Scribd
Upload
72 views3 pages

1 NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, For and in Behalf of Her Minor Child RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM vs. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014

Norma Del Socorro filed a complaint against Ernst Van Wilsem for unjust refusal to support their minor child, citing R.A. No. 9262. Ernst argued he was not obligated under Philippine or Dutch law. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) while Dutch law governs Ernst's obligations, he failed to prove it does not require parental support, and foreign law must be proven in Philippine courts; and (2) the court has jurisdiction over the offense under R.A. No. 9262 since Ernst lives in the Philippines and committed the offense here. The case was remanded to the regional trial court for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

Norbert Diaz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views3 pages

1 NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, For and in Behalf of Her Minor Child RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM vs. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014

Norma Del Socorro filed a complaint against Ernst Van Wilsem for unjust refusal to support their minor child, citing R.A. No. 9262. Ernst argued he was not obligated under Philippine or Dutch law. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) while Dutch law governs Ernst's obligations, he failed to prove it does not require parental support, and foreign law must be proven in Philippine courts; and (2) the court has jurisdiction over the offense under R.A. No. 9262 since Ernst lives in the Philippines and committed the offense here. The case was remanded to the regional trial court for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

Norbert Diaz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

DEL SOCORRO v WILSEM

G.R. No. 193707, December 10 2014


PERALTA, J

FACTS:

Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsen contracted
marriage in Holland on September 25, 1990. 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, 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 son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave support to his son. Not long
thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in
Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then have been residing thereat. 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.

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. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support his
minor child.

RULING:

1. While it is true that respondent Ernst 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 Ernst is not obliged to support
Norma’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. In the present case, Ernst hastily
concludes that being a national of the Netherlands, he is governed
by such laws on the matter of provision of and capacity to support.
While Ernst pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his
position that he is not obliged to support his son, HE NEVER
PROVED THE SAME. It is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove
that the national law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the
parents the obligation to support their child.

Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our


courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any
other fact, they must be alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law
should not be applied when its application would work undeniable
injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.

Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither


enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize the
non-compliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable
in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child
to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled there
to.

2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A. No. 9262)
because the foreigner is living here in the Philippines and
committed the offense here.
The SC hereby remanded the determination of this
issue to the RTC-Cebu which has jurisdiction over the
case.The petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated
February 19, 2010 and September 1, 2010,
respectively, of the Regional Trial Court of the City of
Cebu are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
case is REMANDED to the same court to conduct
further proceedings based on the merits of the case.

You might also like