the mother I’s whereabouts were unknown, and H could not obtain any documents proving I’s possession of Filipino nationality. Thus, the court decided to authorize the creation of H’s Japanese family register considering that, while the information relating to H’s mother was available to some extent, the case still met the requirement that “both of the parents are unknown.”205 4. Possible size of Category G (1) Breakdown of cases to which Article 2(iii) of the Japanese Nationality Act has been applied No statistics are available relating to the cases where Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act has been applied. With regard to how a family register is created when one acquires Japanese nationality at birth under Article 2(iii), the possible avenues are: (i) submission of a notification after the adjudication by a family court authorizing the creation of the person’s family register (Article 110(1) of Family Register Act) and (ii) submission of a notification of birth (Article 49 of the same Act). While there are no legal provisions as to which avenue should be used in what circumstances, it appears to be the practice that when there are persons present who are legally obliged to submit a notification of the birth of the person concerned, avenue (ii) is to be taken, and in other cases (i) is to be taken.206 (2) Possible size of Category G This means that the number of cases where article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act is applied can be calculated by totaling: (i) the number of cases where Article 2(iii) of the Nationality Act has been applied among the number of adjudications approving the creation of a family register and (ii) the number of cases where the Nationality Act Article 2(iii) has been applied among the number of notifications of birth submitted. With regard to (i), it is known that the number of family court decisions approving the creation of a family register is approximately 100 cases a year.207 It is unknown how many cases there have been among these in which Article 2(iii) has been applied. With regard to (ii), it is practically impossible 205 Regarding this adjudication, some criticize that the application of the Article should have been denied, because inter alia, unlike the Andere Case, the mother had submitted a birth report before her disappearance and the Japanese authorities had made a determination on nationality, and because whether or not the child would acquire Filipino nationality was unrelated to the interpretation of the Article. Okuda, supra note 33, pp. 136-141. 206 Ministry of Justice, Koseki Seidoni Kansuru Kenkyuukai [Study Group on Family Register System], 6th Meeting (12 March 2015), distributed material 6, at: http://www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/minji04_00042.html, p.6. 207 According to Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, “Shihou Toukei Nenpou, Kaji Hen, Dai 3 Hyou, Kaji Shinpan Jikenno Juri, Kisai, Misai Tetsuduki Betsu Kensuu, Zen Katei Saibansho [Judicial Statistics Annual Report, Family Relations, Table No.3, Number of Adjudication Cases on Family Relations: Received, Decided, and Undecided Cases”, the number of decided cases for the creation of family registers was 166 in 2015, including 94 approvals. See http://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/toukei/697/008697.pdf. 100