Presumed to be similar

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) |
March 4, 2015

Under the principle of nationality, Philippine laws apply only to Filipino citizens
especially with respect to family rights and duties. So it cannot be used against
foreigners who are likewise governed by their national laws. This is what Wilhelm
Andersen, a native of Holland, tried to invoke in his case.

While touring Cebu, Andersen met and fell in love with Delia, a Cebuana. After a
whirlwind courtship, they contracted marriage in Holland, Netherlands where they lived
as husband and wife and gave birth to a baby boy, Rodger.

Unfortunately, after only about five years, when Rodger was only 18 months old, their
marriage bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of
Holland. Thereafter, Delia and her son came home to the Philippines and resided in
Cebu. According to Delia, Andersen promised to give monthly support to their son in the
amount of P17,500, but since their arrival in the Philippines, he never gave said support.
Not long after Delia and her son returned to the Philippines, Andersen followed them.
But instead of living with Delia and their son Rodger, Andersen met and remarried
another Cebuana and established a catering business also in Cebu. But he still did not
provide support to Rodger.

Fourteen years later without any such support from Andersen yet, Delia already got a
lawyer who sent a letter of demand to Andersen. But the latter still refused.

So Delia already filed a complaint affidavit before the Cebu Provincial Prosecutor
against Andersen for violation of Section 5 (e) (2) of R.A. 9262 otherwise known as “Anti
Violence against Women and their Children Act” which considers “depriving or
threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support due her or her
family” as an act of violence against women and their children.

After preliminary investigation the Prosecutor charged Andersen before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of “willfully, unlawfully and deliberately depriving, refusing and still
continue to deprive his son of financial support legally due him.” Upon motion of Delia,
after due notice and hearing, the RTC issued a Hold Departure Order against Andersen.
Consequently, he was arrested and subsequently posted bail.

But subsequently on motion of Andersen, the RTC dismissed the criminal case since he
is a foreign national and therefore not subject to our national law particularly the Family
Code (FC, Article 195) in regard to a parent’s duty to give support to his child.
Consequently, the RTC said he cannot be charged of violating R.A. 9262 for his alleged
failure to support Rodger. Was the RTC correct?
According to the Supreme Court where the case was appealed via a petition for
certiorari of Delia on purely a question of law, the RTC is correct in ruling that Andersen
is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine Law (Art.195 FC) as to whether he
is obliged to support his child as well as the consequences of his failure to do so.

This does not mean however that Andersen is not obliged to support Rodger altogether.
Since he wanted to apply the national law of Netherlands in advancing his position he
should have properly pleaded and proven said law. But in this case he never proved the
same. And since 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 internal law which
enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and penalizes non-
compliance therewith. Besides, in the second page of the Divorce Covenant presented
by Andersen himself, his obligation to support his child is specifically stated.

Furthermore, even if the national law of Netherlands states that parents have no
obligation to support their children or that such obligation is not punishable by law, said
law shall not be applied here because it is contrary to the sound and well established
public policy of the Philippines as it would work great injustice to the child to be denied
of financial support. So Andersen may be held liable under Section 5 (e) and (i) R.A.
9262 for unjustly refusing to give support to Delia’s son (Del Socorro etc. vs. Van
Wilsem, G.R. 193707, December 10, 2014)