Case Digest (G.R. No. 193707) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Norma A. Del Socorro, for and in behalf of her minor child Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, petitioner, vs. Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, respondent (G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014), petitioner and respondent solemnized their marriage in Holland on September 25, 1990, and were blessed with a son, Roderigo, on January 19, 1994. Their union was dissolved by a Dutch Divorce Decree dated July 19, 1995, after which petitioner and her then eighteen-month-old child repatriated to the Philippines. Respondent pledged to remit monthly child support in the amount of 250 Guilders (approximately ₱17,500) but failed to do so. He subsequently remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and established Paree Catering, also in Cebu City, where all parties now reside. On August 28, 2009, petitioner’s counsel sent a demand letter for support, which respondent refused to accept. Petitioner then filed a complaint-affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City, charging respondent with violation of S Case Digest (G.R. No. 193707) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Marriage and Family Background
- Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem married in Holland on September 25, 1990; their son, Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, was born January 19, 1994.
- A Dutch court granted them a divorce decree on July 19, 1995, when their son was 18 months old.
- Relocation and Support Arrangements
- After the divorce, petitioner and her son moved to the Philippines; respondent had promised to provide monthly support of 250 Guilders (≈ ₱17,500).
- Respondent never remitted any support; he relocated to Pinamungahan, Cebu, remarried, and established Paree Catering in Barangay Tajao.
- Demand and Criminal Proceedings
- On August 28, 2009, petitioner’s counsel sent a letter demanding support; respondent refused to receive it.
- Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the Cebu Provincial Prosecutor for violation of R.A. 9262 § 5(e)(2) (unjust refusal to support a minor).
- The prosecutor charged respondent before RTC-Cebu; a hold-departure order was issued, respondent was arrested and posted bail, and petitioner applied for a protection order.
- Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (as an alien) and prescription.
- Trial Court Disposition and Reconsideration
- On February 19, 2010, RTC-Cebu dismissed the case, holding that a foreigner is not bound by the Family Code’s support obligation.
- On September 1, 2010, RTC-Cebu denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, reiterating that Philippine law on spousal/parental support does not apply to aliens.
- Supreme Court Petition
- Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition raising purely questions of law: (a) Does a foreign national owe support to his minor child under Philippine law? (b) Can a foreign national be criminally liable under R.A. 9262 for failure to support?
- The Supreme Court took cognizance directly for reasons of judicial economy and because only questions of law were involved (cf. Republic v. Sunvar).
Issues:
- Whether a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law.
- Applicability of Article 195 of the Family Code to an alien parent.
- Whether a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for unjustified failure to support his minor child.
- Territoriality of Philippine penal laws and principle of nationality.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)