Related cases involving an action for support against a foreign spouse who filed an

action for annulment:

A foreign national has an obligation to give support as provided under the Philippine
laws

In the case of Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem1, the Supreme Court held that even if the laws
of the Netherlands neither enforce a parents obligation to support his child nor penalize
the noncompliance 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. Hence, a foreign national has an obligation to give support
as provided under the Philippine laws.

In support with the ruling in Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, the Supreme Court has held in
Bank of America, NT and SA v. American Realty Corporation2 that 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.

Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those
which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or
conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle imbedded in
our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action. Section 4, Rule 2
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is pertinent
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action,
the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others. 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.

An action for support during the pendency of annulment of marriage may be instituted

In the case of Lim-Lua v. Lua3, the Supreme Court granted and determined the amount
of support to be given to the petitioner and two children during the pendency of an
action for the declaration of nullity of marriage. Under Section 1 of A.M. No. 02-11-12-
SC, upon receipt of a verified petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage
or for annulment of voidable marriage, or for legal separation, and at any time during the
proceeding, the court, motu proprio or upon verified application of any of the parties,

1 G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014.

2 G.R. No. 133876, December 29, 1999.
3 G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 5, 2013.
guardian or designated custodian, may temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to
the rendition of judgment or final order.

Enforcement of Order Granting Support

An order granting a prayer for support against a foreign national who filed an action for
annulment may be enforced by a motion for execution since the court has already
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the said foreign national.

Related cases for the enforcement of an order of support against a foreign national who
filed an action for annulment of marriage:

In El Banco Espaol Filipino v. Palanca4, and Perkins v. Dizon5, it has been held that in
order that the court may validly try a case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject
matter and over the persons of the parties. Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties is
acquired by their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority, or
by the coercive power of legal process exerted over their persons.

In Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation6, the Supreme Court
pronounced that when the defendant or respondent does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, and the action involved is in personam, Philippine courts cannot try any
case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person
unless he voluntarily appears in court.

In the case of Calderon v. Roxas7, the Supreme Court has held that provisional
remedies like support pendent lite are writs and processes available during the
pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect
certain rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate
effects, of a final judgment in the case. They are provisional because they constitute
temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action, and they are ancillary
because they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the main
action. The subject orders on the matter of support pendente lite are but an incident to
the main action for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Considering that support pendente lite is merely ancillary to the main action for
declaration of nullity of marriage, when the foreign national instituted the action for
declaration of nullity of marriage, he has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court and the court properly acquired jurisdiction over his person. Hence, the order
granting the application for support may be enforced against him.

4 G.R. No. L-11390, March 26, 1918.

5 G.R. No. 46631, November 16, 1939.
6 G.R. No. 172242, August 14, 2007.
7 G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013.