5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Now, on the matter of the substantive issues, We find the petition meritorious. Nonetheless, we do not fully agree with petitioner’s contentions. To determine whether or not a person is criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262, it is imperative that the legal obligation to support exists. Petitioner invokes Article 195[30] of the Family Code, which provides the parent’s obligation to support his child. Petitioner contends that notwithstanding the existence of a divorce decree issued in relation to Article 26 of the Family Code,[31] respondent is not excused from complying with his obligation to support his minor child with petitioner. On the other hand, respondent contends that there is no sufficient and clear basis presented by petitioner that she, as well as her minor son, are entitled to financial support.[32] Respondent also added that by reason of the Divorce Decree, he is not obligated to petitioner for any financial support.[33] On this point, we agree with respondent that petitioner cannot rely on Article 195[34] of the New Civil Code in demanding support from respondent, who is a foreign citizen, since Article 15[35] of the New Civil Code stresses the principle of nationality. In other words, insofar as Philippine laws are concerned, specifically the provisions of the Family Code on support, the same only applies to Filipino citizens. By analogy, the same principle applies to foreigners such that they are governed by their national law with respect to family rights and duties.[36] 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-Cebu 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.[37] In the case of Vivo v. Cloribel,[38] the Court held that – 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).[39] 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 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58780 5/13