FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 205752. October 1, 2019.]

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF JAN AUREL MAGHANOY

BULAYO WITH APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF ADOPTEE
FROM "JAN AUREL MAGHANOY BULAYO" TO "JAN AUREL BULAYO
KIMURA",

SPOUSES MARY JANE B. KIMURA and YUICHIRO KIMURA , petitioners.

DECISION

BERSAMIN , C.J : p

The petitioners implore us to determine whether or not the illegitimate child of

the spouse of an adopting alien falls within the ambit of the clause "relative by
consanguinity or a nity within the fourth civil degree" contained in Section 7 (b) (i) and
(iii), Article III, of Republic Act No. 8552, otherwise known as the Domestic Adoption
Act of 1998, which pertinently provides:
SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. — The following may adopt:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Any alien possessing the same quali cations as above stated for
Filipino nationals: Provided, That his/her country has diplomatic relations with
the Republic of the Philippines, that he/she has been living in the Philippines for
at least three (3) continuous years prior to the ling of the application for
adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that
he/she has been certi ed by his/her diplomatic or consular o ce or any
appropriate government agency that he/she has the legal capacity to adopt in
his/her country, and that his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her
country as his/her adopted son/daughter: Provided, further, That the
requirements on residency and certi cation of the alien's quali cation
to adopt in his/her country may be waived for the following:
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the
fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity ; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her
Filipino spouse; or
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to
adopt jointly with his/her spouse a relative within the fourth (4th)
degree of consanguinity or a nity of the Filipino spouses ; x x x. (Bold
underscoring supplied for emphasis)
The Case
This appeal seeks to reverse and undo the judgment and order by the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, in Davao City on February 14, 2012 1 and January 22, 2013,
2 respectively, dismissing their petition for the adoption of the minor Jan Aurel

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 Maghanoy Bulayo (Jan Aurel) in SP. Proc. No. 10, 718-2010, and denying their motion
for reconsideration.
Antecedents
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Spouses Mary Jane B. Kimura, a Filipino national, and Yuichiro Kimura, a
Japanese national, got married on June 12, 2004.
Prior thereto, petitioner Mary Jane gave birth to her son Jan Aurel on
November 24, 1997. However, she was not married to her son's biological father,
Jun Baldoza, thus making Jan Aurel her illegitimate child. Her last
communication with the minor's father was when she was four (4) months
pregnant with [Jan Aurel]. From then on, she has no knowledge of his
whereabouts.
On March 15, 2009, petitioners led a joint petition for adoption of Jan
Aurel seeking, among others, to have him declared as their legitimate son,
enjoying the rights and observing the duties of an adopted child as provided by
law.
During trial, petitioners presented the Department of Social Welfare and
Development Minor's Case Study and Home Study Report which recommended
approval of said petition.
Likewise, petitioners presented the following documents to show that
they are in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights to adopt, of good
moral character, have not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude,
and emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, x x x. 3
Speci cally, the petitioners presented the following documents to support their
petition for adoption, namely; (1) the marriage contract of the petitioners; (2) the
permanent registration in Japan of petitioner Yuichiro Kimura (Yuichiro); (3) the medical
certi cates issued to the petitioners; (4) the neuro-psychological reports for the
petitioners; (5) the certi cates of attendance in adoption orientation conducted by
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD); (6) the NBI clearances issued
to the petitioners; (7) the police clearances of the petitioners; (8) the Prosecutor's
clearances issued to the petitioners; (9) the court clearances of the petitioners; (10) the
income tax return of Yuichiro; (11) the certificate of employment Yuichiro.
Nonetheless, on February 14, 2012, the RTC denied the petition for adoption
because Yuichiro, being a Japanese citizen, did not comply with the requirements laid
down under Section 7 of R.A. No. 8552 and Section 7 of Administrative Matter No. 02-
6-02-SC. 4 The RTC observed that Yuichiro was not exempt from the residency and
certi cation requirements under Section 7 (b) of R.A. No. 8552 because Jan Aurel was
the illegitimate child of co-petitioner Mary Jane Kimura (Mary Jane). 5
Hence, this direct appeal by petition for review on certiorari.
Issues
The petitioners hereby raise the following questions of law, to wit:
(1) Whether or not an illegitimate child is within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or a nity in the contemplation of Section 7(b)(iii) of R.A.
No. 8552;
(2) Whether or not an illegitimate child is contemplated in Section 7(b)(ii) of
R.A. No. 8552; and,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 (3) Whether or not the existence of diplomatic relations between the
Philippines and Japan is within judicial notice of the courts. 6
Decisive is the correct interpretation of Section 7 (b) (i) and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552,
particularly the clause "a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity"?
Ruling of the Court
The appeal has merit.
I.
Section 7 (b) (i) and (iii) of R.A. 8552 should
extend and apply even to illegitimate children
In contending that the RTC should have granted their petition for adoption, the
petitioners emphasize that they are exempt from the requirements for the reason that
Jan Aurel was a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree of Mary Jane.
They insist that Section 7 necessarily includes all relatives — whether legitimate or
illegitimate — within the fourth degree of consanguinity or a nity; that an illegitimate
child is a relative within the rst degree of consanguinity of the biological mother or
father; that excluding an illegitimate child from the contemplation of Section 7 (b) (i)
and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552 is tantamount to saying that it is easier for an alien spouse to
jointly adopt with the Filipino spouse the latter's cousin, a relative within the fourth
degree, or the nephew or niece, a relative within the third degree of consanguinity or
affinity, 7 than the Filipino spouse's own biological child.
The petitioners' insistence is upheld.
A relative is either a "kinsman" or "a person connected with another by blood or
affinity." 8 Under the Civil Code, the degree of relationship is determined as follows:
Relationship
ARTICLE 963. Proximity of relationship is determined by the number
of generations. Each generation forms a degree.
ARTICLE 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be either
direct or collateral.
A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among
ascendants and descendants.
xxx xxx xxx
ARTICLE 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending.
xxx xxx xxx
ARTICLE 966. In the line, as many degrees are counted as there are
generations or persons, excluding the progenitor.
In the direct line, ascent is made to the common ancestor. Thus, the child
is one degree removed from the parent, two from the grandfather, and three
from the great-grandparent.
Pursuant to the foregoing, an illegitimate child is a relative within the rst civil
degree of consanguinity of his biological mother. Unlike a nephew and niece, an
illegitimate child belongs to the direct maternal lineage, which is never uncertain, 9 and
which is not as remote as the nephew and niece. The word "child" referred to in Article
966 of the Civil Code is used in a general term and is without quali cation. This is so
because the provision contemplates blood relation, not status. When the provision
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 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).
To put more clarity on the legislative intent, we refer to the deliberations on
Senate Bill No. 1523 (now, R.A. No. 8552) in identifying who can adopt and who may be
adopted under Section 7 (b), Article III, of R.A. No. 8552, to wit:
The President.
xxx
In respect to former Filipino citizen referred to in line 2 of page 6 —
meaning the exception where aliens may adopt — why are relatives here
limited to those by consanguinity and it does not include those who are so
by affinity?
Senator Santiago.
This is a re ection of a native cultural bias, or prejudice in favor of blood
relations. This is a peculiarly Asian world view.
The President.
So, the committee has no intention of expanding this to include relatives
by affinity.
Senator Santiago.
If there are reasonable grounds for advancing an argument, the committee
would be happy to consider it.
The President.
Up to what degree of relatives by consanguinity or a nity, up to what
degree?
Senator Santiago.
Generally, in trial courts, this phrase is construed in an open-ended way. As
long as there is a tie of consanguinity , no matter how remote,
then it falls under the coverage of this exception .
The President.
Is that the clear intention of this provision?
Senator Santiago.
Yes, Mr. President.
xxx xxx xxx
Senator Maceda.
xxx
Now, I support the stand of the Senate President on the question of
consanguinity or a nity, especially if this former Filipino citizen is
probably going to leave again. If the idea is, as stated, to try to encourage
more adoptions, especially for those who have some relations, the matter
of allowing relatives by consanguinity or a nity within the fourth degree,
in my opinion, should be allowed.
So if the Senate President will propose that amendment, I shall certainly
support it.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Now, still on page 6 (b) and (c), I see the difference here. It says:
"(b) One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child OR CHILDREN of his or her
Filipino spouse; [or]
"(c) One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with
his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity of the latter."
This is basically the same except, probably, the difference is the joint
adoption. Would that be correct?
Senator Santiago.
Under paragraph (b), the subject is only the legitimate child. But under
paragraph (c), the subject is a bigger group, because it covers relatives by
consanguinity who do not necessarily have to be children.
Senator Maceda.
Exactly, Mr. President. On the other hand, a legitimate child is also within
the ambit of relative by consanguinity. Is that not correct?
Senator Santiago.
That is correct, Mr. President.
xxx xxx xxx 1 0 (Emphasis supplied)
GONZALES AMENDMENTS
May the Chair offer this amendment? In line 3, delete the semicolon (;) and
add the following phrase: OR, AFFINITY WITHIN THE FOURTH CIVIL
DEGREE.
Senator Santiago.
May I please just clarify? It would now read: ". . . who seeks to adopt a
relative by consanguinity OR AFFINITY WITHIN THE FOURTH
CIVIL DEGREE ." So the limitation on civil degree will apply to both
consanguinity and affinity?
The President.
That is correct. That is the intention of the amendment.
Senator Santiago.
I am delighted to accept the amendment, Mr. President.
The President.
Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the amendment is
approved. 1 1
Although Senate Bill No. 1523 originally indicated that the exception should only
cover relatives by consanguinity, the lawmakers were in agreement during the period of
individual amendments to include the phrase "or a nity within the fourth civil degree" in
order to expand the coverage to more children or relatives under the preferential
exception embodied in Section 7. The reason was stated in Section 2 of the law, which
declares that it is the State's policy "to ensure that every child remains under the care
and custody of his/her parent(s) and be provided with love, care, understanding and
security towards the full and harmonious development of his/her personality."
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 within the rst civil degree. Finding otherwise would engender a situation where the
alien adopter would be able to undergo a speedy and less expensive adoption process
by being able to adopt, say, his Filipina spouse's nephew or niece instead of the Filipino
spouse's own child.
It is relevant to note that the O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG) joins the
petitioners' position, and emphasizes that "if the law exempts the alien adopter from
residency and certi cation requirements if he/she will adopt the brother/sister,
nephew/niece or cousin of his/her Filipino spouse (who are within the 4th civil degree
of consanguinity or a nity), then there is no reason to exclude the application of the
said exemption if the adoptee is the illegitimate child of the said Filipino spouse." 1 2
At any rate, had the legislators intended that only the legitimate children were
contemplated by Section 7 (b) (i) and (iii), then Congress should have been written the
law as explicitly. Indeed, Congress did so in Section 7 (b) (ii) 1 3 by including the term
"legitimate" to describe the children contemplated by that clause. Section 7 (b) (i) and
(iii) clearly covered both legitimate and illegitimate relatives as long as they were within
the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
II.
Courts may take judicial notice
of the existence of diplomatic relations
between the Philippines and Japan
The petitioners assert that their petition for adoption has indicated the existence
of the diplomatic relations between Philippines and Japan, but they did not anymore
prove the same during the trial because the existence of such diplomatic relations was
within the judicial notice of the courts. 1 4
The OSG has not refuted the petitioners' assertion.
Section 1 and Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court state:
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take
judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of
the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
the o cial acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions. (1a)
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take
judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions.
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. Diplomatic relations form part of the o cial acts of the Executive
Department of our Government. They are also matters of public knowledge.
There is no dispute, indeed, that the Philippines and Japan have had a long
history of diplomatic relations. 1 5 In 1888, Japan already established a diplomatic
o ce in Manila, and expanded it as a Consulate General in 1919. Eventually, Japan
declared its o ce in Manila an embassy in 1943 during the Japanese occupation of the
country. Both countries were also signatories to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Relations, an indication that they wished to have a more prominent diplomatic presence
in each other by sending of diplomatic missions. This further shows that both
countries, being signatories to the Vienna Convention, aimed to have the representation
of the interests of the sending state and promoting friendly relations with the receiving
state. 1 6 The countless efforts to maintain their diplomatic relations no longer required
the presentation of proof of the existence of diplomatic relations.
WHEREFORE , the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari;
REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the judgment and order rendered, respectively, on
February 14, 2012 and January 22, 2013 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, in Davao
City in SP. Proc. No. 10, 718-2010; GRANTS the petition for adoption; DECLARES that
henceforth, JAN AUREL MAGHANOY BULAYO , is freed from all legal obligations of
obedience and maintenance with respect to his biological father, and shall be, to all
intents and purposes, the child of the Spouses Mary Jane B. Kimura and Yuichiro
Kimura, with his surname to be changed to KIMURA .
Let a copy of this decision be each furnished to the O ce of the Solicitor
General; the Department of Social Welfare and Development, Regional O ce, Region XI,
in Davao City; and the Local Civil Registrar of Davao City.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, Gesmundo, Carandang and Zalameda, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 25-26; penned by Judge Lope L. Calio.
2. Id. at 28.
3. Id. at 218.
4. Id. at 25-26.

5. Id. at 26.
6. Id. at 14.
7. Id. at 15-17.
8. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1158.

9. Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49542, September 12, 1980, 100 SCRA 73, 89.
10. See Record of the Senate on the Interpellations re: Sen. Santiago's Sponsorship Speech on
Senate Bill No. 1523 dated February 5, 1998.

11. Id.
12. Rollo, p. 224.
13. Section 7 (b) (ii) is the provision applicable to one who seeks to adopt the legitimate
son/daughter of the Filipino spouse.
14. Rollo, p. 21.
15. See https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/diplomatic-relations/japan/.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 16. Minucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003, 397 SCRA 244, 254-255.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com