Facts:

On November 28, 1984, spouses Slobodan Bobanovic and Dianne Elizabeth Cunningham Bobanovic, both Australian citizens residing temporarily in Makati, Metro Manila, filed a petition to adopt a minor named Adam Christopher Sales. This petition was registered as Special Proceedings No. M-531 in the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The court issued an order on the same day, scheduling a hearing for December 27, 1984, and mandated that the order be published in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks. The Ministry of Social Services and Development (MSSD) was instructed to conduct a social case study of the minor and the adopting parents, and to submit a report and recommendation at least one week before the hearing. However, at the initial hearing on December 27, 1984, the MSSD failed to comply with the court's order, resulting in a social worker from the court conducting the case study instead. On January 4, 1985, the court granted the adoption, and a ce...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioners, Slobodan Bobanovic and Dianne Elizabeth Cunningham Bobanovic, are Australian citizens residing temporarily in Makati, Metro Manila. They filed a petition to adopt the minor Adam Christopher Sales on November 28, 1984, docketed as Special Proceedings No. M-531 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.

Court Proceedings

• The RTC issued an order on November 28, 1984, setting the hearing for December 27, 1984. The order was published in a newspaper of general circulation and copies were sent to the Solicitor General, the Local Civil Registrar, and the Ministry of Social Services and Development (MSSD). The MSSD was directed to conduct a social case study and submit a report before the hearing.

MSSD's Inaction

• The MSSD failed to conduct the required case study or submit a report. Consequently, a court-assigned social worker, Alma Algenico, conducted the study and recommended granting the adoption.

Adoption Granted

• On January 4, 1985, the RTC granted the adoption petition. The order became final and executory on January 21, 1985, after no appeal was filed.

Travel Clearance Denial

• Petitioners applied for a travel clearance to bring their adopted child to Australia. The MSSD, through Minister Sylvia P. Montes, denied the clearance, claiming it was not notified of the adoption proceedings and thus could not ensure the child's welfare under Australian adoption laws.

Petition for Mandamus

• Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court on July 22, 1985, seeking to compel the MSSD to issue the travel clearance.

---

Issue:

1. Whether the MSSD was duly notified of the adoption proceedings.
2. Whether the MSSD's refusal to issue the travel clearance was justified.
3. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the issuance of the travel clearance.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the MSSD to issue the travel clearance for the adopted child. The Court underscored the importance of enforcing court judgments and prioritizing the welfare of children in adoption cases.