Shamille B.

Gigantone
JD-III

NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO vs ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM

G.r. No. 193707
December 10, 2014

I. Nature of the Case

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to
reverse and set aside the dismissal of the criminal case against respondent for
violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262.

II. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner Del Socorro and respondent Van Wilsem got married in Holland
sometime 1990 and were blessed with a son. Five years after they were separated by
a divorce decree issued by the Court of Holland. Thereafter, petitioner and her son
came home to the Philippines. Petitioner alleged that since their arrival, respondent
failed to fulfil his promise to give monthly support for their son. Thereafter, respondent
came to the Philippines, remarried and established a business with his new wife in
Cebu City. On August 28, 2009, petitioner demanded for the above mentioned promise
to support through a letter but the respondent refused to receive the same. Thus,
petitioner filed a complaint affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City against
respondent for violation of Section 5, paragraph E (2) of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s
unjust refusal to support his minor child with petitioner. Thereafter, a Resolution was
issued recommending the filing of an information at RTC-Cebu for the crime charged.

III. ISSUE/S RAISED FOR PETITION ON REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

1. Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his

minor child under Philippine law; and

2. 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.

IV. RULING OF RTC, CA, SUPREME COURT

RTC-Cebu dismissed the criminal case against respondent as well as the

motion for reconsideration on the ground that the facts charged in the
information do not constitute an offense with respect to the respondent who is
an alien who is not subject to the Philippine law.

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the petition directly lodged to it without
violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts as the case involves issues which raised
questions of law. Thus, the Supreme court ruled:
 The petition was meritorious but the petitioner's contentions is not fully
agreeable.

V. REASON
The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights
and duties. Thus, the respondent is subject to the laws of his country which does not
oblige him to support his son. However, although 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, mean that respondent is not
obliged to support petitioner’s son altogether. In the instant case, the respondent failed
to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favour. Thus, 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. 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.
The court resolved further that with regards to the second issue, the court has
jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262) because the foreigner is living here in the
Philippines and committed the offense here. Territoriality Principle under Article 14 of
the New Civil Code, which provides that: "penal laws and those of public security and
safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject
to the principle of public international law and to treaty stipulations." applies. The
alleged continuing acts of respondent in refusing to support his child with petitioner is
committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties herein are residents of the
Province of Cebu City. As such, the Philippine courts have territorial jurisdiction over
the offense charged against respondent.