SLOBODAN BOBANOVIC AND DIANNE ELIZABETH CONNUNGHAM BOBANOVIC, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE SYLVIA P. MONTES (IN HER CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT), RESPO…

ALAMPAY,
J.:

In our decision in this case promulgated on July 7, 1986 and which
is now the subject of the motion for reconsideration filed by the Ministry of
Social Services and Development, this Court emphasized that in adoption cases,
the interest and welfare of the child is of paramount consideration and that
“every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these
noble and compassionate objectives of the law (Malkinson vs. Agrava, 54 SCRA 66, and
other cited cases) and the law should not be made, as instrument to impede the
achievement of a salutary policy.” (Duncan
vs. CFI of Rizal, L-30576, 69 SCRA 298).

Applying the aforecited judicial
guidelines, this Court directed the present Ministry of Social Services and
Development “to forthwith issue without undue delay, the requisite travel
clearance certificate in favor of herein petitioners’ adopted child, Adam
Christopher Bobanovic.” In our decision, we stated
that “all that MSSD had to do was to use a little of its time to
verify the correctness of the case study report, prepared and submitted by the
Social Worker who acted upon instruction of the court below.”

Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the decision in this
case, dated August 5, 1986,
although filed late, in the interest of justice, was nevertheless admitted under
our resolution of September 5,
1986.  In said motion, public respondent stressed the
existence of the 1981 Memorandum of Agreement between the State and Territory
Adoption Authorities of Australia and the Ministry of Social Services and
Development of the
Philippines. 
Respondent Minister therein pointed out that under the stated Memorandum
of Agreement, it has been agreed among others, the following:

“x x x

x x x

x x x

“1.4.  The
adoption authorities in both countries will jointly approve of prospective
adopting parents and the selection of particular adoptive parents for a
particular child.  x x x.” (Rollo, p. 140)

Respondent Minister further averred that
certain significant procedures have been accepted and agreed to be observed,
such as:

“x x x
  x x x   x x x

“4.1.  Any person or persons having their ordinary
place of residence in an Australian State or Territory, who wish to adopt a
child from the Philippines will apply to the Director of the appropriate
Australian State or Territory investigated; where he is satisfied that the
applicants are fit and proper persons to adopt a child from the Philippines, he
will cause the preparation of a detailed Family Study and will act as
intermediary and forward the Family Study to the Philippines for
consideration.  Only family studies presented by an appropriate
Australian
State or Territory Adoption
Authority to the Philippine Ministry of Social Services and Development will be
considered.

“4.2. In any application for approval, as persons fit and proper
to adopt a child from the Philippines, the following will be conditions
precedent to the approval of the application by the Australian State or
Territory Adoption Authorities:

“(a). Applicants must have attained the ages specified in the
appropriate laws of both countries and be in a position to support and care for
their family.

“(b) The State or Territory Adoption Authority investigating an
application will confirm that applicants have no criminal record or else make
appropriate comment on that record.” (Rollo, pp. 141-142)

The Court is constrained to consider the aforestated matters.  We note the assertions of
the respondent Minister which appear uncontroverted in
petitioners’ reply, that
“the preparation of the Family Study report from the home country
on the prospective adopters is a requirement in this Memorandum of Agreement
with
Australia. 
x x x.” (Rollo, p. 142).

The Court does not say nor do We
entertain a belief that the herein petitioners are in any way disqualified to be
adopting parents in their home State or ordinary place of residence. 
What the Court simply wishes to express is that it would be more prudent
and desirable to require that the petitioners herein submit themselves to a
Family Study Report in their home country so that if a favorable report is
thereafter submitted to the Ministry of Social Services and Development, then
the corresponding travel certification should then forthwith issue, in
implementation of the judgment of adoption already rendered.  This
step, if taken by petitioners will lead to the removal of the basic reason for
the reluctance and apprehension of the public respondent Minister who,
understandably, is concerned that the welfare of the adopted child might later
be prejudiced — a possibility that may arise in the event that the latter’s
adoption is not sanctioned or recognized by Australia where petitioners are
citizens and residents of.

It may not be amiss to state that the petitioners, in their
Coment to the motion for reconsideration, principally
expound on the finality of the decision in the adoption case and that the
working arrangement between the adoption authorities of
Australia
and the
Philippines
does not have the effect of law.  But even as petitioners deplore
the delay in the issuance of the certificate of clearance to travel, they,
however, fail to tender an explanation or state any reason whatsoever for their
apparent reluctance to submit themselves to a Family Case Study in their home
State.

While the Court takes the view that the decision in the adoption
case should not be disturbed and that all the technicalities that were raised
against the adoption should yield to the ultimate end of promoting the best
interest of the adopted child, the same guiding principle should be applied in
the matter of the issuance of the travel clearance certificate. 
This subsequent aspect of the adoption which was raised by respondent
Minister was brought only lately to the Court’s attention.  Thus,
it becomes relevant and important to extend consideration to the aforementioned
Memorandum Agreement entered into in 1981 by our country and
Australia.

It is well worth considering that the welfare of the adopted child
can be truly protected if there is at least an assurance that the home State of
the petitioners has undertaken a family case study concerning them. 
As it would be but a simple thing for petitioners to submit to a family
case study report, the Court finds it difficult to perceive the reason for
petitioners’ apparent adamant attitude in declining to do so.  As
petitioners profess their desire to extend to their adopted child the warmth of
a parent’s love, the comforts of a caring home and the material provision he
needs, their sincerity in this regard can best be manifested by laying aside any
possible inconvenience on their part or searching for legal
technicalities.  Whether or not the referred Memorandum Agreement
has the force and effect of law should be of least consideration to the
petitioners if they are truly disposed to do their part to expedite the travel
of their adopted child to their country.  The best solution
would be for them to accept and submit themselves to a family case study
which should not be at all a difficult thing for them to do.

In the same way that this Court took to task the Ministry of
Social Services and Development for being, paradoxically, “overly concerned over
its claimed exclusive prerogative to conduct the case study work instead of
placing more importance on the possible prejudicial effects of its refusal on
the welfare of the child”, a similar rebuke may be fastened on the petitioners
for their seemingly adamant attitude and reluctance to submit themselves to a
family case study report, which if favorable to them would quickly remove the
last reasonable obstacle for the issuance of the subject travel clearance
certificate.  It will banish the apprehension and any misgiving on
the part of the local authorities concerned that the adopted child might be
confronted with unexpected problems seriously prejudicial to his welfare, should
the latter’s adoption be not sanctioned or recognized by the State where
petitioners reside and are citizens of.

WHEREFORE, and in the light of
the facts and circumstances hereinabove discussed, the dispositive portion of our judgment in the instant case
directing the issuance of the requisite travel clearance certificate in
favor of the child, Adam Christopher Bobanovic,
is hereby SUSPENDED and DEFERRED until after
petitioners shall have submitted themselves to a Family Case Study in their home
State of Victoria, Australia where they are said to be residing. 
Upon furnishing herein respondent Minister of Social Services and
Development with the corresponding official report on said Family Case Study and
if such is favorable to the petitioners herein, then the requisite travel
clearance certificate for the adopted child, Adam Christopher Bobanovic, should thus be issued by the office of the public
respondent Minister as previously decreed.

SO
ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Padilla, and
Bidin, JJ., concur.