DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M.
GONZALEZ,
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONER and BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., and
IMMIGRATION ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONERS and BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS ARTHEL B. CARONONGAN,
TEODORO B. DELARMENTE, JOSE D.L. CABOCHAN, and
FRANKLIN Z. LITTUA, Petitioners, versus MICHAEL ALFIO
PENNISI, Respondent.
G.R. No. 169958 | 2010-03-05
CARPIO, J.:
I Facts of the Case
Before the Court is a petition for review[1] assailing the 30
September 2005 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 87271.
The Antecedent Facts
The facts, gathered from the Court of Appeals' decision, are as
follows:
Michael Alfio Pennisi (respondent) was born on 13 March 1975 in
Queensland, Australia to Alfio Pennisi, an Australian national, and
Anita T. Quintos (Quintos), allegedly a Filipino citizen. In March
1999, respondent filed a petition for recognition as Filipino citizen
before the Bureau of Immigration (BI). Respondent submitted the
following documents before the BI:
1. Certified photocopy of the certificate of birth of Quintos, and a
certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar of San Antonio,
Nueva Ecija stating that Quintos was born on 14 August 1949 of
Filipino parents, Felipe M. Quintos and Celina G. Tomeda, in
Panabingan, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija;
2. Certified true copy of the certificate of marriage of
respondent's parents dated 9 January 1971, indicating the
Philippines as Quintos' birthplace;
3. Certified true copy of Quintos' Australian certificate of
registration of alien, indicating her nationality as Filipino;
4. Certified true copy of respondent's birth certificate stating that
he was born on 13 March 1975 and indicating the Philippines as
his mother's birthplace; and
5. Certified true copy of the letter dated 14 July 1999 of the
Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,
stating that as of 14 July 1999, Quintos has not been granted
Australian citizenship.
On 17 February 2000, BI Associate Commissioner Alan Roullo Yap
issued an order granting respondent's petition for recognition as
Filipino citizen. In a 2nd Indorsement dated 28 February 2000,
the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) disapproved the
order. However, upon respondent's submission of additional
documents, BI Commissioner Rufus B. Rodriguez granted the
order as per Recognition Order No. 206679 dated 3 March 2000
which states:
Finding the grounds cited in the instant petition for recognition as
a citizen of the Philippines filed on behalf of the applicant to be
well-founded and meritorious, we hereby authorize the
recognition of MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI as a citizen of the
Philippines pursuant to Article III[,] Section 1, para. 2 of the
1973 Constitution.
Henceforth, applicant shall be entitled to all the rights and
privileges appurtenant thereto. Once this Order is affirmed by the
Secretary of Justice and upon payment of the corresponding fees,
he/she shall be issued an identification Certificate which shall
indicate prominently thereon the date of affirmation.
II Issues of the Case
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in
finding that respondent is a Filipino citizen.
Petitioners allege that respondent's petition was filed out of time.
Petitioners further allege that respondent's voluntary departure
from the Philippines had rendered the petition moot. Finally,
petitioners allege that the cancellation of respondent's certificate
of recognition as a Filipino citizen and the issuance of the
deportation order against him are valid.
III Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied. The Court further sustains the Court of
Appeals that there could be reasons why the Quintoses and
Tomedas were not included in the census, such as they could
have been mere transients in the place. As for their absence in
the master's list of voters, they could have failed to register
themselves as voters. The late registration of Quintos' certificate
of live birth was made 10 years after her birth and not anytime
near the filing of respondent's petition for recognition as Filipino
citizen. As such, it could not be presumed that the certificate's
late filing was meant to use it fraudulently. Finally, the Australian
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs itself attested
that as of 14 July 1999, Quintos has not been granted Australian
citizenship. Respondent submitted a certified true copy of
Quintos' Australian certificate of registration of alien, indicating
her nationality as Filipino. These pieces of evidence should prevail
over the affidavits submitted by Soliman and Peralta to the
Senate Committees.
