In re: Petition for Adoption of Jan Aurel Maghanoy Bulayo

An illegitimate child of the Filipino spouse is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree under Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552, so the alien spouse may jointly adopt the child with the Filipino spouse and is exempt from the residency and certification requirements. Courts may take judicial notice of the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan as an official act of the Executive Department and a matter of public knowledge.

Mary Jane B. Kimura is a Filipino national married to Yuichiro Kimura, a Japanese national, while Jan Aurel Maghanoy Bulayo is Mary Jane's illegitimate son by Jun Baldoza. The governing statute is Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552, the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, which waives the residency and certification requirements for an alien who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, or who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with the Filipino spouse such a relative. The dispute turns on whether an illegitimate child falls within that fourth-degree relative clause.

Mary Jane B. Kimura, a Filipino national, gave birth to Jan Aurel Maghanoy Bulayo on November 24, 1997. Mary Jane was not married to Jan Aurel's biological father, Jun Baldoza, making Jan Aurel her illegitimate child. Her last communication with the minor's father was when she was four months pregnant with Jan Aurel, and from then on she had no knowledge of his whereabouts. On June 12, 2004, Mary Jane married Yuichiro Kimura, a Japanese national.

On March 15, 2009, the spouses filed a joint petition for adoption of Jan Aurel, seeking among others to have him declared as their legitimate son and to enjoy the rights and observe the duties of an adopted child under the law. During trial, the petitioners presented the Department of Social Welfare and Development Minor's Case Study and Home Study Report, which recommended approval of the petition. They also presented documents to show that they possessed full civil capacity and legal rights to adopt, good moral character, no conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, and emotional and psychological capacity to care for children: (1) the marriage contract of the petitioners; (2) Yuichiro's permanent registration in Japan; (3) medical certificates issued to the petitioners; (4) neuro-psychological reports for the petitioners; (5) certificates of attendance in adoption orientation conducted by the DSWD; (6) NBI clearances issued to the petitioners; (7) police clearances of the petitioners; (8) Prosecutor's clearances issued to the petitioners; (9) court clearances of the petitioners; (10) Yuichiro's income tax return; and (11) Yuichiro's certificate of employment.

The petition indicated the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan, but the petitioners did not prove this during trial because they asserted that the existence of such diplomatic relations was within the judicial notice of the courts. The RTC found that Jan Aurel was the illegitimate child of Mary Jane.

• Fourth-Degree Relative: Petitioners argued that they were exempt from the residency and certification requirements because Jan Aurel was a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree of Mary Jane, and that Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552 necessarily includes all relatives, legitimate or illegitimate, within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity.
• Illegitimate Child as First-Degree Relative: Petitioners maintained that an illegitimate child is a relative within the first degree of consanguinity of the biological mother or father, and that excluding an illegitimate child from Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) would make it easier for an alien spouse to jointly adopt the Filipino spouse's cousin, nephew, or niece than the Filipino spouse's own biological child.
• Judicial Notice: Petitioners asserted that the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan was within the judicial notice of the courts, so they did not prove it during trial despite indicating it in the petition.

• Illegitimate Child Under Section 7(b)(i) and (iii): Whether an illegitimate child is within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity in the contemplation of Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552.
• Illegitimate Child Under Section 7(b)(ii): Whether an illegitimate child is contemplated in Section 7(b)(ii) of R.A. No. 8552.
• Judicial Notice of Diplomatic Relations: Whether the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan is within the judicial notice of the courts.

• Illegitimate Child Under Section 7(b)(i) and (iii): Yes. An illegitimate child is a relative within the first civil degree of consanguinity of the biological mother; Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) cover legitimate and illegitimate relatives within the fourth civil degree.
• Illegitimate Child Under Section 7(b)(ii): No. Section 7(b)(ii) refers to the legitimate son/daughter of the Filipino spouse; the illegitimate child is not contemplated under that clause but under Section 7(b)(i) and (iii).
• Judicial Notice of Diplomatic Relations: Yes. Courts may take judicial notice of the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 129, as official acts of the Executive Department and matters of public knowledge.

• Illegitimate Child Under Section 7(b)(i) and (iii): The SC interpreted "relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" in Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552. A relative is a kinsman or a person connected with another by blood or affinity. Under Articles 963 to 966 of the Civil Code, proximity of relationship is determined by the number of generations; each generation forms a degree; the direct line is the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants; and in the direct line the child is one degree removed from the parent. An illegitimate child is therefore a relative within the first civil degree of consanguinity of the biological mother; unlike a nephew or niece, the illegitimate child belongs to the direct maternal lineage, which is never uncertain and is not as remote. The word "child" in Article 966 is general and without qualification because the provision contemplates blood relation, not status. When the law does not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate relatives, the interpreter must not distinguish: ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus. The legislative deliberations on Senate Bill No. 1523 confirmed the intent to cover relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree; the Gonzales amendment added "or affinity within the fourth civil degree" to expand coverage, consistent with Section 2 of R.A. No. 8552's policy to ensure that every child remains under the care and custody of his/her parent(s) and is provided love, care, understanding, and security. The SC thus held that R.A. No. 8552 intended to include Jan Aurel, Mary Jane's biological child, as a "relative" under Section 7(b)(iii) because he was her relative within the first civil degree. Otherwise, the alien adopter could adopt the Filipina spouse's nephew or niece instead of the Filipino spouse's own child. The OSG joined the petitioners' position.
• Illegitimate Child Under Section 7(b)(ii): The SC noted that Section 7(b)(ii) is the provision applicable to one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the Filipino spouse. Congress expressly used the term "legitimate" in Section 7(b)(ii) to describe the children contemplated by that clause. The presence of that express qualification in Section 7(b)(ii), contrasted with its absence in Section 7(b)(i) and (iii), showed that the latter clauses cover both legitimate and illegitimate relatives within the fourth civil degree. Thus, an illegitimate child is not contemplated under Section 7(b)(ii) but under Section 7(b)(i) and (iii).
• Judicial Notice of Diplomatic Relations: Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court govern judicial notice. Section 1 makes judicial notice mandatory of, among others, the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government, the law of nations, and the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines. Section 2 allows discretionary judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. The SC held that courts are bound to take judicial notice of the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan under both sections. Diplomatic relations form part of the official acts of the Executive Department and are matters of public knowledge. The SC noted that the Philippines and Japan have had a long history of diplomatic relations: in 1888 Japan established a diplomatic office in Manila, expanded it as a Consulate General in 1919, and declared it an embassy in 1943 during the Japanese occupation; both countries are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, indicating their aim to have diplomatic missions and promote friendly relations. These efforts no longer required proof of the existence of diplomatic relations.

• Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus — Where the law does not distinguish, neither must the interpreter. The SC applied this to Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552 because those clauses do not qualify "relatives" as legitimate or illegitimate, so both are included.
• Relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree — Under Articles 963 to 966 of the Civil Code, relationship is measured by generations; each generation is a degree; the direct line runs among ascendants and descendants; a child is one degree from the parent. The SC applied this to hold that an illegitimate child is a first-degree relative of the biological mother and falls within the fourth-degree relative clause.
• Legislative intent from deliberations — The SC used the Senate deliberations on Senate Bill No. 1523 to confirm that the exception covers relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree. The Gonzales amendment added affinity to expand coverage, consistent with the State policy in Section 2 of R.A. No. 8552.
• Judicial notice of diplomatic relations — Under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, courts take judicial notice of diplomatic relations as official acts of the Executive Department and matters of public knowledge. The SC applied this to the Philippines-Japan relations, so no proof was needed.
• Alien adoption exemption — Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552 waives the residency and certification requirements for an alien who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, or who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with the Filipino spouse such a relative. The SC applied this to allow Yuichiro to adopt Jan Aurel jointly with Mary Jane.

• "When the provision does not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate relatives, we, too, must not. Let us adhere to the Latin maxim that declares: ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguera debemus (where the law does not distinguish, nor the interpreter must distinguish)." — The SC used this to reject the RTC's exclusion of an illegitimate child from the fourth-degree relative clause.
• "R.A. No. 8552 undoubtedly intended to include Jan Aurel, the biological child of Mary Jane, in the term "relatives" under Section 7(b)(iii) because he was her relative within the first civil degree." — This is the SC's direct application of the statutory clause to the adoptee.
• "The courts of the Philippines are bound to take judicial notice of the existence of the diplomatic relations between our country and Japan pursuant to both Section 1 and Section 2, supra." — The SC held that no proof of diplomatic relations was required.
• "Diplomatic relations form part of the official acts of the Executive Department of our Government. They are also matters of public knowledge." — This supplies the basis for judicial notice under Rule 129.

• Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49542, September 12, 1980, 100 SCRA 73, 89 — Cited in support of the statement that the direct maternal lineage is never uncertain.
• Minucher vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003, 397 SCRA 244, 254-255 — Cited in support of the discussion on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the diplomatic missions between states.

• Section 7(b)(i) and (iii), Republic Act No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) — Waives the residency and certification requirements for an alien who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, or who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with the Filipino spouse such a relative; applied to include the illegitimate child of the Filipino spouse.
• Section 7(b)(ii), Republic Act No. 8552 — Refers to the legitimate son/daughter of the Filipino spouse; the SC contrasted its express "legitimate" qualification with the unqualified clauses in Section 7(b)(i) and (iii).
• Articles 963 to 966, Civil Code — Define relationship, proximity, and degrees; applied to hold that an illegitimate child is a first-degree relative of the biological mother.
• Section 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court — Mandatory judicial notice of, among others, the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government, the law of nations, and official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments; applied to diplomatic relations as official acts of the Executive Department.
• Section 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court — Discretionary judicial notice of matters of public knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration; applied to the Philippines-Japan diplomatic relations.
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 8552 — Declares the State policy to ensure that every child remains under the care and custody of his/her parent(s) and is provided love, care, understanding, and security; cited to support the expanded coverage of the fourth-degree relative clause.