6/30/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
to regulate adoption by aliens.[14] It contended that Executive Order No. (EO) 91[15]
provides certain conditions before an alien may adopt Filipino citizens. Likewise, it
argued that the Family Code provides limits on who are allowed to adopt Filipino
citizens.[16] Moreover, it claimed that an adoption is only valid if made within the legal
framework on adoption as enunciated in Republic Act No. (RA) 8043 known as the
Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995, and RA 8552 known as the Domestic Adoption Act
of 1998. The OSG concluded that petitioner's adoption is not in accordance with the
laws, and thus, should not be allowed.
On November 21, 2013, the RTC issued the assailed Order[17] dismissing the petition
for being contrary to law and public policy. The RTC was of the view that the judicial
recognition sought would render nugatory the local laws on adoption. The dispositive
portion of the RTC Order reads:
WHEREFORE, the Motion for further Proceedings is hereby DENIED, for lack
of merit. The instant petition is hereby DISMISSED, for being contrary to law
and public policy.
SO ORDERED.[18]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[19] which the RTC denied in its Order[20]
dated April 23, 2014. The RTC was convinced that RA 8043 (Inter-Country Adoption Act
of 1995) and RA 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) govern all adoptions of Filipino
citizens.[21]
Furthermore, the RTC ruled that even assuming that the adoption of petitioner is valid
under the Japanese law, Philippine courts are not automatically obliged to recognize its
validity. The RTC stated that under Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, there
must be a "judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country." The RTC noted
that the petition merely alleges the fact of registration of petitioner's adoption in the
Family Register of Hayashi and fails to present any judgment or final order issued by a
Japanese tribunal.[22]
Aggrieved, petitioner, on pure questions of law, directly filed before the Court the
present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
On August 7, 2017, the Court issued a Resolution[23] requiring the parties to submit
their respective memoranda within 30 days from notice.
In his Memorandum,[24] petitioner claimed that: (1) the National Statistics Office[25]
Memorandum Circular No. 2007-008[26] dated September 24, 2007 which establishes
the guidelines for the registration in the civil registry of foreign judgments/orders,
includes adoption in its coverage; (2) Rule 53 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
1993,[27] issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar-General (OCRG), states that a
decree of adoption issued by a foreign court is acceptable for registration in the
Philippines and can be issued only in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila; (3) Rule
9 of Circular No. 90-2[28] dated March 28, 1990, also issued by the OCRG, allows a
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66689
2/13