SUZUKI VS OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
GR no. 212302, September 2, 2020
Topic:
A Filipino citizen seeks judicial recognition of his adoption by a Japanese national under
Japanese law.
Doctrine of the case:
Under the Family Code, not all persons are qualified to adopt. Articles 183 and 184 provide
limitations, viz.: Art. 183. A person of age and in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights
may adopt, provided he is in a position to support and care for his children, legitimate or
illegitimate, in keeping with the means of the family. In addition, the adopter must be at least
sixteen years older than the person to be adopted, unless the adopter is the parent by nature of
the adopted, or is the spouse of the legitimate parent of the person to be adopted. Art. 184. The
following persons may not adopt: (1) The guardian with respect to the ward prior to the approval
of the final accounts rendered upon the termination of their guardianship relation; (2) Any
person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; (3) An alien, except: (a) A
former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity; (b) One who seeks to
adopt the legitimate child 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.
Aliens nut included in the foregoing exceptions may adopt Filipino children in accordance with
the rules on intercountry adoptions as may be provided by law.
Facts of the case:
Karl William Yuta Magno Suzuki a.k.a. Yuta Hayashi was born in Manila and born to Sadao
Kumai Suzuki, a Japanese national, and Lorlie Lopez Magno, a Filipino citizen. Petitioner's
parents later divorced and Lorlie married another Japanese national, Hikaru Hayashi.
Petitioner was adopted by Hayashi based on Japanese law and the same was reflected in
Hayashi's Family Register. When the petitioner was twenty-four years old he sought to have his
adoption under Japanese law recognized in the Philippines.
Hence, he filed a petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Adoption Decree before the
Regional Trial Court. The lower court dismissed the petition for being contrary to law and public
policy. The Supreme Court granted the petition and held that applying the nationality principle,
Philippine courts can only determine whether to extend the effects of the adoption to petitioner
but it cannot determine Hayashi’s family rights, status, condition and legal capacity concerning
the foreign judgment. Also, it found that the adoption may be validly effected in accordance with
the provisions of R.A. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. Finally, it discussed that
foreign judgments are recognized and enforced domestically because such act of recognition is
part of what is considered as the "generally accepted principles of international law."
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine courts can judicially recognize foreign judgment of adoption by
petitioner.
Ruling:
Yes. The RTC erroneously ruled that a foreign judgment of adoption of a Filipino citizen cannot
be judicially recognized based on the view that such recognition would render nugatory the
Philippine laws on adoption. It bears to emphasize that there are two parties involved in an
adoption process: the adopter and the adoptee. The RTC in this case failed to consider that
Hayashi, the adopter, is a Japanese citizen.
According to the Nationality principle, the Philippine laws on adoption are binding on petitioner.
The Court held the adoption of petitioner by Hayashi may be validly affected in accordance with
the provisions of RA 8552 and if proven as a fact, can be judicially recognized in the Philippines.
Therefore, the petition is granted.
Special laws on adoption have been passed by Congress subsequent to the promulgation of the
Family Code. In 1995, RA 8043 was enacted to establish the rules governing inter-country
adoptions of Filipino children. The Inter-Country Adoption Board (“ICAB”) was created to serve
as the central authority in matters relating to inter-country adoptions. Meanwhile, in 1998, RA
8552 was passed to set out the rules and policies on domestic adoption.
Apparently, the adoption of petitioner by Hayashi may be validly effected in accordance with the
provisions of RA 8552. However, the Court disagrees with the RTC's view that adoption decrees
involving Filipino citizens obtained abroad cannot be judicially recognized in the Philippines for
being contrary to law and public policy.
As emphasized by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (Justice Delos Santos), the
availability of RA 8552 as a means to adopt petitioner should not automatically foreclose
proceedings to recognize his adoption decree obtained under Japanese law. Justice Delos
Santos reminds that the principle behind the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment
derives its force not only from our Rules of Court but from the fact that such act of recognition is
considered part of what is considered as the "generally accepted principles of international law."
It is characterized as such because aside from the widespread practice among States accepting
in principle the need for such recognition and enforcement, the procedure for recognition and
enforcement is embodied in the rules of law, whether statutory or jurisprudential, in various
foreign jurisdictions.
As already established, the adoption by an alien of the legitimate child of his/her Filipino spouse
is valid and legal based on Article 184 (3) (b) of the Family Code and Section 7 (b) (i), Article III
of RA 8552. Thus, contrary to the RTC's sweeping conclusion against foreign adoption decrees,
the Court finds that the adoption of petitioner by Hayashi, if proven as a fact, can be judicially
recognized in the Philippines. Justice Delos Santos aptly propounds that the rules on domestic
adoption should not be pitted against the recognition of a foreign adoption decree; instead, the
better course of action is to reconcile them and give effect to their respective purposes.
For Philippine courts to judicially recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of an
adoption where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to
prove the foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court. Thus, as held in Fujiki v. Marinay,
et al., 700 SCRA 69 (2013): x x x
To be more specific, a copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as
a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of
Court. Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family Court judgment through (1) an official
publication or (2) a certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the judgment.
If the office which has custody is in a foreign country such as Japan, the certification may be
made by the proper diplomatic or consular officer of the Philippine Foreign Service in Japan and
authenticated by the seal of office.
