Scribd
Upload
58 views2 pages

Lim V Lim

- Petitioners were the grandparents of Cheryl's 3 children from her marriage to Edward, petitioners' son. Cheryl sued for child support after leaving the marital home due to Edward's infidelity. The trial court ordered Edward and petitioners to pay monthly support. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that while petitioners were liable to provide support as grandparents, their obligation was only to their grandchildren, and only if the parents (Edward and Cheryl) could not sufficiently provide support. Since Edward could only pay ₱6,000 monthly, which was insufficient, petitioners were liable to make up the difference to meet their grandchildren's basic needs.

Uploaded by

rianquisell
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
58 views2 pages

Lim V Lim

- Petitioners were the grandparents of Cheryl's 3 children from her marriage to Edward, petitioners' son. Cheryl sued for child support after leaving the marital home due to Edward's infidelity. The trial court ordered Edward and petitioners to pay monthly support. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that while petitioners were liable to provide support as grandparents, their obligation was only to their grandchildren, and only if the parents (Edward and Cheryl) could not sufficiently provide support. Since Edward could only pay ₱6,000 monthly, which was insufficient, petitioners were liable to make up the difference to meet their grandchildren's basic needs.

Uploaded by

rianquisell
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

Lim v. Lim, G.R. No.

163209, 30 October 2009, 604 SCRA 691


FACTS
- Respondent Cheryl married Edward, son of petitioners.
- They had 3 children and resided at the house of petitioners together with
Edward’s grandparents.
- Edward’s family business which provided him a monthly salary shouldered the
family expenses. Which Cheryl had no steady source of income.
- Few years later, respondent abandoned the residence, bring with her their
children after a violent confrontation with Edward whom she caught having an
affair.
- Respondent sued petitioners, Edward, Chua and Mariano in the RTC for support.
RTC
- Ordered Edward and petitioners to provide monthly support to respondents
- They sought reconsideration questioning their liability.
o Denied
o Held petitioners and Chua jointly liable with Edward
- Filed an appeal before the CA arguing that Edward’s income is insufficient, the
law itself sanctions its effects by providing that legal support should be "in
keeping with the financial capacity of the family"
CA
- Affirmed trial court
- The law on support under Article 195 of the Family Code is clear on this matter.
Parents and their legitimate children are obliged to mutually support one another
and this obligation extends down to the legitimate grandchildren and great
grandchildren.
- Article 200 paragraph (3) of the Family Code clearly provides that should the
person obliged to give support does not have sufficient means to satisfy all
claims, the other persons enumerated in Article 199 in its order shall
provide the necessary support.
o because the closer the relationship of the relatives, the stronger the tie
that binds them.
ISSUE
- whether petitioners are concurrently liable with Edward to provide support to
respondents.
RULING
- Affirmed
o modify the appealed judgment by limiting petitioners’ liability to the
amount of monthly support needed by respondents
- Petitioners Liable to Provide Support but only to their Grandchildren

- At the time respondents sued for support, Cheryl and Edward exercised
parental authority over their children, petitioners submit that the obligation
to support the latter’s offspring ends with them.
o 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 obligee's
lifetime.
- grandchildren cannot demand support directly from their grandparents if they
have parents who are capable of supporting them. This is so because we
have to follow the order of support under Art. 199.

- Cheryl is unable to discharge her obligation to provide sufficient legal support


to her children, then all school-bound.
o also undisputed that the amount of support Edward is able to give to
respondents, ₱6,000 a month, is insufficient to meet respondents’ basic
needs.
- This inability of Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently provide for their children
shifts a portion of their obligation to the ascendants in the nearest degree,
both in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal lines, following the ordering in
Article 199.
o persons entitled to receive support are petitioners grandchildren – by
blood
o Cheryl’s share from the amount of monthly support the trial court awarded
cannot be determined from the records.

You might also like