Short answer. Yes. When a parent unjustly refuses or fails to give urgently needed support to a child, any third person — including a neighbor — may furnish that support and has the right to be reimbursed by the parent who was obliged to give it.
What the law says
When the person obliged to support another unjustly refuses or fails to give support when urgently needed by the latter, any third person may furnish support to the needy individual, with right of reimbursement from the person obliged to give support.
Family Code, Article 207 — Urgent Support Refused: Third-Party Reimbursement. Read the full provision →
A third person can step in and still get paid back
The statute directly addresses this situation: when the person obliged to give support unjustly refuses or fails to give it while it is urgently needed, any third person may furnish that support to the needy individual. Crucially, the law does not treat this as a gift the third person absorbs — it comes with a right of reimbursement from the parent who was obligated to provide the support in the first place.
This rule specifically names the parent-child scenario
The article goes further and states that it particularly applies when a father or mother of a child under the age of majority unjustly refuses or fails to support the child when urgently needed. Your situation — a parent refusing to feed a hungry child, prompting a neighbor to step in — is the precise scenario this provision was written to address.
Two conditions have to be present
This right of reimbursement depends on two elements being true: the refusal or failure to support must be unjust, and the need for support must be urgent. A parent who has a legitimate reason for not providing support at that moment, or a situation that was not genuinely urgent, would sit outside the clean fit this provision describes. Where both elements are present, as in a hungry child needing immediate food, the third person's right to reimbursement follows.
What this provision does not itself resolve
This article establishes the substantive right to furnish support and be reimbursed — it does not set out the specific procedure or forum for the neighbor to actually collect from the refusing parent, nor does it fix the exact amount recoverable beyond what was reasonably furnished for the urgent need. Pursuing reimbursement in practice would depend on those separate procedural questions, which this provision leaves untouched, and keeping a clear record of what was actually spent for the child's urgent needs will matter to whatever process is used to recover it.
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.
- Edward V. Lacson vs. Maowee Daban Lacson, et al, G.R. No. 150644, August 28, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →