SOORDERED.

Quisumbing,** Carpio (Chairperson), ChicoNazario

and Abad,*** JJ.,concur.
Clemente U. Ugale meted with fine equivalent to his eight
(8) months salary for incompetence, habitual drunkenness
and loafing.
Note.Courtsarenottheforumtopleadforsympathy
the duty of Courts is to apply the law, disregarding their
feelingofsympathyorpityforanaccused.(Mejia vs. People,
525SCRA209[2007])
o0o

G.R.No.163209.October30,2009.*

SPOUSES PRUDENCIO and FILOMENA LIM,

petitioners, vs. MA. CHERYL S. LIM, for herself and on
behalf of her minor children LESTER EDWARD S. LIM,
CANDICE GRACE S. LIM, and MARIANO S. LIM, III,
respondents.
Civil Law; Family Code; Support; Relying on provisions found
in Title IX of the Civil Code, as amended, on Parental Authority,
petitioners theorize that their liability is activated only upon
default of parental authority, conceivably either by its termination
or suspension during the childrens minority.By statutory and
jurisprudentialmandate,theliabilityofascendantstoprovidelegal
supporttotheirdescendantsisbeyondcavil.Petitionersthemselves
admitas
_______________
**DesignatedtositasanadditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusitce
AntonioEduardoB.NachuraperSpecialOrderNo.755datedOctober12,2009.
***DesignatedtositasanadditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJustice
PresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.perSpecialOrderNo.753datedOctober12,2009.
*THIRDDIVISION

692

692

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lim vs. Lim

muchtheylimittheirpetitiontothenarrowquestionofwhentheir

liability is triggered, not if they are liable. Relying on provisions

found in Title IX of the Civil Code, as amended, on Parental
Authority, petitioners theorize that their liability is activated only
upon default of parental authority, conceivably either by its
termination or suspension during the childrens minority. Because
at the time respondents sued for support, Cheryl and Edward
exercised parental authority over their children, petitioners submit
thattheobligationtosupportthelattersoffspringendswiththem.
Same; Same; Same; The obligation to provide support arising
from parental authority ends upon the emancipation of the child,
the same obligation arising from spousal and general familial ties
ideally lasts during the obligees lifetime. Also, while parental
authority under Title IX (and the correlative parental rights)
pertains to parents, passing to ascendants only upon its termination
or suspension, the obligation to provide legal support passes on to
ascendants not only upon default of the parents but also for the
latters inability to provide sufficient support. As we observed
another case raising the ancillary issue of an ascendants obligation
to give support in light of the fathers sufficient means.Neither
the text of the law nor the teaching of jurisprudence supports this
severeconstrictionofthescopeoffamilialobligationtogivesupport.
Inthefirstplace,thegoverningtextaretherelevantprovisionsin
Title VIII of the Civil Code, as amended, on Support, not the
provisionsinTitleIXonParentalAuthority.Whilebothareasshare
a common ground in that parental authority encompasses the
obligation to provide legal support, they differ in other concerns
includingthedurationoftheobligationanditsconcurrenceamong
relatives of differing degrees. Thus, although the obligation to
provide support arising from parental authority ends upon the
emancipationofthechild,thesameobligationarisingfromspousal
and general familial ties ideally lasts during the obligees lifetime..
Also, while parental authority under Title IX (and the correlative
parental rights) pertains to parents, passing to ascendants only
upon its termination or suspension, the obligation to provide legal
support passes on to ascendants not only upon default of the
parents but also for the latters inability to provide sufficient
support.Asweobservedinanothercaseraisingtheancillaryissue
of an ascendants obligation to give support in light of the fathers
sufficientmeans.
693

VOL.604,OCTOBER30,2009

693

Lim vs. Lim

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Fortun, Narvasa & Salazarforpetitioners.
Bonete Law Office forprivaterespondents.
CARPIO,J.:
The Case
For review1 is the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals,
dated 28 April 2003, ordering petitioners Prudencio and
Filomena Lim (petitioners) to provide legal support to

respondents Cheryl, Lester Edward, Candice Grace and

MarianoIII,allsurnamedLim(respondents).
The Facts
In 1979, respondent Cheryl S. Lim (Cheryl) married
Edward Lim (Edward), son of petitioners. Cheryl bore
Edward three children, respondents Lester Edward,
CandiceGraceandMarianoIII.Cheryl,Edwardandtheir
childrenresidedatthehouseofpetitionersinForbesPark,
Makati City, together with Edwards ailing grandmother,
Chua Giak and her husband Mariano Lim (Mariano).
Edwards family business, which provided him with a
monthly salary of P6,000, shouldered the family expenses.
Cherylhadnosteadysourceofincome.
On14October1990,CherylabandonedtheForbesPark
residence,bringingthechildrenwithher(thenallminors),
afteraviolentconfrontationwithEdwardwhomshecaught
_______________
1UnderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion with Associate
JusticesRubenT.ReyesandLucasP.Bersamin(nowamemberofthis
Court),concurring.
694

694

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lim vs. Lim

with the inhouse midwife of Chua Giak in what the trial

courtdescribedaverycompromisingsituation.3
Cheryl, for herself and her children, sued petitioners,
Edward, Chua Giak and Mariano (defendants) in the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 140 (trial
court)forsupport.ThetrialcourtorderedEdwardtoprovide
monthlysupportofP6,000pendente lite.4
The Ruling of the Trial Court
On31January1996,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgment
ordering Edward and petitioners to jointly provide
P40,000 monthly support to respondents, with Edward
shoulderingP6,000andpetitionersthebalanceofP34,000
subjecttoChuaGiakssubsidiaryliability.5

_______________
3CARollo,p.99.CherylfiledcriminalchargesagainstEdward
(for concubinage, physical injuries, and grave threats) which,
however, the investigating prosecutor dismissed. It appears that
Edward,inturn,suedCherylforthe declaration of nullity of their
marriage(CivilCaseNo.991852)whichtheRegionalTrialCourtof
Makati City, Branch 140, granted. Cheryls appeal of the ruling
awaitsresolution.
4InanOrderdated28June1991.
5 The dispositive portion of the ruling provides (Records, pp.
10211022):
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
renderedasfollows:
1.Defendant/s EDWARD N. LIM and Spouses

PRUDENCIOandFILOMENANGLIMareorderedtojointly
provide monthly support for the plaintiff, Ma. Cheryl S. Lim
and the three (3) minor children, in the total amount of
FORTY THOUSAND (P40,000.00) Pesos to be adjusted as
maybeneeded,andtobegiveninthefollowingmanner:
a)Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos to be paid by
defendantEDWARDN.LIM;
b)The remaining balance of Thirty Four
Thousand (P34,000.00) Pesos shall be shouldered by
defendant/spouses PRUDENCIO and FILOMENA NG
LIM,
695

VOL.604,OCTOBER30,2009

695

Lim vs. Lim

The defendants sought reconsideration, questioning
their liability. The trial court, while denying
reconsideration, clarified that petitioners and Chua Giak
wereheldjointlyliablewithEdwardbecauseofthelatters
inabilityxxxtogivesufficientsupportxxx.6
_______________
they,beingintheremoterlinepursuanttoArticle199
of the Family Code. However, in the event that spouses
Prudencio and Filomena Ng Lim fail to provide plaintiffs
the amount they are entitled to receive, the obligation
shall be borne by CHUA GIAK, being the grandmother of
defendantEdwardLim;
c)The payment of the aforesaid monthly support
shouldbemadewithinthefirstfive(5)daysofeachmonth;
2.The custody of the three (3) minor children, namely,
Lester Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III shall be awarded
totheparentwithwhomeachoneshallchoosetolivewith,they,
beingoverseven(7)yearsofage;
3.Defendants are directed to pay the plaintiffs attorneys
fees in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS,
plus FIVE HUNDRED (P500.00) PESOS for each Court
appearance,andthecostofthesuit.
6ThedispositiveportionoftheOrderprovides(Id.,atp.1058):
Inthelightoftheforegoing,itemNo.1inthedispositivepartofthe
Decision of this Court dated January 31, 1996, is hereby amended to
readasfollows:
(1.a)Defendant Edward N. Lim is ordered to continue providing
the amount of SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS as his monthly
supportfortheplaintiffs;
(b) Considering the inability of defendant Edward N. Lim to give
sufficientsupport, defendants/spouses Prudencio and Filomena Ng Lim
being in the remoter line (Art. 199, Family Code), are ordered to give
the amount of THIRTYFOUR THOUSAND (P34,000.00) PESOS as
their monthly support for the three (3) minor children. In case of
default,theobligationshallbebornebydefendantChuaGiak;
(c)The payment of the aforesaid monthly support shall be made
withinthefirstfive(5)daysofeachmonth.
696

696

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lim vs. Lim

PetitionersappealedtotheCourtofAppealsassailing,
among others, their liability to support respondents.
Petitioners argued that while Edwards income is
insufficient,thelawitselfsanctionsitseffectsbyproviding
thatlegalsupportshouldbeinkeepingwiththefinancial
capacityofthefamilyunderArticle194oftheCivilCode,
asamendedbyExecutiveOrderNo.209(TheFamilyCode
ofthePhilippines).7
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
InitsDecisiondated28April2003,theCourtofAppeals
affirmedthetrialcourt.Ontheissuematerialtothisappeal,
that is, whether there is basis to hold petitioners, as
Edwards parents, liable with him to support respondents,
theCourtofAppealsheld:
ThelawonsupportunderArticle195oftheFamilyCodeisclear
on this matter. Parents and their legitimate children are obliged to
mutually support one another and this obligation extends down to
thelegitimategrandchildrenandgreatgrandchildren.
In connection with this provision, Article 200 paragraph (3) of
the Family Code clearly provides that should the person obliged to
givesupportdoesnothavesufficientmeanstosatisfyallclaims,the
other persons enumerated in Article 199 in its order shall provide
thenecessarysupport.Thisisbecausetheclosertherelationshipof
the relatives, the stronger the tie that binds them. Thus, the
obligationtosupportisimposedfirstupontheshouldersofthecloser
relatives and only in their default is the obligation moved to the
nextnearerrelativesandsoon.8
_______________
7 This provision reads: Support comprises everything indispensable
for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and
transportation,inkeepingwiththefinancialcapacityofthefamily.
The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in
theprecedingparagraphshallincludehisschoolingortrainingforsome
profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority.
Transportationshallincludeexpensesingoingtoandfromschool,orto
andfromplaceofwork.
8Rollo,pp.2728.
697

VOL.604,OCTOBER30,2009

697

Lim vs. Lim

Petitioners sought reconsideration but the Court of
Appeals denied their motion in the Resolution dated 12
April2004.
Hence,thispetition.
The Issue
The issue is whether petitioners are concurrently liable
withEdwardtoprovidesupporttorespondents.
The Ruling of the Court

We rule in the affirmative. However, we modify the

appealed judgment by limiting petitioners liability to the
amount of monthly support needed by respondents Lester
Edward,CandiceGraceandMarianoIIIonly.
Petitioners Liable to Provide Support
but only to their Grandchildren
By statutory9 and jurisprudential mandate,10 the
liability of ascendants to provide legal support to their
descendants is beyond cavil. Petitioners themselves admit
asmuchtheylimittheirpetitiontothenarrowquestionof
when their liability is triggered, not if they are liable.
Relyingonprovisions11foundinTitleIXoftheCivilCode,
as amended, on Parental Authority, petitioners theorize
thattheirliabilityisactivatedonlyuponde
faultofparental
authority,conceivablyeitherby
_______________
9Article199,CivilCode,asamended,provides:
Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the
liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the order herein
provided:
(1)Thespouse;
(2)Thedescendantsinthenearestdegree;
(3)Theascendantsinthenearestdegree;and
(4)Thebrothersandsisters
10 Patricio v. Dario III, G.R. No. 170829, 20 November 2006, 507
SCRA438.
11Articles214and216,CivilCode,asamended.
698

698

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lim vs. Lim

its termination12 or suspension13 during the childrens

minority.Becauseatthetimerespondentssuedforsupport,
CherylandEdwardexercisedparentalauthorityovertheir
children,14petitionerssubmitthattheobligationtosupport
thelattersoffspringendswiththem.
Neither the text of the law nor the teaching of
jurisprudencesupportsthissevereconstrictionofthescope
offamilialobligationtogivesupport.Inthefirstplace,the
governing text are the relevant provisions in Title VIII of
theCivilCode,asamended,onSupport,nottheprovisions
inTitleIXonParentalAuthority.Whilebothareassharea
commongroundinthatparentalauthorityencompassesthe
obligation to provide legal support,15 they differ in other
concerns including the duration of the obligation and its
concurrence among relatives of differing degrees.16 Thus,
although the obligation to provide support arising from
parental authority ends upon the emancipation of the
child,17 the same obligation arising from spousal and
general familial ties ideally lasts during the obligees
lifetime..Also,whileparentalauthorityunderTitleIX(and
thecorrelativeparentalrights)pertainstoparents,passing
toascendantsonlyuponitsterminationorsuspension,the

_______________
12 See Articles 228(1), 229(4) and (5), and 232, Civil Code, as
amended.
13SeeArticles230and231,CivilCode,asamended.
14 Respondents Lester Edward (born on 11 June 1981), Candice
Grace (born on 23 October 1985) and Mariano III (born on 31 August
1986) have since reached the age of majority, thus emancipating them
from their parents authority (see Article 228(3), Civil Code, as
amended).
15Article209inrelationtoArticle220(4),CivilCode,asamended.
16 The ordering of persons obliged to provide support in Article 199
is different from the preference of right to receive it under Article 200,
par. 3. Thus, the Court of Appeals, while correctly affirming the trial
courts ruling, as we do, misapplied the latter provision as basis for its
rulingsustainingpetitionersconcurrentobligationtoprovidesupport.
17Article228(3),CivilCode,asamended.
699

VOL.604,OCTOBER30,2009

699

Lim vs. Lim

obligationtoprovidelegalsupportpassesontoascendants
notonlyupondefaultoftheparentsbutalsoforthelatters
inability to provide sufficient support. As we observed in
another case raising the ancillary issue of an ascendants
obligation to give support in light of the fathers sufficient
means:
Professor Pineda is of the view that grandchildren cannot
demand support directly from their grandparents if they have
parents (ascendants of nearest degree) who are capable of
supporting them.Thisissobecausewehavetofollowtheorderof
supportunderArt.199.Weagreewiththisview.
xxxx
Thereisnoshowingthatprivaterespondentiswithout means
to support his son; neither is there any evidence to prove that
petitioner, as the paternal grandmother, was willing to voluntarily
provide for her grandsons legal support. x x x18 (Emphasis
supplied;internalcitationsomitted)

Here, there is no question that Cheryl is unable to

discharge her obligation to provide sufficient legal support
toherchildren,thenallschoolbound.Itisalsoundisputed
that the amount of support Edward is able to give to
respondents, P6,000 a month, is insufficient to meet
respondents basic needs. This inability of Edward and
Cheryl to sufficiently provide for their children shifts a
portionoftheirobligationtotheascendantsinthenearest
degree, both in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal19
lines, following the ordering in Article 199. To hold
otherwise, and thus subscribe to petitioners theory, is to
sanction the anomalous scenario of tolerating extreme
material deprivation of children because of parental
inability to give adequate support even if ascendants one
degreeremovedaremorethanabletofillthevoid.
_______________

18Supranote10at448449.
19 Respondents no longer sought support from the childrens
maternal ascendants because at the time respondents filed their
complaint, they were living with, and received support from, Cheryls
mother.
700

700

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lim vs. Lim

However, petitioners partial concurrent obligation

extendsonlytotheirdescendantsasthiswordiscommonly
understoodtorefertorelatives,bybloodoflowerdegree.As
petitionersgrandchildrenbyblood,onlyrespondentsLester
Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III belong to this
category.Indeed,Cherylsrighttoreceivesupportfromthe
Lim family extends only to her husband Edward, arising
from their marital bond.20 Unfortunately, Cheryls share
fromtheamountofmonthlysupportthetrialcourtawarded
cannot be determined from the records. Thus, we are
constrained to remand the case to the trial court for this
limitedpurpose.21
Petitioners Precluded from Availing
of the Alternative Option Under
Article 204 of the Civil Code, as Amended
Asanalternativeproposition,petitionerswishtoavailof
theoptioninArticle204oftheCivilCode,asamended,and
pray that they be allowed to fulfill their obligation by
maintaining respondents at petitioners Makati residence.
Theoptionisunavailabletopetitioners.
TheapplicationofArticle204whichprovidesthat
Thepersonobligedtogivesupportshallhavetheoptiontofulfill
theobligationeitherbypayingtheallowancefixed,orbyreceiving
andmaintaininginthefamilydwellingthepersonwhohasaright
toreceivesupport.The latter alternative cannot be availed of
in case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto.(Emphasis
supplied)
_______________
20Thus,shouldtherulingofthetrialcourtinCivilCaseNo.991852
(declaring the nullity of Cheryl and Edwards marriage) be affirmed on
appeal, the mutual obligation to provide support between them ceases.
SeePelayo v. Lauron,12Phil.453,457(1908)(holdingthatinlaws are
strangerswithrespecttotheobligationthatrevolvesuponthe husband
toprovidesupporttohiswife).
21 After the trial courts determination, the Edward and petitioners
liability should be reckoned from the time the trial court rendered its
judgmenton31January1996.
701

VOL.604,OCTOBER30,2009

701

Lim vs. Lim

is subject to its exception clause. Here, the persons

entitled to receive support are petitioners grandchildren

and daughterinlaw. Granting petitioners the option in
Article204willsecuretothegrandchildrenawellprovided
future; however, it will also force Cheryl to return to the
housewhich,forher,isthesceneofherhusbandsinfidelity.
While not rising to the level of a legal obstacle, as indeed,
Cheryls charge against Edward for concubinage did not
prosperforinsufficientevidence,hersteadfastinsistenceon
itsoccurrenceamountstoamoralimpedimentbringingthe
casewithintheambitoftheexceptionclauseofArticle204,
precludingitsapplication.
WHEREFORE,weDENYthepetition.WeAFFIRMthe
DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,dated28April2003,and
its Resolution dated 12 April 2004 with the
MODIFICATIONthatpetitionersPrudencioandFilomena
LimareliabletoprovidesupportonlytorespondentsLester
Edward,CandiceGraceandMarianoIII,allsurnamedLim.
We REMAND the case to the Regional Trial Court of
MakatiCity,Branch140,forfurtherproceedingsconsistent
withthisruling.
SOORDERED.
Quisumbing,** ChicoNazario, Peralta and Abad,*** JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed with modification.
Note.Support must be demanded and the right to it
established before it becomes payable, for the right to
support does not arise from the mere fact of relationship,
evenfromtherelationshipofparentsandchildren,butfrom
imperativenecessitywithoutwhichitcannotbedemanded,
and the law presumes that such necessity does not exist
unless support is demanded. (Sy vs. Court of Appeals, 541
SCRA371[2007])
o0o
_______________
**DesignatedadditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.755.
***DesignatedadditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.753.

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.