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

Peralta, J.

Norma A. Del Socorro, for and on behalf of her minor child, Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, filed a case in violation of RA
9262 against Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem for the non-provision of financial support to their minor child.

FACTS:

 Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem contracted marriage on
September 25, 1990, in Holland and were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately,
their marriage ended and was granted by virtue of a divorce decree issued by the appropriate court in Holland.
During that time, their son was only 18 months old. Thereafter, the petitioner and her son came home to the
Philippines. According to the petitioner, the respondent made a promise to provide monthly support to their
child with an amount equivalent to Php17,500 more or less. However, since the arrival of both in the Philippines,
the respondent has never given support to his son, Roderigo.

ISSUE:

 Does a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine Law?
 Does a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support his
minor child?

RULING:

 YES. The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. While it is true
that Ernst is a citizen of Holand or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject to the laws of
his country, not the 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 he is not obliged to support their son. In
international Law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a case has a burden of proving the
foreign law. In this case, the respondent hastily concludes that being a national of Holand or the Netherlands, he
is governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and capacity to support. While the 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.
 In view of the respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of
processual presumption is governed. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law is not proved, our courts will
presume that the foreign law is the same as ours. Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the
obligation of support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the case, it is presumed to be the same as
the Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and penalizes non-
compliance with it.
 YES. A violation in sections 5(e) and (i) of R.A. 9262, which summarizes that deprivation or denial of financial
support to the child is considered an act of violence against women and children, since the respondent is living
in the Philippines, he is governed by the territoriality principle in criminal law in relation to Article 14 of the New
Civil Code, which applies to this case and provides that: "Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall
be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principle of public
international law and to treaty stipulations." The respondent's continuing acts of refusing to support his minor
child with the petitioner are committed here in the Philippines since both parties are residents of the Province of
Cebu City.