Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

SPC

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

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

G.R. No. 205752; October 1, 2019

Facts:

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 filed 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.

Specifically, 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 certificates issued to the petitioners; (4) the neuro-
psychological reports for the petitioners; (5) the certificates 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 certification 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).

Hence, this direct appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not an illegitimate child is contemplated in Section 7(b)(ii) of R.A. No. 8552; and,

(2) Whether or not the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan is within
judicial notice of the courts.

Ruling:
(1) 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 affinity;
that an illegitimate child is a relative within the first 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, than the Filipino spouse's own biological child. Thus,
petitioners' insistence is upheld.

(2) Yes. 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.

Spouses Relissa and Francis Lucena v. Sarah Elago, et. Al.


G.R. No. 252120; September 15, 2020

Facts:
Petitioners are the parents of Alicia Jasper (AJ), a 19 years old Grade 11 student at the Far
Eastern University (FEU). There, AJ was enticed to join the FEU Chapter of Anakbayan, a youth
organization supposedly ideals of national democracy.
On July 10, 2019, AJ left the family for the third time and never came back. She has since dropped out
from FEU. Seeking mainly to regain custody of AJ, petitioners instituted the present petition for the
issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas corpus.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not petitioner’s plea for the issuance of a writ of amparo is proper.
(2) Whether or nt petitioner’s plea for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is proper.

Ruling:

(1) No. the remedy of amparo, in its present formulation, is confined merely to the instances of
“extralegal killings” or “enforced disappearances” and to threats thereof.
(2) No. The Rules of Court envisions the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy applicable to cases of
illegal confinement or detention where a person is deprived of his or her liberty, or where the
rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.

You might also like