G.R. No. L-71370. July 7, 1986.
SLOBODAN BOBANOVIC and DIANNE ELIZABETH CUNNINGHAM BOBANOVIC, petitioners, vs. HON. SYLVIA P. MONTES, (in her capacity as MINISTER OF SOCIAL SERVICES and DEVELOPMENT), respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, Australian citizens, filed a petition for the adoption of a minor, Adam Christopher Sales, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The court issued an order setting the hearing and directing the Ministry of Social Services and Development (MSSD) to conduct a social case study and to intervene if necessary. The MSSD failed to comply; it conducted no study, submitted no report, and did not intervene. Consequently, a court social worker conducted the study and submitted a favorable recommendation. The court granted the adoption, and the decree became final and executory.
Subsequently, the petitioners, as adoptive parents, applied with the MSSD for a travel clearance to bring their adopted child to Australia. The respondent Minister, Sylvia P. Montes, refused to issue the clearance. She contended that the MSSD was not properly notified of the adoption proceedings and was thus deprived of its statutory opportunity to conduct the requisite case study. She argued that without her own study, she could not determine if the petitioners met eligibility criteria under relevant laws, and therefore the issuance of a clearance was a discretionary act, not a ministerial duty subject to mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Minister of Social Services and Development may be compelled by a writ of mandamus to issue a travel clearance for an adopted child whose adoption decree has become final and executory.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus, directing the Minister to issue the travel clearance. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of the adoption decree and the inherent duty of public officers to respect and implement court judgments. The adoption decree, having been served on the MSSD and having attained finality, conclusively established the legal relationship of parent and child between the petitioners and the minor. The respondent Minister’s refusal to issue the travel clearance, based on her perceived lack of a proper case study, effectively sought to negate and frustrate this final judgment. The Court clarified that while the MSSD’s role in conducting a case study is important, its failure to perform this duty during the judicial proceedings—despite proper notice as found by the trial court—does not invalidate the final decree nor authorize the Minister to withhold an ancillary administrative clearance necessary to give effect to that decree.
The issuance of the clearance is a ministerial duty flowing from the final judgment. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a duty which is purely ministerial in nature, especially when non-performance unlawfully excludes a party from the use and enjoyment of a right established by a final court order. The right of the adoptive parents and child to live together is a fundamental consequence of the adoption grant. The Court emphasized the humane and salutary objectives of adoption laws, which should be liberally construed to promote the child’s welfare. Public officers must aid in implementing court judgments, not impede them based on post-decree administrative reservations. The respondent’s discretion was thus limited by the operative fact of the final judicial decree.