Socorro v. Wilhem

NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, for and in behalf of her minor child RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM vs.
ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM
G.R. No. 193707 ; December 10, 2014
FACTS:
Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem contracted marriage in
Holland. They were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, who at the time of the filing
of the instant petition was sixteen (16) years of age.
Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court
of Holland. At that time, their son was only eighteen (18) months old. Thereafter, petitioner and her son
came home to the Philippines.
According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to provide monthly support to their son. However,
since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, respondent never gave support to the son.
Not long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and
since then, have been residing thereat. Respondent and his new wife established a business known as
Paree Catering. To date, all the parties, including their son, Roderigo, are presently living in Cebu City.
Petitioner, through her counsel, sent a letter demanding for support from respondent. However,
respondent refused to receive the letter.
RTC-Cebu issued a Hold Departure Order against respondent.
RTC-Cebu issued the herein assailed Order, dismissing the criminal case against respondent on the
ground that the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense with respect to the
respondent who is an alien.
Thereafter, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration thereto reiterating respondent’s obligation
to support their child under Article 195 of the Family Code, thus, failure to do so makes him liable under
R.A. No. 9262 which "equally applies to all persons in the Philippines who are obliged to support their
minor children regardless of the obligor’s nationality."
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified
failure to support his minor child.
2. Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law.
RULING:
1.
To determine whether or not a person is criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262, it is imperative that the
legal obligation to support exists.
Petitioner cannot rely on Article 195 of the New Civil Code in demanding support from respondent, who
is a foreign citizen, since Article 15 of the New Civil Code stresses the principle of nationality. In other
words, insofar as Philippine laws are concerned, specifically the provisions of the Family Code on
support, the same only applies to Filipino citizens. By analogy, the same principle applies to foreigners
such that they are governed by their national law with respect to family rights and duties.
The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Since the
respondent is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject to
the laws of his country, not to Philippine law.
2.
As to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do
so.
It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondent is not obliged to support petitioner’s son under
Article195 of the Family Code as a consequence of the Divorce Covenant obtained in Holland. This does
not, however, mean that respondent is not obliged to support petitioner’s son altogether.
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the
burden of proving the foreign law. In the present case, respondent hastily concludes that being a
national of the Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and capacity to
support. While respondent pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not
obliged to support his son, he never proved the same.
In view of respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of
processual presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly
pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or
internal law. Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not been
properly pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law,
which enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and penalizing the non-compliance
therewith.

Socorro v. Wilhem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socorro v. Wilhem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socorro v. Wilhem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, for and in behalf of her minor child RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM vs.

ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM

G.R. No. 193707 ; December 10, 2014

RTC-Cebu issued a Hold Departure Order against respondent.

You might also like