Short answer. Yes. Support is not fixed once and for all — it is reduced or increased proportionately based on changes in the recipient's necessities and the resources or means of the person obliged to give it, so a genuine, significant loss of income can be a valid basis to seek a reduction.
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 tracks the obligor's resources, not just the child's needs
The statute ties the amount of support to two moving variables: the necessities of the person receiving support, and the resources or means of the person obligated to provide it. A genuine and material drop in the obligor's income — losing a job, for example — falls squarely within the second variable. The law does not treat a support order as permanently fixed regardless of what happens afterward to either side's circumstances.
The reduction must be proportionate, not a shortcut to stop paying
The rule speaks of a proportionate reduction, tied to the actual reduction in resources. This is not a basis for the obligor to unilaterally decide to pay less, or to stop paying altogether, simply by asserting job loss. Whether and by how much support should be reduced depends on the real extent of the change in the obligor's means, weighed against what the child still needs — a temporary or partial loss of income does not automatically translate into an equivalent cut in support.
The child's needs remain the other half of the equation
Even where the obligor's resources have genuinely shrunk, the recipient's necessities do not disappear from the calculation. If the child's needs have not changed, or have even increased, that fact is weighed alongside the obligor's reduced means rather than being ignored. The proportionate standard exists precisely because both sides of the equation matter — a reduction is not simply granted because the obligor asks for it, but because the actual balance between necessities and resources has shifted.
What this provision does not do
This article states the substantive standard for adjusting support; it does not itself supply the procedure for asking a court to change an existing order, nor does it excuse an obligor from support entirely just because income has stopped. A parent who wants a court to formally reduce a support order still has to bring the changed circumstances before the court through whatever process governs that existing order, rather than simply reducing payments on their own judgment.
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 →