Del Socorro V Van Wilsem - Case Digest

G.R. No.
193707 December 10, 2014

CASE DIGEST: NORMA DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN VAN WILSEM
Facts of the case:

Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Val Wilsem
contracted marriage in Holland on September 25, 1990, and 4 years after their marriage, they
were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond
ended on July 19,1995 by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland.
Thereafter, the petitioner and her son came home to the Philippines.
According to Norma, Ernst made a promise to provide monthly support to their son.
However, since their arrival in the Philippines, the respondent never gave support to their son. Not
long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu City,
and resided there since then, which coincidentally it is where the petitioner also resides.
On August 28, 2009, petitioner sent a letter demanding support from respondent, but the
latter refused to receive the letter. Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner filed a
complaint against the 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 the petitioner.
Upon motion and after notice and hearing, the RTC-Cebu issued a Hold Departure Order
against the respondent, and was consequently arrested, but posted bail. Petitioner also filed a
Motion/Application of Permanent Protection Order but was dismissed because the facts charged
do not constitute an offense with respect to the accused, who is an alien.
Thereafter, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration thereto reiterating the obligation
to support their child under Article 195 of the Family Code, thus failure to do so makes him liable
under R.A. No. 9262 which “equally applies to all persons in the Philippines who are obliged to
support their minor children regardless of the obligor’s nationality.” The motion for reconsideration
was subsequently denied for lack of merit.
Hence, the petitioner filed for a petition for review on certiorari raising the following issues:
Issues:
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. 9262 for his
unjustified failure to support his minor child
Ruling:
The petition is granted.
In the present case, respondent hastily concluded that being a national of the Netherlands,
he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision and of capacity to support. Since the
petitioner invoked Article 195 of the Family Code in demanding support from the respondent, who
is a foreign citizen, the Court, however, agreed with the respondent’s contention since Article 15 of
the New Civil Code stresses the principle of nationality. 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. While
respondent pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not obliged to
support his son, he never proved the same.
Thus, 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,
CABUENA,2021
which enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and penalizes non-compliance
therewith. Accordingly, the respondent, who is a foreign national, has an obligation to support his
minor child under Philippine law because it would be of great injustice to the child to be denied
financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.
Furthermore, to determine whether or not a person is criminally liable under R.A. 9262, it is
imperative that the legal obligation to support exists. In taking cognizance of the case, the
Supreme Court recognizes that it presents a novel question of law concerning liability of a foreign
national who allegedly commits acts and omissions punishable under special criminal laws,
specifically in relation to family rights and duties. Despite Van Wilsem’s plea that the law of
Netherlands does not oblige him to support his son, the Court ruled that such obligation is still duly
enforceable in the Philippines, as justified in the provision of the third paragraph of the Article 17 of
the New Civil Code.

CABUENA,2021

Del Socorro V Van Wilsem - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Del Socorro V Van Wilsem - Case Digest

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 V Van Wilsem - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

193707 December 10, 2014

Facts of the case:

You might also like