Norma A.

del Socorro vs Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem

G. R. No. 193707
December 10, 2014

Facts

Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem contracted marriage
in Holland on September 25, 1990. They were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem but
their marriage bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree. Thereafter, petitioner and her son came home to
the Philippines with a promise from her husband that he will provide monthly support to their son.
However, the respondent never gave said support. Not long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines
and remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then, have been residing thereat. To date, all the parties
are presently living in Cebu City. The petitioner, through her counsel, sent a letter demanding for support
from respondent but the respondent refused to receive it. Petitioner, then, filed a complaint-affidavit with
the Provincial Prosecutor. Respondent submitted his counter-affidavit. Upon motion and after notice and
hearing, the RTC issued a Hold Departure Order against respondent. Consequently, respondent was
arrested but posted bail. Subsequently, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction and prescription. The RTC issued the herein assailed Order, dismissing the instant criminal
case against respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration. The lower court
denied this motion.

Issue : Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine
law.

Held

We find the petition meritorious. Nonetheless, we do not fully agree with petitioner's contentions. We
agree with respondent that petitioner cannot rely on Article 195 of the New Civil Code in demanding
support from respondent, who is a foreign citizen. 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, 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. This does not, however, mean that respondent is not obliged to
support petitioner's son altogether. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those
which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective
by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
Based on the foregoing legal percepts, we find that respondent may be made liable under Section 5(e) and
(i) of RA No. 9262 (Anti-violence Against Woman and their Children) for unjustly refusing or failing to
give support to petitioner’s son.