G.R. No. L-6706, 29 March 1953


Alfredo Javier Sr. and SaludArca had begotten a son before they got married, named Alfredo Jr. After the celebration of marriage, the father went to US since he was listed as US Navy. The mother and Alfredo Jr. went to live with her parents while the husband was in US. When the relationship between the spouses becomes strained, husband petitioned for divorce before State of Alabama. After the decree was issued, Alfredo Sr. subsequently married twice (having been divorced with the former before celebration of subsequent marriage).

An action for alimony was filed where respondent Judge ordered the father to give a monthly allowance of P60 to his wife and son. The father filed notice of appeal questioning the status of the wife; second, the fact that his son was over 21 years old making him no longer entitled to be supported and third, decision is vague and silent in relation to granting the son entitlement to support even if over 21 years old for purposes of completing his education/ training for some profession, trade or vocation. Nevertheless, the judge directed the father to pay the monthly pensions notwithstanding pendency of the appeal.


Whether or not Alfredo Jr. is entitled for support.


Under the new Civil Code, Article 290 support also includes the education of the person to be supported “until he complete his education or training for some profession, trade or vocation even beyond the age of majority” and on the basis of this article support was granted to Alfredo Javier Junior. Said the Court, “while it is true that plaintiff Alfredo Javier Junior, who was born on December 2, 1931, has reached the age of majority on December 2, 1952, yet, under the last part of article 290 of the new Civil Code, support may be given him even beyond the age of majority in order to enable him to complete his education, for some trade or profession.”

Unquestionably, Alfredo Javier, Jr. is the son of petitioner Alfredo Javier, and if financial assistance is to be rendered only at the termination of the appeal his education or the completion thereof, would be unduly delayed. That is good reason for immediate execution. Petitioner claims that according to the records Alfredo Javier Jr. “is no longer studying”. Yet probably he stopped going to school due to lack of means, since the petitioner himself admits that his son is just a pre-law graduate. It is mark worthy that the son has not forfeited his right to support.

* Case digest by Paula Bianca B. Eguia, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018