G.R. No. 169958, March 5, 2010
Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, Bureau of Immigration Commissioner and Board of Commissioners Chairman Alipio F. Fernandez, Jr., Immigration Associate Commissioners and Board of Commissioners Members Arthel B. Caronongan, Teodoro B. Delarmente, Jose D.L. Cabochan, and Franklin Z. Littua, Petitioners, vs. Michael Alfio Pennisi, Respondent.

FACTS

Michael Alfio Pennisi, born in Australia to an Australian father and Anita T. Quintos (allegedly a Filipino citizen), filed a petition for recognition as a Filipino citizen before the Bureau of Immigration (BI) in March 1999. He submitted documents including his mother’s birth certificate from San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, his parents’ marriage certificate, his mother’s Australian alien registration indicating Filipino nationality, his birth certificate, and a letter from Australian authorities stating his mother had not been granted Australian citizenship. On February 17, 2000, a BI Associate Commissioner granted the petition. After initial disapproval, the Department of Justice (DOJ) affirmed the grant of recognition on March 8, 2000, via Recognition Order No. 206679, finding him a citizen under the 1973 Constitution. Pennisi subsequently played professional basketball in the PBA.
In 2003, Senate Committees submitted a report recommending deportation proceedings against several players, including Pennisi, based on findings that his mother’s relatives were unknown in her purported birthplace and that her birth certificate was registered late. The DOJ created a special committee to investigate. On October 18, 2004, the DOJ issued a resolution revoking Pennisi’s certificate of recognition and directing the BI to begin summary deportation. The BI issued a Summary Deportation Order on October 26, 2004. Pennisi filed a petition before the Court of Appeals, which granted it, annulling the DOJ resolution and deportation order. The petitioners (DOJ and BI officials) appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in finding that respondent is a Filipino citizen. (Sub-issues include the timeliness of Pennisi’s petition, mootness due to his alleged departure, and the validity of the cancellation of his recognition and deportation order.)

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
The Court held that the petition was not filed late, as the 15-day period to appeal the DOJ resolution should be counted from Pennisi’s receipt of the BI’s deportation order (October 26, 2004), not from the DOJ resolution alone, making his November 4, 2004 filing timely. The issue was not moot, as the question of his citizenship had practical legal consequences. On the merits, the Court ruled that the BI and DOJ’s original grant of citizenship recognition, based on public documents, was valid. The Senate Committee’s findings, based on affidavits from local officials stating the family names were unknown in the area and the late registration of the birth certificate, were insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity of public documents. The Australian government documents attesting to his mother’s Filipino nationality were never questioned. The absence of family names from census or voter lists does not automatically invalidate a birth certificate, and late registration alone does not imply fraud. Therefore, the revocation of recognition and the deportation order were invalid.