G.R. No. L-71370. January 31, 1987.
SLOBODAN BOBANOVIC AND DIANNE ELIZABETH CONNUNGHAM BOBANOVIC, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE SYLVIA P. MONTES (in her capacity as Minister of Social Services and Development), respondent.

FACTS

The petitioners, Australian citizens, successfully obtained a final decree of adoption from a Philippine court for a child named Adam Christopher Bobanovic. However, the respondent Minister of Social Services and Development (MSSD) refused to issue the requisite travel clearance certificate necessary for the child to leave the Philippines with his adoptive parents. The Supreme Court, in a prior decision, initially ordered the MSSD to issue the clearance, emphasizing that the child’s welfare is paramount and that technicalities should not impede adoption’s compassionate objectives. The Court criticized the MSSD for being overly concerned with procedural prerogatives.
The MSSD filed a motion for reconsideration, albeit late, which the Court admitted in the interest of justice. The motion highlighted the existence of a 1981 Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippines and Australia concerning inter-country adoptions. This agreement stipulated that adoption authorities in both countries must jointly approve prospective adoptive parents and that a Family Study report from the applicants’ home country is a condition precedent. The respondent Minister expressed apprehension that the child’s welfare could be jeopardized if Australia did not sanction or recognize the adoption, as the petitioners had not undergone the required Family Study in their home State of Victoria.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should uphold its prior directive for the immediate issuance of the travel clearance certificate, or defer it pending compliance with the bilateral Memorandum of Agreement requiring a Family Case Study from the petitioners’ home country.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified its prior decision and suspended the issuance of the travel clearance certificate. The legal logic centers on the consistent paramount consideration: the best interest and welfare of the adopted child. While the finality of the adoption decree is respected, the subsequent requirement for international travel introduces a separate but equally critical welfare consideration. The Court acknowledged that the bilateral Memorandum of Agreement, though not necessarily having the force of law, establishes a prudent procedural safeguard designed to protect children in inter-country adoptions by ensuring receiving countries recognize and sanction the adoption.
The Court found the petitioners’ unexplained reluctance to undergo a simple Family Study in their home country to be incongruent with their professed concern for the child’s welfare. Submitting to such a study would provide the assurance sought by the Philippine authorities that the child would not face prejudicial problems, such as non-recognition of his adoptive status, upon arrival in Australia. Therefore, to fully effectuate the child’s best interests, the Court balanced the final adoption decree with the practical necessity of ensuring a smooth transition to the receiving country. The directive for the travel clearance is deferred until the petitioners submit to a Family Case Study in Victoria, Australia. Upon submission of a favorable report to the MSSD, the certificate must be issued forthwith.