Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
517
518
519
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and
set aside the Orders1 dated February 19, 2010 and
September 1, 2010, respectively, of the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City (RTC-Cebu), which dismissed the
criminal case entitled People of the Philippines v. Ernst
Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, docketed as Criminal Case
No. CBU-85503, for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
The following facts are culled from the records:
Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst
Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem contracted marriage in
Holland on September 25, 1990.2 On January 19, 1994,
they were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van
Wilsem, who at the time of the filing of the instant petition
was sixteen (16) years of age.3
Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended on July 19,
1995 by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the
appropriate Court of Holland.4 At that time, their son was
only eighteen (18) months old.5 Thereafter, petitioner and
her son came home to the Philippines.6
_______________
520
_______________
521
Upon motion and after notice and hearing, the RTC-
Cebu issued a Hold Departure Order against respondent.16
Consequently, respondent was arrested and, subsequently,
posted bail.17
Petitioner also filed a Motion/Application of Permanent
Protection Order to which respondent filed his
Opposition.18 Pending the resolution thereof, respondent
was arraigned.19
Subsequently, without the RTC-Cebu having resolved
the application of the protection order, respondent filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of: (1) lack of jurisdiction
over the offense charged; and (2) prescription of the crime
charged.20
On February 19, 2010, the RTC-Cebu issued the herein
assailed Order,21 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, the dispositive part of
which states:
_______________
15 Id., at p. 22.
16 Id.
17 Id., at p. 24.
18 Id., at p. 8.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Supra note 7.
522
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
22 Id., at p. 24.
23 Art. 195. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the
following are obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in
the preceding article:
(1) The spouses;
(2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
(3) Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and
illegitimate children of the latter;
(4) Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and
illegitimate children of the latter; and
(5) Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.
24 Annex “R” to Petition, Rollo, p. 102.
25 Annex “B” to Petition, id., at p. 25.
523
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, Philippines, September 1, 2010.26
Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari
raising the following issues:
At the outset, let it be emphasized that We are taking
cognizance of the instant petition despite the fact that the
same was directly lodged with the Supreme Court,
consistent with the ruling in Republic v. Sunvar Realty
Development Corporation,28 which lays down the instances
when a ruling of the trial court may be brought on appeal
directly to the Supreme
_______________
26 Id.
27 Rollo, p. 10.
28 G.R. No. 194880, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 320.
524
Indeed, the issues submitted to us for resolution involve
questions of law — the response thereto concerns the
correct application of law and jurisprudence on a given set
of facts, i.e., whether or not a foreign national has an
obligation to
_______________
525
_______________
526
_______________
527
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.40 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.41 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.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
528
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.44 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 noncompliance therewith.
Moreover, while in Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera,45 the Court
held that a divorce obtained in a foreign land as well as its
legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in view of
the nationality principle on the matter of status of persons,
the Divorce Covenant presented by respondent does not
completely show that he is not liable to give support to his
son after the divorce decree was issued. Emphasis is placed
on petitioner’s allegation that under the second page of the
aforesaid covenant, respondent’s obligation to support his
child is specifically stated,46 which was not disputed by
respondent.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
529
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
530
Based on the foregoing legal precepts, we find that
respondent may be made liable under Section 5(e) and (i) of
R.A. No. 9262 for unjustly refusing or failing to give
support to petitioner’s son, to wit:
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
531
_______________
532
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
The act of denying support to a child under Section 5(e)
(2) and (i) of R.A. No. 9262 is a continuing offense,53 which
_______________
52 Rollo, p. 15.
53 In People v. De Leon, 608 Phil. 701, 722; 591 SCRA 178, 198 (2009),
it was held that:
533
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
534
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/18
6/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b5903551a120f1976003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18