1. Enforcement of Child Support Claims Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan Professor University of the Philippines

2. Definition Support as everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. (Article 194, Family Code)

3. Definition The education of the person entitled to be supported includes his schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. Transportation includes expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work. (Article 194, Family Code)

4. Characteristics Demandable from the time the person who has a right to receive the same needs it for maintenance. (Article 203, Family Code) Future support is not subject to compromise. (SC Rules on Legal Separation, 2003)

5. De Asis v CA (1999) The compromise agreement entered into by parents of the children for the dismissal of the complaint for support, which is in the nature of a compromise, can not be countenanced. The rationale behind the prohibition against waving the right to future support is the need to maintain one’s existence.

6. Amount of Support In proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient, and shall be reduced or increased proportionately, according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to furnish the same. (Article 201-202, Family Code)

7. Judgment for Support A judgment for support does not become final. The right to support is of such nature that its allowance is essentially provisional; It may be modified or altered, in accordance with his increased or decreased needs, and with the means of the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject to final determination.” Advincula v Advincula, No. L-19065 (1964)

8. Persons Responsible for Support The following are bound to support each other to the full extent: 1)The spouses; 2)Legitimate ascendants and descendants; 3)Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; 4)Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; and 5)Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.

9. Spouses Lim v Lim (2009) Although 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 lasts during the obligee's lifetime. While parental authority pertains to parents, passing to ascendants only upon its termination or suspension, the duty to provide legal support passes on to ascendants for the parents’ inability to provide sufficient support.

10. Gan v Reyes The Supreme Court upheld the immediate execution of an order granting support. Judgments in actions for support are immediately executory and cannot be stayed by an appeal.

11. Gan v Reyes One cannot delay the payment of such funds for support and education for the reason that if paid long afterwards, however much the accumulated amount, its payment cannot cure the evil and repair the damage caused. A child cannot compensate for years without sufficient food by gorging himself; neither can he complete all his years of missed education by studying everything at once

12. Dolina v Vallecera (2010) A claim for support may be included in an application for a protection order under R.A. 9262 (Anti-VAWC). Such support may be provided either directly by the person against whom such support is claimed, or the Court may order that the amount of the support be deducted from his salary and remitted directly from the employer to the claimant. Any claim for child support made under this Act must still be based on filiation. (Sec. 8(g), R.A. 9262)

13. International Recovery of Child Support When the person obliged to give support is not in the Philippines Filipino temporarily out of the country (such as an OFW) against whom a claim for support is filed The authority of a state over one of its citizens is not terminated by the mere fact of his absence from the state.

14. Montefalcon v Vasquez (2008) Claim for acknowledgement and support against respondent Vasquez Service of summons. SEC. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. ─ When any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient.

15. Person obliged to give support is not a resident of the Philippines Served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; or (4) when the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines.

16. Extraterritorial service of summons (1) by personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by publication and sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendants last known address, also with leave of court; or (3) by any other means the judge may consider sufficient

17. Recognition of Foreign Judgment A judgment in an action in personam rendered by a foreign tribunal clothed with jurisdiction is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment.

18. St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. v. Grand International Airways (2006) 1.Singapore court rendered a decision. 3.Granted leave to serve copy of Writ on Defendant by a method authorized by Phil law. 2. Sought leave of court to serve summons outside of Singapore. 4. Served upon respondent on his Phil office; received by secretary Thus, Jurisdiction acquired by Singapore Court.