The Supreme Court ruled that a foreign national residing in the Philippines can be held liable under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) for failing to provide financial support to his child, even if he is not a Filipino citizen. This decision underscores the principle that parental obligations to support children are enforceable within the Philippines, regardless of the parent’s nationality, particularly when the foreign law is not proven, or its application would result in injustice. The ruling emphasizes the welfare of the child and the state’s power to enforce support obligations on those residing within its territory.

When Nationalities Collide: Enforcing Child Support Across Borders

Norma Del Socorro, representing her minor child, Roderigo, sought legal recourse against Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, the child’s father, for failing to provide financial support. Norma and Ernst, a Dutch national, married in Holland and had a son before divorcing. Norma and her son relocated to the Philippines, where Ernst later remarried and established a business. Despite promises of support, Ernst allegedly failed to provide any, leading Norma to file a case under R.A. No. 9262. The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the case, reasoning that as a foreign national, Ernst was not subject to Philippine laws regarding parental support. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a foreign national could be held criminally liable under Philippine law for failing to support his child.

The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law. The court acknowledged that Article 15 of the New Civil Code generally dictates that family rights and duties are governed by the national law of the individual. Therefore, the Family Code provisions on support, which apply to Filipino citizens, do not automatically extend to foreigners. The court referenced the case of Vivo v. Cloribel, which supports the principle that family rights and duties are governed by the personal law of the individuals involved.

Furthermore, being still aliens, they are not in position to invoke the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines, for that Code cleaves to the principle that family rights and duties are governed by their personal law, i.e., the laws of the nation to which they belong even when staying in a foreign country (cf. Civil Code, Article 15).

However, the Court clarified that the absence of an obligation under Philippine law does not absolve a foreign national from all responsibility. The court invoked the doctrine of processual presumption. Since the respondent failed to present and prove Dutch law regarding parental obligations, Philippine law is presumed to be identical to the foreign law. This means the obligation to support a child is still enforceable. Moreover, the court emphasized that even if Dutch law did not mandate or penalize the failure to provide support, Philippine public policy considerations would override it.

Thus, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied.

The court further stated that foreign law should not be applied when it would result in injustice to citizens or residents of the Philippines. Preventing financial support to a child would be unjust. The court emphasized that Ernst’s presence in the Philippines and continuous refusal to provide support brings the case under Philippine jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of prescription, or the time limit for filing a case. The act of denying support is a continuing offense. This means that each instance of failing to provide support restarts the prescriptive period. Therefore, the court concluded the case had not prescribed.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the case, leading to a reversal of the lower court’s decision. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings to determine the merits of the case. This means the lower court will need to evaluate evidence to decide whether the respondent indeed failed to provide support.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a foreign national residing in the Philippines can be held liable under Philippine law for failing to support his child.
What is R.A. No. 9262?	R.A. No. 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, criminalizes acts of violence against women and children, including the deprivation of financial support.
Does the Family Code apply to foreigners?	Generally, the Family Code applies to Filipino citizens. However, in cases involving foreign nationals residing in the Philippines, the principle of processual presumption may apply if foreign law is not proven.
What is the principle of processual presumption?	The principle of processual presumption states that if foreign law is not properly pleaded and proven, Philippine courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as Philippine law.
Can a divorce decree excuse a parent from providing support?	A divorce decree obtained abroad does not automatically excuse a parent from providing support, especially if the foreign law on support is not proven or if Philippine public policy dictates otherwise.
What is a continuing offense?	A continuing offense is a crime that consists of a series of acts arising from one criminal resolution, such as the ongoing failure to provide financial support.
What does it mean to remand a case?	To remand a case means to send it back to a lower court for further proceedings or evaluation, typically with instructions on how to proceed.
What is the significance of the territoriality principle in this case?	The territoriality principle means that penal laws are obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to public international law and treaty stipulations, making the respondent subject to Philippine law while residing in the Philippines.

This landmark decision reinforces the Philippines’ commitment to protecting the rights and welfare of children within its jurisdiction, regardless of the nationality of their parents. It clarifies the extent to which foreign nationals can be held accountable under Philippine law for failing to fulfill their parental obligations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Norma A. Del Socorro v. Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014