Bureau.200 There is a concern that the mother is being deemed to be known even if the information cannot be cross-checked with the mother herself, merely based on the existence of information relating to the mother on paper. In fact, there have been reports that the application of Article 2(iii) has been denied in cases similar to Andrew’s.201 (4) 2003 Adjudication by the Yokohama Family Court It is notable that the Yokohama Family Court actually authorized the creation of a family register by ruling that “both parents are unknown” in a case where the mother disappeared after having submitted a notification of her child’s birth to a municipal office.202 Details of the case are as follows: H was born in Japan as the eldest son of I, a mother who appeared to be Filipino and J, a Japanese father. I and J were legally married. I submitted the notification of birth, and H entered into J’s family register. The column on the personal status in the family register carried the record of the marriage and divorce between the father J and the Filipino woman I and the fact that I was given custody upon divorce. However, the mother I disappeared after asking her acquaintance to take care of H. H grew up in a child welfare institution. Meanwhile, after the divorce of J and I, the father J filed a lawsuit, with H being the defendant, to deny his paternity over H.203 A decision ruling that H is not the child of J was finalized. As a result, H was completely removed from the family register. I’s whereabouts were meanwhile still unknown, and it was impossible to obtain I’s national passport or birth certificate. Therefore, H was unable to prove that his or her mother was a Filipino national, and H could not acquire Filipino nationality. H filed a petition with a family court seeking the creation of a family register asserting that he or she was “born in Japan” of “unknown parents.” The family court approved the creation of H’s family register stating that H had acquired Japanese nationality by birth under Article 2(iii) upon a comprehensive assessment of the facts, such as that H’s mother’s nationality cannot be confirmed and that his or her father cannot be identified. In sum, H “lost” Japanese nationality retroactively and became stateless due to the denial of legitimate child status by the father (as he was no longer a child of a Japanese national). 204 The Filipino nationality law adopts a paternal/maternal jus sanguinis principle as Japan does. If H’s descent from his mother I and I’s Filipino nationality could be proven, H would have been able to acquire Filipino nationality in a real sense. However, 200 Masao Ohno, “Kokusekihou Dai 2 Jou 3 Gouno Kiteini Motoduku Shusshouniyoru Nihon Kokusekino Shutokunitsuite [Acquisition of Japanese Nationality at Birth under Article 2 (iii) of the Nationality Act]”, Koseki, No. 730 (2002), pp.9-10. 201 See Okuda, supra note 33, p.8. 202 Yokohama Family Court, Adjudication, 18 September 2003 (Heisei 15 Nen), Katei Saiban Geppou [Monthly Bulletin on Family Courts], Vol.56, No.3, p.68. 203 On presumption of children in wedlock and denial of legitimacy, see supra note 181. 204 On issues relating to “loss”, see Category E, 3. (1). 99