Kimura v. Kimura
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Mary Jane B. Kimura, a Filipino citizen, and Yuichiro Kimura, a Japanese national, married on June 12, 2004. Prior to their marriage, Mary Jane gave birth to Jan Aurel Maghanoy Bulayo on November 24, 1997, as an illegitimate child with an unknown biological father. The couple filed a joint petition for adoption of Jan Aurel on March 15, 2009, seeking to establish him as their legitimate son. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, in Davao City, dismissed the joint petition for adoption on February 14, 2012, and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration on January 22, 2013. The RTC found that the alien spouse, Yuichiro Kimura, failed to meet the residency and certification requirements under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8552, as Jan Aurel was the illegitimate child of his Filipino spouse. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the RTC's decision. The petitioners argue that an illegitimate child falls within the contemplation of Section 7(b)(iii) of R.A. No. 8552, which allows an alien married to a Filipino citizen to jointly adopt a relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. They contend that Jan Aurel, as the biological child of Mary Jane, is a first-degree relative by consanguinity. Additionally, they assert that the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan is a matter of judicial notice.
Issue(s)
Whether an illegitimate child is within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity in the contemplation of Section 7(b)(iii) of R.A. No. 8552. Whether an illegitimate child is contemplated in Section 7(b)(ii) of R.A. No. 8552. Whether the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan is within judicial notice of the courts.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition for review on certiorari, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the judgment and order of the RTC, GRANTED the petition for adoption, DECLARED Jan Aurel Maghanoy Bulayo freed from all legal obligations of obedience and maintenance with respect to his biological father, and declared him to be, to all intents and purposes, the child of Spouses Mary Jane B. Kimura and Yuichiro Kimura, with his surname to be changed to KIMURA.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether an illegitimate child is within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity in the contemplation of Section 7(b)(iii) of R.A. No. 8552: The Court held that an illegitimate child is indeed a relative within the first civil degree of consanguinity of his biological mother. The Court emphasized that the Civil Code provisions on determining degrees of relationship do not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate relatives, adhering to the principle of ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguera debemus. The legislative intent behind R.A. No. 8552 was to include such children within the exception to the residency and certification requirements for alien adopters, as excluding them would create an illogical situation where an alien could more easily adopt a distant relative of the Filipino spouse than the Filipino spouse's own child. The inclusion of "or affinity within the fourth civil degree" during the legislative deliberations further supports a broad interpretation to cover more relatives. On the issue of whether an illegitimate child is contemplated in Section 7(b)(ii) of R.A. No. 8552: While the Court did not directly rule on this specific sub-issue as the primary argument focused on Section 7(b)(iii), it implicitly addressed it by contrasting the wording of Section 7(b)(ii) which explicitly uses the term "legitimate son/daughter" with Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) which use the broader term "relative." The Court noted that if Congress intended to limit the exception to legitimate children in Section 7(b)(i) and (iii), it would have explicitly stated so, as it did in Section 7(b)(ii). This distinction reinforces the interpretation that Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) are intended to be more inclusive. On the issue of whether the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan is within judicial notice of the courts: The Court affirmed that the existence of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan is a matter of judicial notice. Pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, courts are mandated to take judicial notice of matters that are of public knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration, such as the official acts of the executive department. The long-standing diplomatic ties between the two countries, including the establishment of diplomatic offices and their mutual adherence to international conventions like the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, are well-known facts that do not require formal proof.
Main Doctrine
An illegitimate child is considered a relative within the first civil degree of consanguinity of the biological mother, and thus falls within the contemplation of Section 7(b)(i) and (iii) of R.A. No. 8552, allowing an alien spouse to adopt such child jointly with the Filipino spouse without being strictly bound by the residency and certification requirements.