Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem

Conflict of Laws TOPIC: Processual Presumption
G.R. NO. 193707

Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem DATE OF PROMULGATION: December 10, 2014
PONENTE: PERALTA, J.
FACTS
Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland. They were blessed with
a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a
Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland. Thereafter, Norma and her son came
home to the Philippines. According to Norma, Ernst made a promise to provide monthly support to
their son. However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave
support to Roderigo. Respondent remarried again a Filipina and resides again in the Philippines
particularly in Cebu where the petitioner also resides. Norma filed a complaint against Ernst for
violation of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s unjust refusal to support his minor child with petitioner. The
trial court dismissed the complaint since the facts charged in the information do not constitute an
offense with respect to the accused, he, being an alien.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under
Philippine law?
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?
RULING
1. No. 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, as to whether he is obliged
to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so.
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. It is incumbent upon respondent
to plead and prove that the national law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the
parents the obligation to support their child.
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.
2. Yes. Considering that respondent is currently living in the Philippines, we find strength in
petitioner’s claim that the Territoriality Principle in criminal law, in relation to Article 14 of
the New Civil Code, applies to the instant case, 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." On
this score, it is indisputable that 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, our courts have territorial
jurisdiction over the offense charged against respondent. It is likewise irrefutable that
jurisdiction over the respondent was acquired upon his arrest.
DOCTRINE
 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.
 Under the doctrine of processual presumption, 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.

Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict of Laws TOPIC: Processual Presumption

G.R. NO. 193707

You might also like