Short answer. The child does. Property an unemancipated child earns or acquires by his own work belongs to the child in ownership, and it is to be devoted exclusively to the child's support and education. The parents' right over the fruits and income is a limited one, not a claim to the money itself.
What the law says
The property of the unemancipated child earned or acquired with his work or industry or by onerous or gratuitous title shall belong to the child in ownership and shall be devoted exclusively to the latter's support and education, unless the title or transfer provides otherwise.
Family Code, Article 226 — Ownership of the Child's Property; Parents' Usufruct. Read the full provision →
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 →
Ownership sits with the child
The article settles it in its first clause: the property of the unemancipated child earned or acquired with his work or industry or by onerous or gratuitous title shall belong to the child in ownership and shall be devoted exclusively to the latter's support and education, unless the title or transfer provides otherwise. It covers the wage from a part-time job, an inheritance and a gift alike. The earmarking is as important as the ownership — even the child's own money is not simply spending money, and a donor or a will may direct a different use by saying so in the instrument.
What the parents may take from it
Parents are not left with nothing, but what they have is narrow: 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. Read the order. The fruits go first to supporting the child, and only what is left over answers to the household's daily needs. It is a right over the fruits and income, not over the capital, so it does not authorise a parent to spend the child's wages or sell what the child owns for the family's benefit.
Who administers it
Article 225 gives the father and mother joint legal guardianship over the property of the unemancipated common child without any court appointment, with the father's decision prevailing in case of disagreement unless a judicial order says otherwise. Where the market value of the property or the child's annual income exceeds P50,000, the parent concerned must furnish a bond in an amount the court determines, not less than ten per centum of the value or annual income. Administering is not owning, and the bond exists precisely because the two are easily confused.
The reverse case: a child running the parents' property
Article 227 covers the family that puts a teenager in charge of a business or a rental. The net proceeds belong to the owner — the parent — but the child must be given a reasonable monthly allowance not less than what the owner would have paid a stranger doing the same work, unless the owner grants the child the entire proceeds. Anything given in that way is not charged to the child's legitime later. Families that treat an able child as free labour are on the wrong side of this provision.
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 →
Related provisions
- Family Code, Article 225 — Guardianship Over the Child's Property
- Family Code, Article 227 — Property the Child Is Entrusted to Administer