FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 188829, June 13, 2016

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. RAUL S. GONZALEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., IN HIS
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, HON. ARTHEL B.
CAROÑONGAN, HON. TEODORO B. DELARMENTE, HON. JOSE D. CABOCHAN, AND
HON. FRANKLIN Z. LITTAUA, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Petitioners, v. DAVONN MAURICE
C. HARP, Respondent.

DECISION

SERENO, C.J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing
the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 16 July 2009 in C A-G.R. SP No.
87272. The CA nullified the Summary Deportation Order3 issued by the Board of
Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) against respondent Davonn
Maurice Harp.

Petitioners Republic of the Philippines, Hon. Raul S. Gonzalez, in his capacity as

Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ); Hon. Alipio F. Fernandez, in his
capacity as Commissioner of the BI; and Hon. Arthel B. Caroñongan; Hon. Teodoro B.
Delarmente, Hon. Jose D. L. Cabochan, and Hon. Franklin Z. Littaua, in their
capacities as members of the Board of Commissioners of the BI (petitioners) seek the
reinstatement of (a) the DOJ Resolution4 dated 18 October 2004 revoking the Order
of Recognition and Identity Certificate issued to respondent;5 and (b) the BI
Summary Deportation Order dated 26 October 20046 issued after the revocation.
Petitioners emphasize that there is substantial evidence to support the finding that
respondent is not a Philippine citizen7 and, therefore, his summary deportation was
warranted.8 chanro bles law

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Respondent Davonn Maurice Harp was born and raised in the United States of
America to Toiya Harp and Manuel Arce Gonzalez (Manuel) on 21 January
1977.9 While on a visit to the Philippines,10 he was discovered by basketball talent
scouts. He was invited to play in the Philippine Basketball League11 and was
eventually drafted to play in the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA).12chanro bles law

Sometime in 2002, respondent was among those invited to participate in a Senate

investigation jointly conducted by the Committee on Games, Amusement, and
Sports; and the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and
Laws. The Senate inquiry sought to review the processes and requirements involved
in the acquisition and determination of Philippine citizenship in connection with the
"influx of bogus Filipino-American (Fil-Am) or Filipino-foreign (Fil-foreign) basketball
players into the PBA and other basketball associations in the Philippines."13 chanrobleslaw

In the course of the inquiry, it was established that respondent had previously
obtained recognition as a citizen of the Philippines from the BI14 and the DOJ15 upon
submission of the following documents:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

a) Respondent's birth certificate;

b) A certified true copy of the birth certificate of respondent's father,

 Manuel;

A Certification from the Consulate General of the Philippines stating

c) that Manuel became a citizen of the United States of America only on
10 November 1981;

An affidavit affirming Manuel's Filipino citizenship at the time of

d)
respondent's birth;

e) Respondent's passport;

f) The passports of respondent's parents; and

g) The marriage contract of respondent's parents.

The Senate committees, however, found reason to doubt the Philippine citizenship of
respondent. After a scrutiny of the documents he had submitted and its own field
investigation of his purported background, they concluded that he had used
spurious documents in support of his Petition for Recognition. In Committee Report
No. 256 dated 7 August 2003, the Senate committees explained:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

COMMITTEES' FINDINGS
The Committees have the honor to submit the following
findings of said inquiry to the Senate after conducting seven
(7) public hearings and thorough field investigations.16
chanrobleslaw

xxxx

D. Devonn Harp presented before the BI and the committees

a certified true copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of his
father, Manuel Arce Gonzales, to prove his claim for
Philippine citizenship.

It appears, however, that the above certificate of birth is

simulated, if not, highly suspicious.

First, the certified true copy of Manuel Arce Gonzales, in

photocopy form, appears to have alterations on its face
since the entries therein look to be superimposed. Some of
the entries as printed in the Certificate of Live Birth appear
light while the others dark, not to mention the traces of
erasures thereon.

Second, Devonn Harp in his affidavit of Philippine citizenship

executed in January 2000 deposed that his father is a certain
Manuel S. Gonzales. The discrepancy is in the middle/initial
name as the record of birth of his father indicates Manuel
Arce Gonzales.

Third, upon field investigations, the marriage of Manual Arce

Gonzales' parents, Devonn's alleged grandparents, namely
 Ernesto Prudencio Gonzalez and Natividad de la Cruz cannot
be established. Certifications by offices concerned in this
regard were issued and obtained by the field investigators.

Lastly, Ms. Liza T. Melgarejo, barangay secretary of Barangay

Alicia, Bago Bantay, Quezon City, certified that 'as per record
existing in this office (voters list 2002) there is no person
registered/existing under the name of Manual Arce Gonzalez.

She further stated that Block 24, Bago Bantay, Quezon City
exists. However, despite efforts exerted by the field
investigators, they were not able to find lot 14, the alleged
address of Devonn's relatives.17 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In the report, the Senate committees also directed the BI and the DOJ to examine
thoroughly the authenticity of the documents submitted by certain PBA players,
including respondent, and to determine if they were indeed citizens of the
Philippines.18 chanro bles law

Pursuant to this directive, the DOJ issued Department Order No. 412 creating a
special committee to investigate the citizenship of the PBA players identified in the
report.19 As part of the investigation, respondent and the other players were required
to submit their position papers to the special committee for consideration.
Respondent filed his Position Paper20 on 14 October 2004.

The DOJ special committee submitted its findings and recommendations in a

Memorandum to the Secretary of Justice dated 15 October 2004.21 With regard to
respondent, the committee concluded that there was "substantial evidence to
conduct summary deportation proceeding x x x for 'misrepresentation as a Filipino
citizen' in applying for recognition before the Bureau of Immigration and the
Department of Justice."22 The Committee relied, in particular, on the findings of the
Senate committees and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on the apparent
alterations made in the Certificate of Live Birth of respondent's father: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

x x x While we recognize the evidentiary rule that entries in

public records like Certificate of Live Birth are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein, it is worthy to mention
that the pieces of information adduced during the Senate
Committee investigation have produced clear, strong and
convincing evidence to overcome the positive value of the
said document.

This Committee further considers the probability that the

document itself may have been fraudulently tampered. We
concur with the observations of the Senate Committee on
the patent alterations appearing on the face of the
Certificate of Live Birth of Manuel Arce Gonzales.

Incidentally, the National Bureau of Investigation thru the

Questioned Documents Examination Section came up with its
own findings that some of the entries in the "Certificate of Live
Birth of Manuel Arce Gonzales" have been substantially
altered. The summary of the NBI findings are as follows:

Laboratory analysis of the specimen submitted under

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

magnification using stereoscopic microscope, magnifying

lens, varied lighting process and with the aid of photographic
enlargements, reveal evidence of alteration by mechanical
erasures (scraping off), obliteration and superimposition on
the following areas of the questioned Certificate of Live Birth,
as shown by fiber disturbance, differences in type design of
typewriter used, typewriter ribbon, tint/shade of writing
instrument, and traces of outlines of the original entries could
 be deciphered as:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

On item no. 3 - in the now appearing typewritten name "Manuel" in

- Name of Child: Manuel Arce Gonzalez. Traces of the original entry
could be deciphered as "N-erto".

On item no. 6 - in the now appearing typewritten entry "Aug. 11" in

- Date of Birth: Aug. 11, 1957. The original entry could possibly be "Aug.
13, 1957".

On item no. 12 - in the now appearing typewritten middle name "Dela

Cruz" and the last name "Arce" in Name of Mother: Natividad Dela Cruz
-
Arce. The original entry could partially be deciphered as Natividad
Cab-as Breva.

On item no. 14 - in the now appearing typewritten figure "7" in Age of

- Mother (at the time of his birth): 37. The original entry could be
deciphered as "3".

On item no 17a - in the handwritten middle initial "A" and last name
"Gonzalez" in Informants Signature written as Natividad A. Gonzalez. The
-
original entry could not be deciphered as portions of it had been
covered by the new superimposed entry.

On item no. 18b - in the handwritten last name "Gonzalez" appearing

- below the typewritten name Natividad A. Gonzalez. The original entry
could not be deciphered due to extensive erasure.

On the three (3) now appearing handwritten surnames "Gonzalez" in

Affidavit To Be Accomplished in Case of An Illegitimate Child (dorsal
- side of the Certificate of Live Birth). The original entries underneath the
three (3) Gonzales signatures could be deciphered as
"Breva." (citations omitted; underscoring in the original)
23

Acting on the basis of the special committee's findings, DOJ Secretary Gonzalez
issued a Resolution dated 18 October 200424 revoking the recognition accorded to
respondent and five other PBA players.25 Secretary Gonzalez also directed the BI to
cralawred

undertake summary deportation proceedings against them.

On 20 October 2004, respondent and another PBA player, Michael Alfio Pennisi, filed
a Petition for Prohibition with Application for a 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.26 The petition
sought to enjoin the DOJ and the BI proceedings for the revocation of citizenship
and the summary deportation of respondent and Pennisi.27 chanro bles law

On 26 October 2004, the BI ordered the summary deportation of respondent. It

noted that the recognition previously accorded to him as a Filipino citizen had been
revoked by the DOJ because of the spurious documents submitted in support
thereof.28 Consequently, the BI considered him an improperly documented alien
subject to summary deportation proceedings pursuant to BI Memorandum Order
Nos. ADD-01-031 and ADD-01-035.29 chanrobleslaw
Upon receipt of the Summary Deportation Order, respondent withdrew his petition
for prohibition before the RTC.30 He thereafter filed a Petition for Review with an
application for injunction before the CA31 to seek the reversal of the DOJ Resolution
and the BI Summary Deportation Order.

In a Decision dated 16 July 2009,32 the CA granted the Petition and set aside the
deportation order. It held that respondent, who was a recognized citizen of the
Philippines, could not be summarily deported;33 and that his citizenship may only be
attacked through a direct action in a proceeding that would respect his rights as a
citizen:
ChanRobles Virtualawlibrary

Concomitant to his status as a recognized Filipino citizen,

petitioner, therefore, cannot just be summarily deported by
the BI. The BI no longer has jurisdiction to revoke the order of
recognition it had granted to petitioner as the same order
had already become final and executory pursuant to Book
VII, Chapter 3, Section 15 of the Administrative Code of 1987.
It must be noted that the order of recognition was issued 18
February 2000 and IC No. 018488 was issued on 24 October
2000. The Summary Deportation Order, on the other hand,
was issued on 26 October 2004 or more than four years after
petitioner was conferred recognition of his Filipino citizenship.

It is worth stressing that when the BI acknowledged

petitioner's Filipino citizenship through the issuance of the
order of recognition (with the affirmation of the DOJ) and IC
No. 018488, the same is the last official act of the government
which granted petitioner the rights of a Filipino citizen, the
right to due process included. x x x.

xxxx

Moreover, the Summary Deportation Order collaterally

attacks the Filipino citizenship of petitioner. 'This cannot be
done. In our jurisdiction, an attack on a person's citizenship
may only be done through a direct action for its nullity.' A
Filipino citizen has the right to be secure in the enjoyment of
the privileges accorded to him attendant to his citizenship. He
has the right to live peacefully without perturbation from the
authorities. Should he be disturbed by deportation
proceedings, like in the instant case, he can resort to the
courts for his protection. x x x34 chanro bles virtuallawlibrary

The CA, however, refused to settle the main controversy involving the citizenship of
respondent.35 Citing his incorrect resort to a Rule 43 petition to assail the DOJ
Resolution, the appellate court opted to resolve only the issues pertaining to the
Summary Deportation Order.36 chanro bles law

ARGUMENTS RAISED

Petitioners assert that in granting the Petition for Review filed by respondent, the CA
erred for the following reasons: (1) his appeal was rendered moot and academic by
his voluntary departure from the Philippines;37 (2) the CA had no jurisdiction over his
appeal because the petition had been filed out of time;38 and (3) the appellate
court used his Philippine citizenship as a basis to set aside the Summary Deportation
Order despite the DOJ's valid revocation of the recognition accorded to him.39 chanrobleslaw

Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that he is a recognized natural-born

Philippine citizen, who cannot be deprived of his rights and summarily deported by
the BI.40 He alleges that his citizenship was duly established when he filed his petition
for recognition before the DOJ and the BI,41 and that the recognition they granted
to him cannot be overturned merely on the basis of the "unfounded conjectures and
baseless speculations" of the Senate committees, the DOJ and the NBI.42 chanro bles law
OUR RULING

We DENY the Petition.

Respondent's appeal was not rendered moot and academic by his voluntary
departure from the Philippines.

Petitioners allege that it is no longer necessary to resolve the appeal of respondent

because he has voluntarily departed from the Philippines and is now beyond the
legal processes of the country.43 They argue that pursuant to the ruling in Lew in v.
The Deportation Board,44 his voluntary departure has rendered his appeal moot and
academic.

We find this argument unmeritorious. As explained by this Court in Gonzalez v.

Pennisi,45Lewin involved an alien who entered the Philippines as a temporary visitor
and eventually left without any assurance that he would be allowed to return to the
country. For obvious reasons, the ruling in that case cannot be applied to others
whose Philippine citizenship has also been previously recognized and whose
intention to return to the country has likewise been manifested. In Gonzalez, this
Court stated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

However, we agree with respondent that the factual

circumstances in Lewin are different from the case before us.
In Lewin, petitioner was an alien who entered the country as
a temporary visitor, to stay for only 50 days. He prolonged his
stay by securing several extensions. Before his last extension
expired, he voluntarily left the country, upon filing a bond,
without any assurance from the deportation board that he
would be admitted to the country upon his return. The court
found that he did not return to the country, and at the time
he was living in another country. The court ruled that Lewin's
voluntary departure from the country, his long absence, and
his status when he entered the country as a temporary visitor
rendered academic the question of his deportation as an
undesirable alien.

In this case, respondent, prior to his deportation, was

recognized as a Filipino citizen. He manifested his intent to
return to the country because his Filipino wife and children
are residing in the Philippines. The filing of the petitions before
the Court of Appeals and before this court showed his
intention to prove his Filipino lineage and citizenship, as well
as the error committed by petitioners in causing his
deportation from the country. He was precisely questioning
the DOJ's revocation of his certificate of recognition and his
summary deportation by the BI.46 chanro bles law

Therefore, we rule that respondent's deportation did not

render the present case moot.
Like the respondent in Gonzalez, respondent herein is also a recognized citizen of the
Philippines. He has fought for his citizenship and clearly demonstrated his intent to
return to the country.47 Consequently, we hold that his departure has not rendered
this case moot and academic.

The filing of respondent's Petition before the CA was not unreasonably delayed.

Petitioners also argue that the Petition of respondent before the CA should have
been dismissed on the ground of late filing.48 They allege that he only had until 3
November 2004 to file an appeal of the DOJ Resolution, since he received a copy
thereof on 19 October 2004.49 Petitioners contend that because his Petition was filed
only on 4 November 2004, the DOJ Resolution had already become final and
executory, and the CA no longer had the authority to modify it.50chanro bles law

In his Comment,51 respondent explained that he was able to file his appeal with the
CA only on 4 November 2004, because he had to wait for the RTC to grant him leave
to withdraw his pending Petition.52 He asked the Court to consider the fact that the
one-day delay in filing the appeal was not caused by his thoughtlessness, but by the
need to ensure that he would not violate the rule against forum shopping.53 chanrobleslaw

We rule for respondent. The one-day delay in the filing of the Petition is excusable.

In Heirs of Crisostomo v. Rudex International Development Corp.,54 the Court

explained that the limited period of appeal was instituted to prevent parties from
intentionally and unreasonably causing a delay in the administration of justice. The
dismissal of a petition is unwarranted if the element of intent to delay is clearly
absent from a case.55 Here, it is apparent that the delay in the filing of the Petition
was for a valid reason, i.e. respondent had to wait for the RTC Order allowing him to
withdraw his then pending Petition. It is likewise clear that he did not intend to delay
the administration of justice, as he in fact filed the appeal with the CA on the very
same day the RTC issued the awaited Order.56 chanro bles law

We also note that in Gonzalez,57 a case involving exactly the same circumstances,
the Court ruled that the one-day delay in filing the Petition for Review with the CA
was justified:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

A one-day delay does not justify the appeal's dismissal where

no element of intent to delay the administration of justice
could be attributed to the petitioner. The Court has ruled: ChanRobles Virtualawlibrary

The general rule is that the perfection of an

appeal in the manner and within the period
prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but
jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules
will render the judgment sought to be reviewed
final and unappealable. By way of exception,
unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give
due course to appeals filed beyond the
reglementary period on the basis of strong and
compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of
justice and preventing a grave miscarriage
thereof. The purpose behind the limitation of the
period of appeal is to avoid
an unreasonable delay in the administration of
justice and to put an end to controversies.
Respondent had a valid excuse for the late filing of the
petition before the Court of Appeals. It is not disputed that
there was a pending petition for prohibition before the trial
court. Before filing the petition for review before the Court of
Appeals, respondent had to withdraw the petition for
prohibition before the trial court. The trial court granted the
withdrawal of the petition only on 4 November 2004, the date
of filing of the petition for review before the Court of Appeals.
Under the circumstances, we find the one-day delay in filing
the petition for review excusable. (Citations omitted and
capitalized in the original)
We find no reason to depart from the above ruling. All things considered, a liberal
construction of the rules of procedure is in order. The ends of justice would be better
served by a review of this case on the merits rather than by a dismissal based on
technicalities.

The DOJ erroneously revoked the recognition accorded to respondent.

Before proceeding to resolve the central issue in this controversy, we first clarify the
parameters of this ruling. The Court is aware that respondent has failed to appeal the
CA's dismissal of his Petition insofar as it refers to the DOJ Resolution. While we affirm
the doctrine that the resolutions of the DOJ cannot be challenged via a petition for
review under Rule 43, the Court believes that the Summary Deportation Order is
necessarily intertwined with the DOJ Resolution. The propriety of the deportation
proceedings against respondent cannot be determined without passing upon the
DOJ's findings on his citizenship.

In the interest of putting an end to the entire controversy, we shall resolve all issues
raised by the parties in relation to the DOJ Resolution and the Summary Deportation
Order, in particular: (a) the finality of the recognition accorded to respondent as a
citizen of the Philippines; (b) the validity of the DOJ Resolution; and (c) the legality of
the Summary Deportation Order.

a) Finality of the Recognition Accorded to Respondent

As the agency tasked to "provide immigration and naturalization regulatory services"

and "implement the laws governing citizenship and the admission and stay of
aliens,"58 the DOJ has the power to authorize the recognition of citizens of the
Philippines. Any individual born of a Filipino parent is a citizen of the Philippines59 and
is entitled to be recognized as such.60 Recognition is accorded by the BI and the
DOJ to qualified individuals, provided the proper procedure is complied with and
the necessary documents are submitted.61 In this case, respondent was accorded
recognition as a citizen on 24 February 2000. On 24 October 2000, he was issued
Identification Certificate No. 018488, which confirmed his status and affirmed his
entitlement to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.62
chanro bles law

Petitioners, however, are correct in saying that the recognition granted to

respondent has not attained finality. This Court has consistently ruled that the issue of
citizenship may be threshed out as the occasion demands.63Res judicata only
applies once a finding of citizenship is affirmed by the Court in a proceeding in
which: (a) the person whose citizenship is questioned is a party; (b) the person's
citizenship is raised as a material issue; and (c) the Solicitor General or an authorized
representative is able to take an active part.64 Since respondent's citizenship has not
been the subject of such a proceeding, there is no obstacle to revisiting the matter
in this case.

b) Validity of the DOJ Resolution

As in any administrative proceeding, the exercise of the power to revoke a

certificate of recognition already issued requires the observance of the basic tenets
of due process. At the very least, it is imperative that the ruling be supported by
substantial evidence65 in view of the gravity of the consequences that would arise
from a revocation.

In this case, the DOJ relied on certain pieces of documentary and testimonial
evidence to support its conclusion that respondent is not a true citizen of the
Philippines: (a) the findings of the Senate committees66 and the NBI67 that alterations
were made in the Certificate of Live Birth of Manuel; (b) the discrepancy between
the middle initial found in Manuel's birth certificate and that which appears in
respondent's affidavit of citizenship;68 (c) the results of the Senate's field investigations
of respondent's relatives;69 and (d) a Certification from the Secretary
of Barangay Alicia, Bago Bantay, Quezon City, stating that "Manuel Arce Gonzalez"
was not included in the 2002 list of voters in that barangay.70 chanrobleslaw

The Court finds these pieces of evidence inadequate to warrant a revocation of the
recognition accorded to respondent.

We note that respondent was earlier recognized as a natural-born citizen of the

Philippines on the strength of the documentary evidence he presented. He has
established that (a) he is the son of Manuel, as indicated in his birth certificate;71 and
(b) Manuel was a Filipino citizen when respondent was born, as shown by the
former's Certificate of Live Birth72 and Naturalization Certificate,73 as well as a
Certification74 issued by the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Francisco. In
its Resolution, however, the DOJ decided to attach more importance to the "clear
and convincing" rebuttal evidence from the Senate committees and the NBI, which
supposedly outweighed the probative value of these authenticated documents.

We are not convinced.

First, the reports relied upon by the DOJ as evidence of the alleged alterations made
in Manuel's Certificate of Live Birth are far from conclusive.
From Senate Committee Report No. 256 dated 7 August 2003, it appears that the
supposed discovery of alterations was based on a mere photocopy of Manuel's
Certificate of Live Birth.75 Since the original document was not inspected, the
committees could not make any categorical finding of purported alterations. They
were only able to conclude that Manuel's birth certificate appeared to
be "simulated, if not, highly suspicious."76 The Court cannot rely on this inconclusive
finding. In the same way that forgery cannot be determined on the basis of a
comparison of photocopied instruments,77 the conclusion that a document has
been altered cannot be made if the original is not examined.

Neither can the Court accord any probative value to the NBI report on the
questioned document. We note that not only did petitioners fail to submit a copy of
this report to the Court; the quoted portions of the report in the Petition and the DOJ
Resolution also failed to identify the specimen used by the NBI for its
examination.78 As an appellate court, we cannot look beyond the record to affirm or
reverse a ruling.79 Because of the absence of these crucial facts from the records of
the case, the purported contents of the report are unsupported assertions to which
the Court can give very little weight.

Moreover, the repeated allegations80 of respondent that the NBI examined only a
copy of his father's birth certificate, and not the original document, remained
uncontroverted. The only response of the OSG to this objection is that it remains the
responsibility of respondent to show proof that the document he relies upon is
genuine.81 It must be emphasized, however, that Manuel's birth certificate, a public
document and an official record in the custody of the Civil Registrar, enjoys the
presumption of regularity and authenticity.82 To defeat these presumptions, the party
making the allegation must present clear, positive and convincing evidence of
alteration.83 For obvious reasons, this burden cannot be discharged by the mere
submission of an inconclusive report from the Senate Committee and the
presentation of an excerpt of an NBI report on the purported alterations.

Second, the Court is not convinced that the other pieces of evidence relied upon by
the DOJ sufficiently contradict the claimed Philippine citizenship of respondent. The
veracity of that claim is certainly not negated by the results of the field investigation
of the Senate, specifically its failure to obtain a record of the marriage between the
grandparents of respondent and its inability to find any of his relatives. There are a
number of possible explanations for these circumstances - for instance, the marriage
of his grandparents may not have been properly reported or the record thereof may
have been lost or destroyed; his relatives, on the other hand, may have died or
transferred to another place of residence. Based solely on the available pieces of
evidence, it is impossible for us to conclude that he deceived the DOJ and the BI
about his citizenship.

As to the Certification issued by the Secretary of Barangay Alicia, Bago Bantay,

Quezon City, the Court finds it irrelevant. Since Manuel became a naturalized
American citizen on 10 November 1981,84 it is only logical that his name no longer
appears in the 2002 list of voters in the barangay. Finally, the inconsistency between
his middle initial in his birth certificate and that which appears in the affidavit of
citizenship submitted by respondent has been adequately explained as a mere
typographical error.

The evidence relied upon by the DOJ and the BI is simply not enough to negate the
probative value of the documentary evidence submitted by respondent to prove his
Philippine citizenship. Without more, the Court finds no reason to set aside the rule
that public documents, particularly those related to the civil register, are "prima
facie evidence of the facts therein contained."85 Hence, we rely on these
documents to declare that respondent is a citizen of the Philippines.

c) Validity of the Summary Deportation Order

It is settled that summary deportation proceedings cannot be instituted by the BI

against citizens of the Philippines.86 In Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa,87 the
Court reiterated the doctrine that citizens may resort to courts for protection if their
right to live in peace, without molestation from any official or authority, is disturbed in
a deportation proceeding. Ifi that case, we stated: ChanRobles Virtualawlibrary
 However, the rule enunciated in the above-cases admits of
an exception, at least insofar as deportation proceedings are
concerned. Thus, what if the claim to citizenship of the
alleged deportee is satisfactory? Should the deportation
proceedings be allowed to continue or should the question of
citizenship be ventilated in a judicial proceeding? In Chua
Hiong vs. Deportation Board (96 Phil. 665 [1955]), this Court
answered the question in the affirmative, and We quote: ChanRobles Virtualawlibrary

When the evidence submitted by a respondent is

conclusive of his citizenship, the right to
immediate review should also be recognized
and the courts should promptly enjoin the
deportation proceedings. A citizen is entitled to
live in peace, without molestation from any
official or authority, and if he is disturbed by a
deportation proceeding, he has the
unquestionable right to resort to the courts for his
protection, either by a writ of habeas corpus or
of prohibition, on the legal ground that the Board
lacks jurisdiction. If he is a citizen and evidence
thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense nor justice
in allowing the deportation proceedings to
continue, granting him the remedy only after the
Board has finished its investigation of his
undesirability.

. . . And if the right (to peace) is precious and

valuable at all, it must also be protected on time,
to prevent undue harassment at the hands of ill-
meaning or misinformed administrative officials.
Of what use is this much boasted right to peace
and liberty if it can be availed of only after the
Deportation Board has unjustly trampled upon it,
besmirching the citizen's name before the bar of
public opinion? (Emphases supplied)
Since respondent has already been declared and recognized as a Philippine citizen
by the BI and the DOJ, he must be protected from summary deportation
proceedings. We affirm the ruling of the CA on this matter:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

True, "[t]he power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is

an act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a
police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in
the country is found to be injurious to the public good and
domestic tranquility of the people." However, in this
controversy, petitioner is not an alien. He is a Filipino citizen
duly recognized by the BI, the DOJ and the DFA x x
x.88 (Citations omitted)
A final word. The Court is compelled to make an observation on the cavalier way by
which the BI, the DOJ and the Senate committee handled this matter. The DOJ and
the BI relied on inconclusive evidence - in particular, on questionable reports based
on photocopied documents - to take away the citizenship of respondent and even
justify his deportation. These acts violate our basic rules on evidence89 and, more
important, the fundamental right of every person to due process.90 chanro bles law

The Senate committee, for its part, did acknowledge that further investigation of the
citizenship of respondent and the authenticity of the documents he submitted was
necessary.91 However, it still proceeded to conclude that his father's Certificate of
Live Birth had been simulated and altered.92 For evident reasons, it was unfair and
careless for the committee to make those statements, given the admitted fact that it
had examined a mere photocopy of the document. At the least, it cast aspersions
on the reputations of respondent and his family and placed the authenticity of
public records under suspicion. Even if an investigation later controverts the contents
of the report, the damage can no longer be completely undone.

The conduct of these three institutions is quite puzzling to the Court considering that
any one of them could have simply required the appropriate agencies to present
the original documents for inspection. Alternatively, these agencies could have
been asked to repeat their examination of the documents using original specimens
to determine whether alterations had indeed been made. It is most unfortunate that
they failed to use their legal authority to make sure that there was sufficient
evidence before they revoked his citizenship.

Furthermore, considering the gravity of the allegation that respondent submitted

forged documents to support his claim, government institutions and agencies
cannot make this accusation irresponsibly. The detrimental effects of one reckless
allegation - on the right of a person to reputation and livelihood, among others - are
clearly exemplified in this case. We also emphasize that what is at stake is the
citizenship of an individual. This Court will not sanction a revocation of this most basic
of rights93 on frivolous grounds.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Department of Justice

dated 18 October 2004 and the Summary Deportation Order dated 26 October 2004
issued by the Bureau of Immigration are hereby SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary