SUSAN LIM-LUA V.

DANILO LUA
G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 5, 2013

FACTS: Susan Lim-Lua filed a petition against Danilo Lua for a

declaration of nullity of marriage with a prayer for support pendente
lite for herself and her two children amounting to P500,000.00 per
month. Citing respondent’s huge earnings from salaries and
dividends in several companies and businesses here and abroad.

After due hearing, RTC cited Art. 203 of the Family Code, stating that
support is demandable from the time plaintiff needed the said
support but is payable only from the date of judicial demand, and
thus also granted support pendente lite of P250,000.00.

The husband filed for Motion for Reconsideration asserting that

petitioner is not entitled to spousal support considering that she does
not maintain for herself a separate dwelling from their children and
respondent has continued to support the family for their sustenance
and well- being in accordance with family’s social and
financial standing.

The husband also assert that the P250,000 monthly support and the
1,750,000.00 retroactive support is unconscionable and beyond the
intendment of the law for not having considered the needs of the
respondent

MR denied thus he appealed to the CA wherein it reduced the

monthly support to P115,000.00 which ruling was no longer
questioned by both parties.

The controversy between the parties resurfaced when respondent’s

compliance with the final CA decision indicated that he deducted
from the total amount in arrears (P2,645,000.00) the sum
of P2,482,348.16, representing the value of the two cars for the
children, their cost of maintenance and advances are given to the
petitioner and his children.

CA ruled in favor of the husband that the expenses incurred by the

husband be considered advances which may be properly deducted
from the support in arrears due to the petitioner and the two
children.

Thus ordered the deduction of the amount of PhP3,428,813.80 from

the current total support in arrears of Danilo to his wife, Susan Lim
Lua and their two children.

ISSUE:

Whether certain expenses already incurred by the respondent may

be deducted from the total support in arrears owing to the petitioner
and her children.

RULING.

The SC partly granted CA’s decision. First, is to resume payment of

his monthly support of PhP115,000.00 pesos starting from the time
payment of this amount was deferred by him. Second, that only the
amount of Php 648,102.29 may be allowed as deductions from the
accrued support pendente lite for petitioner and her children and
not PhP3,428,813.80 (rendered by the CA).
 Republic vs Daisy Yahon
G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014

Facts: Sgt Yahon was married to respondent. A TPO has been issued
against Sgt Yahon to protect the respondent from further abuses. In
the TPO, Sgt Yahon was ordered to provide reasonable financial
spousal support to the respondent. In his failure to appear before the
court with a counsel and with an answer to the charges against him,
the court has granted PPO for the respondent against Sgt Yahon. It
was also reiterated that Sgt Yahon should provide for the financial
spousal support to his wife from his retirement benefits. However, the
Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center contended that half
of the retirement benefits of Sgt Yahon cannot be given to the
respondent as it is from a military institution. The petitioner
contended that money due to government employees is not liable to
the creditors of the said employees in the process of garnishment.

Issue: Whether or not the retirement benefits of Sgt Yahon be

subject to the ruling of the court to provide for the financial spousal
support of respondent.

Held: Retirement benefits of Sgt Yahon are subject to the financial

spousal support of respondent. As a rule in statutory construction,
when the law does not distinguish, the court should not distinguish.
As section 8 (g) of RA No. 9262 used the general term 'employer', it
includes in its coverage the military institution, which is the employer
of Sgt Yahon.
 SALAS vs MATUSALEM
G.R. No. 180284, September 11, 2013

FACTS: On May 26, 1995, Annabelle Matusalem filed a complaint

for Support/Damages against Narciso Salas in the Regional Trial
Court of Cabanatuan City. Respondent claimed that petitioner is the
father of her son Christian Paulo Salas. Petitioner, already 56 years
old at the time, enticed her as she was then only 24 years old, making
her believe that he is a widower. Petitioner rented an apartment
where respondent stayed and shouldered all expenses in the delivery
of their child, including the cost of caesarian operation and hospital
confinement. However, when respondent refused the offer of
petitioner’s family to take the child from her, petitioner abandoned
respondent and her child and left them to the mercy of relatives and
friends. Respondent further alleged that she attempted suicide due to
depression but still petitioner refused to support her and their child.
The testimonial evidence of the owner of the apartment where
petitioner allegedly housed respondent when she was pregnant was
one of the basis for respondent’s claim for support. The RTC ruled in
favour of respondent to which the CA affirmed on appeal.

ISSUE: Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in ruling that
respondent’s evidence sufficiently proved that her son Christian Paulo
is the illegitimate child of petitioner.

RULING: Respondent presented the Certificate of Live Birth of

Christian Paulo Salas in which the name of petitioner appears as his
father but which is not signed by him. Admittedly, it was only
respondent who filled up the entries and signed the said document
though she claims it was petitioner who supplied the information she
wrote therein.

A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is

not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that
the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the certificate.
Thus, if the father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing of
his name by the mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is
incompetent evidence of paternity. Neither can such birth certificate
be taken as a recognition in a public instrument and it has no
probative value to establish filiation to the alleged father.
As to the Baptismal Certificate of Christian Paulo Salas also indicating
petitioner as the father, we have ruled that while baptismal
certificates may be considered public documents, they can only serve
as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates so
specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence of the veracity
of entries therein with respect to the child’s paternity.

The rest of respondent’s documentary evidence consists of

handwritten notes and letters, hospital bill and photographs taken of
petitioner and respondent inside their rented apartment unit.
Pictures taken of the mother and her child together with the alleged
father are inconclusive evidence to prove paternity. Showing
petitioner and respondent inside the rented apartment unit thus have
scant evidentiary value. The Statement of Account from the Good
Samaritan General Hospital where respondent herself was indicated
as the payee is likewise incompetent to prove that petitioner is the
father of her child notwithstanding petitioner’s admission in his
answer that he shouldered the expenses in the delivery of
respondent’s child as an act of charity.

As to the handwritten notes of petitioner and respondent showing

their exchange of affectionate words and romantic trysts, these, too,
are not sufficient to establish Christian Paulo’s filiation to petitioner
as they were not signed by petitioner and contained no statement of
admission by petitioner that he is the father of said child. Thus, even
if these notes were authentic, they do not qualify under Article 172 (2)
vis-à- vis Article 175 of the Family Code which admits as competent
evidence of illegitimate filiation an admission of filiation in a private
handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned.
 NORMA DEL SOCORRO V. WILSEM CASE DIGEST
G.R. No. 193707 December 10, 2014

FACTS: Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted

marriage in Holland. They were blessed with a son named Roderigo
Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended 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 her
son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave support to
Roderigo.Respondent remarried again a Filipina and resides again
the Philippines particulary in Cebu where the petitioner also
resides. 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. Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor

child under the Philippine law?
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. YES. While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a citizen of Holland

or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC 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. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a
law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the
fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. 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 thereto.

2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262) because
the foreigner is living here in the Philippines and committed the
offense here.