Short answer. Only as a last resort. The support of an illegitimate child is the obligation of the parent, payable from his exclusive property. Partnership assets may be reached only after the partnership's own responsibilities are covered and if he has no exclusive property or not enough.
What the law says
the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, may be enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in the preceding Article have been covered, if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient
Family Code, Article 122 — Personal Debts, Fines and Indemnities. Read the full provision →
The obligation is real, and it is his
Nothing here denies the child's right to support. An illegitimate child is entitled to be supported by the parent, and that entitlement is not diminished by the parent's later marriage to someone else. What the article settles is a different question — which patrimony pays. The support is the bound spouse's personal obligation, so the fund that answers for it first is his exclusive property. The article groups this obligation with a spouse's pre-marriage personal debts and with fines imposed on him, because all three share that character.
Two conditions before the partnership is touched
Partnership assets become reachable only when both conditions in the sentence hold. The responsibilities enumerated in the preceding Article — the obligations the partnership exists to answer for, including the support of the spouses and of their own children — must first have been covered. And the bound spouse must have no exclusive property or property that should be insufficient. The order is not a matter of discretion. A claim that goes straight at conjugal property while the father holds exclusive assets has skipped a step, and that is the point at which the other spouse has something to say.
What the partnership pays, it books against him
Where the partnership does end up paying, the payment is not absorbed. At the time of liquidation the spouse who was bound shall be charged for what has been paid, so the amount is deducted from his share when the accounts are finally drawn. That is the mechanism that makes the arrangement fair to the other spouse over the life of the marriage: she may see common funds go out in the meantime, but the ledger corrects for it at the end. It also means every peso paid this way is worth recording as it goes.
Establish the regime and the exclusive property first
Two things do most of the work in a real dispute. Which property regime governs your marriage — this article belongs to the conjugal partnership of gains, and the analysis under absolute community is not the same. And what exclusive property the bound spouse actually has, since the whole subsidiary rule turns on its sufficiency. Assemble the titles, the vehicle and account records in his name alone, and a clear picture of his income, and keep a running record of any support drawn from common funds.
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.
- Teresita Cordova and Jean Ong Cordova vs. Edward Ty, G.R. No. 246255, February 3, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Ayala Investment & Development Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 118305, February 12, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Carmelita T. Borlongan vs. Banco De Oro/Eliseo C. Borlongan, Jr. vs. BDO Unibank, Inc, G.R. No. 217617 / G.R. No. 218540, April 5, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine National Bank vs. Venancio C. Reyes, Jr, G.R. No. 212483, October 5, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →