Go vs Ramos Facts: These petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit for deportation initiated by Luis T.

Ramos against Jimmy T. Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. Luis alleged that while Jimmy represents himself as a Filipino citizen, Jimmy s personal circumstances and other records indicate that he is not so. Luis argued that although it appears from Jimmy s birth certificate that his parents, Carlos and Rosario Tan, are Filipinos, the document seems to be tampered, because only the citizenship of Carlos appears to be handwritten while all the other entries were typewritten. Issues: Did we adopt the jus soli or jus sanguinins principle? Does the principle of res adjudicata apply to decisions on citizenship? Ruling: We adopted the jus sanguinis principle. The doctrine of jus soli was never extended to the Philippines. The doctrine of jus soli was for a time the prevailing rule in the acquisition of one s citizenship. However, the Supreme Court abandoned the principle of jus soli in the case of Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor. Since then, said doctrine only benefited those who were individually declared to be citizens of the Philippines by a final court decision on the mistaken application of jus soli. In citizenship proceedings, res judicata does not obtain as a matter of course. Res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship only if the following concur: 1. a person s citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2. the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and 3. the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court.

Gonzales vs. Pennisi Facts: 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). In a hearing before the trial court, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the DOJ and BI, manifested that respondent would not be subjected to summary deportation and that he would be given an opportunity to present evidence of his Filipino citizenship in a full-blown trial on the merits. However, in a Summary Deportation Order dated 26 October 2004, the BI directed the deportation of several Filipino-foreign PBA players, including respondent. Respondent and Harp withdrew their petition before the trial court without prejudice, which the trial court granted in its order of 4 November 2004. Respondent filed a petition for review, with an application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals noted that respondents citizenship was previously recognized by the BI and DOJ and it was only after four years that the BI and DOJ reversed themselves in view of the finding in the Committee Report. The Court of Appeals ruled that the highly suspicious circumstances stated in the Committee Report referred to the affidavits of Barangay Captain Ramon Soliman (Soliman) and Barangay Treasurer Condrado P. Peralta (Peralta) that there were no Quintoses or Tomedas in the birthplace of respondents mother and that no such surnames appeared in the census or master list of voters. The Court of Appeals ruled that respondents documentary evidence before the BI and DOJ have more probative value and must prevail over the allegations of Soliman and Peralta. The Court of Appeals further noted that among the documents presented by respondent were authenticated documents issued by the Commonwealth of Australia attesting that Quintos consistently presented herself to be a Filipino citizen. The Court of Appeals ruled that the authenticity of the documents issued by the Australian government was never questioned nor put in issue. The Court of Appeals further ruled that the fact that the Quintoses and Tomedas were not included in the census or master list of voters did not automatically render Quintos birth certificate invalid. The Court of Appeals ruled that unless a public document is declared invalid by competent authority, it should be presumed valid and binding for all intents and purposes. Thus, the court granted the petition of Pennisi. Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in finding that respondent is a Filipino citizen. Ruling: The petition has no merit. Michael Alfio Pennisi was able to present before the BI and the committees, the documents required in granting recognition of Philippine citizenship, particularly the birth certificate of his Filipino mother, Anita Tomeda Quintos. We further sustain 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 masters 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 certificates 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. Thus, the court affirms the decision of the CA.