provided for.
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 →