Practice question
A parent unjustly refuses legally required support to a seventeen-year-old child. A third person furnishes necessary support and invokes Article2166. The parent argues reimbursement is impossible because the refusal, rather than mere ignorance, was established. Which is correct?
- Article2166 expressly addresses unjust refusal and may support reimbursement
- The parent’s refusal necessarily defeats reimbursement
- Only ignorance can ever create a quasi-contract
- The child must automatically reimburse instead of the parent
- Providing support necessarily makes the stranger a donor
Legal references
- Civil Code RA386: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Articles546,719–720,1236–1237,2166,2171–2173.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.