You are on page 1of 3

H. G.R. NO. 205136, OLIVIA DA SILVA CERAFICA V.

COMELEC, DECEMBER 2, 2014

Facts:

On October 2012, Kimberly filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for


Councilor, City of Taguig for the 2013 Elections. Her COC stated that she was born
on 29 October 1992, or that she will be twenty (20) years of age on the day of the
elections, in contravention of the requirement that one must be at least twenty-
three (23) years of age on the day of the elections. As such, Kimberly was
summoned to a clarificatory hearing due to the age qualification. Instead of
attending the hearing, Kimberly opted to file a sworn Statement of Withdrawal of
COC. Simultaneously, Olivia filed her own COC as a substitute of Kimberly. The
COMELEC rendered a decision ordering the cancellation of Kimberlys COC, and the
denial of the substitution of Kimberly by Olivia.

COMELEC argued that Olivia cannot substitute Kimberly as the latter was
never an official candidate because she was not eligible for the post by reason of
her age, and that; moreover, the COC that Kimberly filed was invalid because it
contained a material misrepresentation relating to her eligibility for the office she
seeks to be elected to. Olivia countered that although Kimberly may not be qualified
to run for election because of her age, it cannot be denied that she still filed a valid
COC and was, thus, an official candidate who may be substituted. Olivia also
claimed that there was no ground to cancel or deny Kimberlys COC on the ground
of lack of qualification and material misrepresentation because she did not
misrepresent her birth date to qualify for the position of councilor, and as there was
no deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate, which is precisely why she
withdrew her COC upon learning that she was not qualified.

Issue:

Whether or not there is a valid substitution

Ruling:

The High Tribunal ruled in the affirmative. COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion in declaring that Kimberly, being under age, could not be considered to
have filed a valid COC and, thus, could not be validly substituted by Olivia. Firstly,
subject to its authority over nuisance candidates and its power to deny due course
to or cancel COCs under Sec. 78, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, the COMELEC has the
ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of COCs. The question of
eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper
cognizance of the COMELEC.

The next question then is whether Olivia complied with all of the
requirements for a valid substitution; The High Tribunal also answered in the
affirmative. First, there was a valid withdrawal of Kimberlys COC after the last day
for the filing of COCs; second, Olivia belongs to and is certified to by the same
political party to which Kimberly belongs; and third, Olivia filed her COC not later
than mid-day of election day.

I. G.R. NO. 193707, NORMA DEL SOCORRO V. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN
WILSEM, DECEMBER 10, 2014

Facts:

In this case, Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem were married in
Holland. They were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem.
Unfortunately, their marital bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the
appropriate Court of Holland. Thereafter, Socorro and her son came home to the
Philippines. According to Norma, Van Wilsem made a promise to provide monthly
support to their son. However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the
Philippines, Van Wilsem never gave support to their common son. Socorro filed a
complaint against Van Wilsem for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for the latters 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child
under Philippine law

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. Since Van Wilsem is a citizen of
Holland or the Netherlands, the 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 Van Wilsem is not obliged to support Socorros 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, Van Wilsem
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 Van Wilsem
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 Van Wilsem 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. In the light
of the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a parents
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.

You might also like