Laws & Jurisprudence
Obligation Of A Foreign National To Support His Minor Child Under Philippine Law
1:29 AM
Petitioner
Norma and respondent Ernst Johan contracted marriage in Holland. They
were blessed with a son named Roderigo, who at the time of the filing
of the instant petition was sixteen (16) years of age.
Unfortunately,
their marriage bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the
appropriate Court of Holland. At that time, their son was only
eighteen (18) months old. Thereafter, petitioner and her son came
home to the Philippines.
According
to petitioner, respondent made a promise to provide monthly support to
their son in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty (250) Guildene (which is
equivalent to Php17,500.00 more or less). However, since the arrival
of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, respondent never gave
support to the son, Roderigo.
Not
long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in
Cebu City, and since then, have been residing thereat. Petitioner,
through her counsel, sent a letter demanding for support from
respondent. However, respondent refused to receive the letter.
Because
of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner filed a complaint
affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City against
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 petitioner. Thereafter, the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City
issued a Resolution recommending the filing of an information for the
crime charged against herein respondent with the RTC-Cebu.
The
RTC-Cebu issued the herein assailed Order, dismissing the instant
criminal case against respondent on the ground that the facts charged
in the information do not constitute an offense with respect to the
respondent who is an alien,
Thereafter,
petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration thereto reiterating
respondent’s 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
RTC-Cebu issued an Order denying petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration. Hence, the present Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Does
a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child
under our Philippine Law?
RULING:
A
foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child. 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 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.
It
cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondent is not obliged to
support petitioner’s son under Article 195 of the Family Code as a
consequence of the Divorce Covenant obtained in Holland. 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. In
the present case, respondent 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 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.
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 (either before, during or after the issuance of a
divorce decree). 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. 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, which enforces the obligation of parents to support
their children and penalizing 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 thereto.
G.R.
No. 193707, December 10, 2014
NORMA
A. DEL SOCORRO, for and in behalf of her minor child RODERIGO NORJO
VAN WILSEM,Petitioner, vs. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM,
Respondent.
PERALTA,
J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments