Short answer. Yes. Support is not fixed permanently — it must be increased proportionately when the recipient's necessities grow, provided the person obligated to give support also has the resources or means to meet that higher amount. A rise in your child's medical needs is exactly the kind of change this rule addresses.
What the law says
Support in the cases referred to in the preceding article shall be reduced or increased proportionately, according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to furnish the same.
Family Code, Article 202 — Support Rises and Falls With Circumstances. Read the full provision →
Support amounts move with circumstances, in both directions
The law does not treat a support order as a number fixed forever. It is meant to track two things that can each change over time: the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to give support. When either side of that equation shifts, the amount of support is meant to shift proportionately with it — increasing when needs grow or resources allow, and decreasing when needs shrink or resources become more limited.
Increased medical needs fit squarely within this rule
A child's medical needs rising since the original order was issued is a direct increase in that child's necessities, which is precisely the kind of change this provision contemplates. The statute frames the adjustment as proportionate — the increase in support is meant to correspond to the actual increase in what the child now needs, rather than an arbitrary or unrelated figure.
The other side of the equation still matters
An increase in the child's needs is only half the picture. The provision ties any adjustment to the resources or means of the person obligated to provide support as well. If that person's capacity to pay has not changed, or has actually declined, the proportionate-increase principle still has to account for that reality — the law is not asking for support beyond what the obligated person can reasonably furnish, even where the recipient's needs have genuinely grown.
What this provision does not itself supply
This article states the substantive standard — that support rises and falls with necessities and resources — but it does not set out the procedure, forms, or filing details for asking a court to adjust an existing order. Those mechanics come from separate procedural rules, and a parent seeking an increase would need to bring the changed circumstances to the court's attention through whatever process governs the existing support order.
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 →
- Jose Lam vs. Adriana Chua, G.R. No. 131286, March 18, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →