214. Bobanovic v.

Montes
July 7, 1986
Alampay, J. (digest by Oyie Javelosa)

Short version: Petitioners-Australian spouses Bobanovic secured a judicial decree of adoption for a Filipino minor,
with the case study considered therein having been prepared by a court Social Worker (in default of the Ministry of
Social Work and Development). Despite the favorable decision, their application for travel clearance was denied by
the MSSD on the ground that MSSD has the exclusive prerogative to prepare case study reports, and thus it has no
basis to determine the fitness of the couple to adopt. Court held that the right of the adoptive child and the
adopting parents to love together is inherent in an order or judgment granting adoption, and laid down the
doctrine that adoption statutes hold the interest and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration.

Facts:
- Petitioners Slobodan Bobanovic and Dianne Elizabeth Cunningham Bobanovic, both Australian citizens,
filed a petition to adopt the minor Adam Christopher Sales before the RTC of Makati.
- The RTC ordered the publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation, that copies of the
petition be served upon the OSG, the Local Civil Registrar and the Ministry of Social Services and
Development (MSSD). It also directed the MSSD to conduct a social case study of the minor and submit
and report and recommendation.
o MSSD failed to comply. No case study was conducted, and no report or recommendation was
submitted.
o In lieu thereof, the RTC ordered a Social Worker assigned to it to conduct the case study. The
report was submitted, which recommended favorable action on the petition.
- RTC granted the petition, and a certificate of finality of the order was issued. Copies thereof were received
by the OSG and the MSSD.
- Petitioners applied for a travel clearance with the MSSD. Respondent Sylvia Montes, Minister of MSSD
denied the petition. She argued that:
o MSSD is the only agency authorized by law to conduct the case study, and no adoption case can
be acted upon if no referral to the MSSD is made. Having been deprived of the opportunity to
intervene in the case, it has no basis to determine whether petitioners meet the Australian
procedures for adoption.
- Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus. Respondent Montes argued that:
o The issuance of a travel clearance is discretionary function. She will only issue the clearance
when she finds that petitioners are qualified under Australian and Philippine laws to adopt and
that the child will be in good hands.

Issue/s:
- WoN the MSSD may validly refuse the issuance of a travel clearance for a child adopted by foreigners
following a judicial decree of adoption because it did not prepare the study report therein. (NO)

Ruling/Ratio:
NO.
- The petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation, and by this it should have had
knowledge of the adoption proceedings. Copies thereof were sent and duly acknowledged by the MSSD
and other government agencies. Further, when the petition was granted, no appeal was interposed by
MSSD; if it indeed did not receive notice, it should have raised that issue on appeal.
- MSSD has not been able to show any circumstance warranting denial of the travel clearance on the
ground that the welfare of the adopted child would be adversely affected. In fact, the RTC was able to
prove that:
o The petitioners were of good moral character, have no derogatory records in the Philippines and
in any other country, and are both physically and mentally fit to adopt.
o They are allowed by Australian laws to adopt.
 o They have cared for and love the child, and will treat him as their first child.
- The right of the adoptive child and the adopting parents to love together is inherent in an order or
judgment granting adoption. In refusing to grant the travel clearance, MSSD negated the effect of a valid
and final judgment of the court. It essentially accepted a judgment but rendered the same ineffective by
barring its implementation. It could have simply looked into and reviewed the existing case study report,
instead of stubbornly insisting that it has the exclusive prerogative to make a case study.
- *(What appears to be important, cos other cases cite this portion)* It is a settled rule that adoption
statutes, being humane and salutary, should be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of
adoption. The interests and welfare of the adopted child are of primary and paramount consideration.
Every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate
objectives of the law.
o Following this reasoning, the absence of any law that directs the MSSD to issue a travel clearance
will not preclude the issuance of a writ of mandamus.