G.R. No. 76290 - De Tavera vs. Cacdac, Jr.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 76290)
Advanced

Facts:

Antecedent facts and adoption proceedings
Respondents were Hon. Bonifacio A. Caddac, Jr. (Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch XLVIII, Manila), George Baxter Brown Gordon, and Gail Judith Milbourn Gordon.
Petitioners were Minister Mamita Pardo de Tavera of the Ministry of Social Services and Development (MSSD) and Lourdes Balanon, Officer-in-Charge, SCWU, MSSD.
On nineteen June 1986, the Gordons filed a verified petition in the Regional Trial Court, Branch XLVIII, Manila, seeking to adopt the minor, Anthony Gandhi O. Custodio, described as a natural son of Adoracion Custodio.
The trial court set the petition for hearing on thirty-one July 1986, with notice published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Manila for three (3) consecutive weeks.
On the hearing date, no one appeared to oppose the petition.
The Office of the Solicitor General—notified of the petition and the hearing—failed to send any representative for the State.
Because no one opposed, the trial court appointed the Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner to receive additional evidence, with deposition of some witnesses taken earlier.
The principal evidence showed that:

The Gordons were British citizens.
Their home country allowed adoption of foreign babies specifically from the Republic of the Philippines.
The husband was employed at the Dubai Hilton International Hotel as Building Superintendent.
The Gordons were financially secure and could provide education and support for the child.
Adoracion Custodio consented to the adoption, understanding that her child would have a brighter future.
The Case Study Report submitted by the Social Worker recommended the adoption after observing a parent-child relationship between the Gordons and Anthony.
The report stated that while the natural mother had second thoughts and experienced lonesome feelings, her aspirations for the future betterment of her one-year-two-month old child prevailed, so she agreed to the adoption.

On five August 1986, after assessing the evidence, the trial court ruled that the Gordons possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications for adoption.
The trial court declared Anthony to be the truly and lawfully adopted child of the Gordons.
The trial court ordered that the Decree of Adoption would take effect from the filing of the petition on nineteen June 1986.

Events after the decision: requests for travel clearance and passport
On eleven August 1986, the Gordons wrote the MSSD requesting a travel clearance for Anthony.
On twelve August 1986, the Gordons filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion before the trial court seeking to compel action because the Chief of the Passport Division of the then Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused to issue a passport to Anthony without a Case Study of the MSSD.
The motion prayed that the passport authority be required to issue the passport once the case study requirement was satisfied or otherwise dispensed with.

MSSD opposition to issuance of travel clearance
The MSSD opposed the grant of a travel clearance on multiple grounds:

The report of the court Social Worker and that of the Pastor of the International Christian Church of Dubai could not take the place of a report of the MSSD or a duly licensed child placement agency.
The required six-month trial custody had not been met, nor had the reasons been given as required by Article 35 of P.D. No. 603.
The Gordons had given P10,000.00 to the natural mother, which the MSSD viewed as reflecting an undesirable attitude—“shop[p]ing for children” as commodities.
Under Muslim law, allegedly applicable in Dubai, Anthony could not inherit from the adopting parents.
The Gordons allegedly filed another adoption petition in the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 94, on twenty-four June 1986 for adoption of a baby girl, but that baby died a month later.
The MSSD asserted that the Gordons attempted to pass off another child with the same name and represented the second child as the same girl they had sought to adopt.
The MSSD claimed there was no Memorandum of Agreement between Dubai and the Philippines, and thus there was no guarantee that the adopted child would not be sold, exchanged, neglected, or abused.

Trial court resolution ordering issuance despite MSSD opposition
Over the MSSD opposition, the trial court issued a Resolution on one October 1986 ordering the MSSD Chief to issue a travel clearance in favor of Anthony within five (5) days from notice, under pain of contempt.
The trial court also directed issuance steps tied to the passport issuance, including that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should issue the corresponding passport.
The trial court reasoned that:

The Court Social Worker Report could take the place of a report from a duly licensed placement agency or from the MSSD.
The court impliedly dispensed with the six-month trial custody considering that the Gordons were foreigners whose livelihood was earned abroad.
The adoption decision had become final and executory.
Entertaining MSSD objections at that stage would place the MSSD above the courts and would be a defiance of a lawful court order.

The trial court relied on:

Administrative Matter No. 85-2-7136-RTC, which denied the MSSD request for a Supreme Court Circular directing that, due to the abolition of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, only the MSSD could make the required case study and submit its report and recommendation to courts.

The denial was premised on the finding that the law expressly provided that a case study in adoption could be conducted by the Department of Social Welfare, and that where Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts existed, their functions were now exercised by the Regional Trial Courts Staff Assistant V (Social Worker).

Bobanovic vs. Hon. Montes (G.R. No. L-71370, July 7, 1986, 142 SCRA 485), including the ruling that:

Refusal of travel clearance would frustrate the adoption judgment for adopting parents residing abroad.
The refusal would effectively separate the adopting parents from the adopted child and deprive the petitioners of a vested legal right.
Such action constituted a wanton abuse of discretion and neglect of plain duty to assist reasonable implementation of the final order.

The trial court acknowledged that, in a Motion for Reconsideration in Bobanovic, the Supreme Court deferred implementation because of a Memorandum of Agreement between Australia and the Philippines requiring a family study by the adopter’s home state.
The trial court distinguished the present case by stating that no such agreement between Great Britain and the Philippines had been brought to attention.

Proceedings in the Supreme Court and the challenged acts
Petitioners challenged the trial court’s Resolution and Decision in a Certiorari Petition.
The petition alleged the Resolution ordering issuance of travel clearance within five days and under pain of contempt was issued with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.
The petition also sought annulment of the trial court Decision dated five August 1986 declaring Anthony truly and lawfully adopted by the Gordons.
On six November 1986, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the respondent judge from enforcing the assailed Decision and Resolution.
The Supreme Court gave due course after an official request from the MSSD requiring that Regional Trial Court judges handling adoption cases adhere strictly to the provisions of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. No. 603).

Supreme Court assessment of t...(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 76290)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 76290)
Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 76290) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 76290) Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 76290)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 76290)
Advanced