1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 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. 02-6-02SC.[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).[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 affinity 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, (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. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66000 3/10