Case Summary (G.R. No. 193707)
Factual Background
After divorce in Holland, petitioner returned to the Philippines with their 18-month-old son. Respondent promised monthly support but never remitted payment. He later remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and established a catering business. On August 28, 2009, petitioner’s counsel formally demanded support; respondent refused to accept the letter. Petitioner then filed a complaint-affidavit for economic abuse under R.A. No. 9262 before the Cebu Provincial Prosecutor, leading to an information in RTC-Cebu for willful refusal to support a minor child.
Procedural History Before the RTC
RTC-Cebu Branch 20 issued a hold-departure order against respondent; he was arrested and posted bail. Petitioner sought a permanent protection order (PPO), which remained unresolved. Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over an alien and prescription. On February 19, 2010, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that Philippine support law (Family Code) did not bind a foreign national. The court denied reconsideration (September 1, 2010), holding no prima facie case against respondent under R.A. No. 9262.
Issues on Certiorari
- Whether a foreign national is obliged to support his minor child under Philippine law.
- Whether a foreign national may be criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for unjust refusal to support his child.
Direct Petition Under Rule 45
The Supreme Court exercised Rule 45 jurisdiction, noting only questions of law are involved. Citing Republic v. Sunvar and Malabanan, it confirmed that novel legal issues—here, the liability of a foreign national under a special criminal law—may be directly petitioned to the Supreme Court for efficiency and consistency.
Applicability of Philippine Family Law to Foreign Nationals
Petitioner relied on Family Code Art. 195 (parental support obligation). Respondent invoked New Civil Code Art. 15 (personal law principle), arguing that family rights and duties of foreigners are governed by their national law. The Court agreed that Philippine support provisions do not automatically bind aliens but noted that respondent never proved Dutch law exempted him from child-support obligations.
Pleading and Proving Foreign Law; Processual Presumption
Under Llorente v. CA and EDI-Staffbuilders, foreign law must be pleaded and proved. In its absence, Philippine courts presume foreign law mirrors domestic law. Respondent failed to discharge his burden to show Dutch law absolved him from support, warranting application of Philippine support standards.
Public Policy Exception to Foreign Law
Even if Dutch law did not impose support obligations, the Court invoked the public-policy doctrine (Bank of America v. American Realty): a foreign law contrary to fundamental justice or public order (e.g., denying support to a child) will not be applied. Justice to the child demands enforcement of support obligations.
Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Its Effects
Pursuant to Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera and San Luis v. San Luis, the foreign divorce dispenses with marital duties between spouses but does not nullify the parent’s duty to support the child. Respondent remains liable for child support despite the divorce decree.
Criminal Liability Under R.A. No. 9262 and Territorial Jurisdiction
Sectio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 193707)
Facts of the Case
- The parties, Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, were validly married in Holland on September 25, 1990.
- Their only child, Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, was born on January 19, 1994; he was eighteen months old when the couple’s marriage was dissolved by a Holland court’s Divorce Decree dated July 19, 1995.
- Petitioner and her son returned to the Philippines shortly after the divorce, while respondent remained in the Netherlands until he later came to Cebu, remarried in Pinamungahan, and established Paree Catering in Barangay Tajao.
- Respondent allegedly promised to send monthly support of 250 Guilders (approximately ₱17,500) for their son but never remitted any payments.
- On August 28, 2009, petitioner’s counsel sent a demand letter for support, which respondent refused to receive.
- Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City charging respondent with economic abuse under Section 5(e)(2) of R.A. No. 9262 for willfully depriving his minor child of legally due financial support.
- The Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause and filed information in RTC-Cebu, Branch 20, docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-85503, accusing respondent of continued refusal to support his then fourteen-year-old son.
Procedural History
- RTC-Cebu issued a Hold Departure Order; respondent was arrested and posted bail pending trial.
- Petitioner applied for a Permanent Protection Order; respondent opposed.
- Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over a foreign national and prescription of the crime.
- On February 19, 2010, RTC-Cebu granted the Motion to Dismiss, ruling that an alien is not subject to Philippine support laws, and canceled the bail bond.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration, invoking Article 1