Question X: On the obligation of brothers toward brothers and sisters, and conversely

First I say, that these owe one another support out of justice in extreme indigence.

So Azor. Tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 40. question 1. Fagund. lib. 4. cap. 16. For if they are bound to outsiders, much more to brothers and sisters.

In grave necessity also, when they have not wherewith to live according to their state, rich brothers are bound in either forum to provide support, and the Judge, when appealed to, is bound to bind them to it.

A poor sister by both parents a brother is bound in either forum to support and dower. It is the common opinion, as cited by Fagundez cap. 16.

Say the same of a sister by the same father, but a different mother; we have leg. cum plures, §. Cum tutor ff. de administr. tutorum, which excludes only uterine sisters, as Bartholomew notes there in the final §. It excludes, however, as to dowering according to her opulent state, unless she is heir of the mother's goods; they are bound, nevertheless, always to support her. So Barthol. loc. cit. and others, as cited by Fagundez num. 4. He is bound, however, always to dower her to the measure of support, namely, in place of a dowry, by setting aside what would have been expended on support.

So conversely rich sisters are bound to dower poor sisters, and brothers to support them together with them. It is clear from the rule of correlatives. So Barbosa Tom. 1. part. 4. leg. 1. ff. soluto matrim. Fagundez cap. 16. num. 14.

Clerics are bound also to support their parents, brothers, and sisters that are poor from the revenues of the Church. So many, as cited by Fagundez cap. 17. num. 1.

The reason is that the fruit of a benefice is for the uses of the poor, much more of one's own household. If in cap. Pervenit. the contrary seems to be said, understand it of rich kinsmen, to whom the fruits of the benefice are not to be communicated, but rather to outside paupers.

I say also that one may dower needy daughters or sisters from the fruits of a benefice, but is not bound to. See Fagundez num. 2.

The question here demands: whether sons who gravely squander their goods beyond the others are bound to bring them to the collation with their brothers, and to recall their own legitimate portion.

Indeed I have seen very many holding such to be at fault, and I judge them bound. So Navarr. summa, cap. 17. Sylvester under the word peculium, 2. question 9. Antonius Gomez ad leg. 29. Tauri; nevertheless Navarrus, with St. Antoninus 2. part. tit. 1. cap. 15. excepts unless the father while living forgave it; but this does not please me, because he is bound to bring to partition even those things which the father gave.