G.R. No.
191124 April 27, "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence where,
2010 LUIS A. ASISTIO vs. HON. THELMA CANLAS
TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE
FACTS:
Echiverri alleged that Asistio is not a resident of
Caloocan City, specifically not of 123 Interior P. Zamora
St., Barangay 15, Caloocan City, the address stated in his
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Mayor in the 2010
Automated National and Local Elections.
Echiverri, also a candidate for Mayor of Caloocan City,
was the respondent in a Petition to Deny Due Course
and/or Cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy filed
by Asistio. According to Echiverri, when he was about to
furnish Asistio a copy of his Answer to the latter’s
petition, he found out that Asistio’s address is
non-existent.
To support this, Echiverri attached to his petition a
Certification4 dated December 29, 2009 issued by the
Tanggapan ng Punong Barangay of Barangay 15 –
Central, Zone 2, District II of Caloocan City. He
mentioned that, upon verification of the 2009
Computerized Voters’ List (CVL) for Barangay 15,
Asistio’s name appeared under voter number 8, with
address at 109 Libis Gochuico, Barangay 15, Caloocan
City.
Echiverri also claimed that Asistio was no longer
residing in this address, since what appeared in the
latter’s COC for Mayor6 in the 2007 elections was No.
110 Unit 1, P. Zamora St., Barangay 15, Caloocan City,7
but that the address used in Asistio’s current COC is
situated in Barangay 17. He said that, per his
verification, the voters8 duly registered in the 2009 CVL
using the address No. 123 P. Zamora St., Barangay 17,
Caloocan City did not include Asistio.
Issue: won Asisto is a resident of caloocan City.
RULE​:
“Residence," as used in the law prescribing the
qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, is
doctrinally settled to mean "domicile," importing not
only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also
personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention inferable from a person’s
acts, activities, and utterances.
when absent for business or pleasure, or for like
reasons, one intends to return. In the consideration of
circumstances obtaining in each particular case, three
rules must be borne in mind, namely:
(1) that a person must have a residence or domicile
somewhere;
(2) once established, it remains until a new one is
acquired; and
(3) that a person can have but one residence or
domicile at a time.
Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a
transfer thereof, one must demonstrate:
(1) an actual removal or change of domicile;
(2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
place of residence and establishing a new one; and
(3) acts which correspond with that purpose. There
must
be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi.
The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice
must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of
residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the
place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
Asistio has always been a resident of Caloocan City since
his birth or for more than 72 years. His family is known
to be among the prominent political families in
Caloocan City. In fact, Asistio served in public office as
Caloocan City Second District representative in the
House of Representatives, having been elected as such
in the 1992, 1995, 1998, and 2004 elections. In 2007, he
also sought election as City Mayor.
MEYNARDO SABILI, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FLORENCIO LIBREA,
Respondents.
FACTS:
heart of the controversy is whether petitioner Sabili had
complied with the one-year residency requirement for
local elective officials.
When petitioner filed his COC1 for mayor of Lipa City for
the 2010 elections, he stated therein that he had been a
resident of the city for two (2) years and eight (8)
months. Prior to the 2010 elections, he had been twice
elected (in 1995 and in 1998) as Provincial Board
Member representing the 4th District of Batangas.
During the 2007 elections, petitioner ran for the
position of Representative of the 4th District of
Batangas, but lost. The 4th District of Batangas includes
Lipa City.2 However, it is undisputed that when
petitioner filed his COC during the 2007 elections, he
and his family were then staying at his ancestral home
in Barangay (Brgy.) Sico, San Juan, Batangas.
Private respondent Florencio Librea (private
respondent) filed a "Petition to Deny Due Course and to
Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and to Disqualify a
Candidate for Possessing Some Grounds for
Disqualification"
In support of his allegation, private respondent
presented documents such as;
1. Petitioner’s COC for the 2010 elections filed on
1 December 2009
2. 2009 Tax Declarations for a house and lot (TCT
Nos. 173355, 173356 and buildings thereon) in
Pinagtong-ulan, Lipa City registered under the
name of Bernadette Palomares, petitioner’s
common-law wife
3. Lipa City Assessor Certification of Property
Holdings of properties under the name of
Bernadette Palomares8 Affidavit executed by
private respondent Florencio Librea,
4. Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Eladio de
Torres10, Voter Certification on petitioner
issued by COMELEC Election Officer Juan D.
Aguila, Jr.,
5. 1997 Voter Registration Record of petitioner,
6. National Statistics Office (NSO) Advisory on
Marriages regarding petitioner, annnnnnndd
daghan pa nga documents.
On the other hand, petitioner presented the following
evidence to establish the fact of his residence in Lipa
City.
Isuue:
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in holding that Sabili failed to prove
compliance with the one-year residency requirement
for local elective officials.
rule:
To establish a new domicile of choice, personal
presence in the place must be coupled with conduct
indicative of the intention to make it one's fixed and
permanent place of abode.
The Constitution and the law requires residence as a
qualification for seeking and holding elective public
office, in order to give candidates the opportunity to be
familiar with the needs, difficulties, aspirations,
potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare
of their constituencies; likewise, it enables the
electorate to evaluate the office seekers’ qualifications
and fitness for the job they aspire for.
Petitioner’s actual physical presence in Lipa City is
established not only by the presence of a place
(Pinagtong-ulan house and lot) he can actually live in,
but also the affidavits of various persons in
Pinagtong-ulan, and the Certification of its barangay
captain. Petitioner’s substantial and real interest in
establishing his domicile ofchoice in Lipa City is also
sufficiently shown not only by the acquisition of
additional property in the area and the transfer of his
voter registration, but also his participation in the
community’s socio-civic and religious life, as well as his
declaration in his ITR that he is a resident thereof.
In sum, we grant the Petition not only because
petitioner sufficiently established his compliance with
the one-year residency requirement for local elective
officials under the law. We also recognize that
"(a)bove and beyond all, the determination of the true
will of the electorate should be paramount. It
is their voice, not ours or of anyone else, that must
prevail. This, in essence, is the democracy we
continue to hold sacred.
 ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
FACTS:
(Acting on a Motion for Reconsideration) On the critical
question of whether Mitra deliberately misrepresented
his Aborlan residence to deceive and mislead the
people of the Province of Palawan, we found that Mitra
did not. In fact, Mitra adduced positive evidence of
transfer of residence which the private respondents’
evidence failed to sufficiently controvert.
Specifically, the private respondents’ evidence failed to
show that Mitra remained a Puerto Princesa City
resident.
In this regard, we took note of the ​"incremental
moves" Mitra undertook to establish his new domicile
in Aborlan, as evidenced by the following:
(1) his expressed intent to transfer to a residence
outside of Puerto Princesa City to make him eligible for
a provincial position;
(2) his preparatory moves starting in early 2008;
(3) the transfer of registration as a voter in March 2009;
(4) his initial transfer through a leased dwelling at
Maligaya Feedmill;
(5) the purchase of a lot for his permanent home;
(6) the construction of a house on the said lot which is
adjacent to the premises he was leasing pending the
completion of his house.
Thus, we found that under the situation prevailing when
Mitra filed his COC, there is no reason to infer that
Mitra committed any misrepresentation, whether
inadvertently or deliberately, in claiming residence in
Aborlan.
We also emphasized that the COMELEC could not even
present any legally acceptable basis (as it used
subjective non-legal standards in its analysis) to
conclude that Mitra’s statement in his COC concerning
his residence was indeed a misrepresentation.
In sum, we concluded that the evidence in the present
case, carefully reviewed​, showed that Mitra indeed
transfered his residence from Puerto Princesa City to
Aborlan within the period required by law.
RULE​:
While it is undisputed that Mitra’s domicile of origin is
Puerto Princesa City, Mitra adequately proved by
substantial evidence that he transferred by incremental
process to Aborlan beginning 2008, and concluded his
transfer in early 2009.
the private respondents failed to establish by
sufficiently convincing evidence that Mitra did not
effectively transfer, while the COMELEC not only grossly
misread the evidence but even used the wrong
considerations in appreciating the submitted evidence.
To convince us of their point of view, the private
respondents point out that we :
(1) totally disregarded the other evidence they
submitted, which the COMELEC, on the other hand,
properly considered;
(2) disregarded the import of the effectivity of the lease
contract, which showed that it was only
effective until February 28, 2010; and
(3) disregarded the evidence showing that Mitra failed
to abandon his domicile of origin.
In contrast, we found in the present case that Mitra did
not deliberately misrepresent his Aborlan residence to
deceive or mislead the Palawan electorate since he in
fact adduced positive evidence of transfer of residence
which the private respondents failed to sufficiently
controvert. In this regard, we noted with emphasis that
Mitra undertook "incremental moves" to his new
domicile in Aborlan as evidenced by the following:
(1) his expressed intent to transfer to a residence
outside of Puerto Princesa City to make him eligible for
a provincial position;
(2) his preparatory moves starting in early 2008;
(3) the transfer of registration as a voter in March 2009;
(4) his initial transfer through a leased dwelling at
Maligaya Feedmill;
(5) the purchase of a lot for his permanent home; and
(6) the construction of a house on the said lot which is
adjacent to the premises he was leasing pending the
completion of his house.
JUAN DOMINO, petitioner,
 vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
FACTS:
On 25 March 1998, DOMINO filed his certificate of
candidacy for the position of Representative of the Lone
Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani
indicating in item nine (9) of his certificate that he had
resided in the constituency where he seeks to be
elected for one (1) year and two (2) months
immediately preceding the election.3
On 30 March 1998, private respondents Narciso Ra.
Grafilo, Jr., Eddy B. Java, Juan P. Bayonito, Jr., Rosario
Samson and Dionisio P. Lim, Sr., fied with the COMELEC
a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of
Candidacy, which was docketed as SPA No. 98-022 and
assigned to the Second Division of the COMELEC.
Private respondents alleged that DOMINO, contrary to
his declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not a
resident, much less a registered voter, of the province
of Sarangani where he seeks election. To substantiate
their allegations, private respondents presented the
following evidence:
1. the Certificate of Candidacy of respondent for
the position of Congressman of the Lone District
of the Province of Sarangani filed with the
Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of
Sarangani on March 25, 1998, where in item 4
thereof he wrote his date of birth as December
5, 1953; in item 9, he claims he have resided in
the constituency where he seeks election for
one (1) year and two (2) months; and, in item
10, that he is registered voter of Precinct No.
14A-1, Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani
2. Voter's Registration Record
3. Respondent's Community Tax Certificate
4. Certified true copy of the letter of Herson D.
Dema-ala, Deputy Provincial & Municipal
Treasurer of Alabel, Sarangani
5. The triplicate copy of the Community Tax
Certificate
6. a copy of the APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF
REGISTRATION RECORDS DUE TO CHANGE OF
RESIDENCE
7. Copy of the SWORN APPLICATION FOR OF
CANCELLATION OF THE VOTER'S [TRANSFER OF]
PREVIOUS REGISTRATION of respondent
subscribed and sworn to on 22 October 1997
before Election Officer Mantil Allim at Alabel,
Sarangani.
On 6 May 1998, the COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated
a resolution declaring DOMINO disqualified as
candidate for the position of representative of the lone
district of Sarangani for lack of the one-year residence
requirement and likewise ordered the cancellation of
his certificate of candidacy
Issue:
WON DOMINO a resident of the Province of Sarangani
for at least one year immediately preceding the 11 May
1998 election as stated in his certificate of candidacy
We hold in the negative.
It is doctrinally settled that the term "residence," as
used in the law prescribing the qualifications for
suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing
as "domicile," which imports not only an intention to
reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that
place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention.21 "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent
residence to which, ​whenever absent for business,
pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to
return.22 "Domicile" is a question of intention and
circumstances. In the consideration of circumstances,
three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that a
man must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2)
when once established it remains until a new one is
acquired; and (3) a man can have but one residence or
domicile at a time.
Records show that petitioner's domicile of origin was
Candon, Ilocos Sur 24 and that sometime in 1991, he
acquired a new domicile of choice at 24 Bonifacio St.
Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon City, as shown by his
certificate of candidacy for the position of
representative of the 3rd District of Quezon City in the
May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he
had effectively abandoned his "residence" in Quezon
City and has established a new "domicile" of choice at
the Province of Sarangani.
As a general rule, the principal elements of
domicile, physical presence in the locality involved
and intention to adopt it as a domicile, must concur in
order to establish a new domicile.
 No change of domicile will result if either of
these elements is absent. Intention to acquire a
domicile without actual residence in the locality does
not result in acquisition of domicile, nor does the fact
of physical presence without intention
The lease contract entered into sometime in
January 1997, does not adequately support a change
of domicile. The lease contract may be indicative of
DOMINO's intention to reside in Sarangani but
it does not engender the kind of permanency required
to prove abandonment of one's original
domicile. The mere absence of individual from his
permanent residence, no matter how long, without
the intention to abandon it does not result in loss or
change of domicile.
MAYOR JOSE UGDORACION, JR., petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EPHRAIM M.
TUNGOL, respondents.
FACTS:
On April 11, 2007, Tungol filed a Petition to Deny Due
Course or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Jose
Ugdoracion, Jr., contending that Ugdoracion's
declaration of eligibility for Mayor constituted material
misrepresentation because Ugdoracion is actually a
"green card" holder or a permanent resident of the
United States of America (USA).
Ugdoracion stated in his COC that he had resided in
Albuquerque, Bohol, Philippines for 41 years before
May 14, 2007 and he is not a permanent resident or an
immigrant to a foreign country. became a permanent
resident of the USA on September 26, 2001
Ugdoracion argued that, in our jurisdiction, domicile is
equivalent to residence, and he retained his domicile of
origin (Albuquerque, Bohol) notwithstanding his
ostensible acquisition of permanent residency in the
USA. Ugdoracion then pointed to the following
documents as proof of his substantial compliance with
the residency requirement:
(1) a residence certificate dated May 5, 2006;
(2) an application for a new voter's registration dated
October 12, 2006; and
(3) a photocopy of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent
Resident Status dated October 18, 2006.
On May 8, 2007, the COMELEC First Division
promulgated one of the herein questioned resolutions
canceling Ugdoracion's COC and removing his name
from the certified list of candidates for the position of
Mayor of Albuquerque, Bohol.
on May 11, 2007, Ugdoracion filed a motion for
reconsideration
In yet another setback, the COMELEC En Banc issued
the other questioned resolution denying Ugdoracion's
motion for reconsideration and affirming the First
Division's finding of material misrepresentation in
Ugdoracion's COC.
On March 7, 2008, Ugdoracion filed an Extremely
Urgent Motion to Reiterate Issuance of an Injunctive
Writ.
Ugdoracion's argument focuses on his supposed
involuntary acquisition of a permanent resident status
in the USA which, as he insists, did not result in the loss
of his domicile of origin. He bolsters this contention
with the following facts:
1. He was born in Albuquerque, Bohol, on October 15,
1940 and as such, is a natural-born Filipino citizen;
2. He was baptized in the Catholic Church of Sta. Monica
Paris in Albuquerque, Bohol on February 2, 1941;
3. He was raised in said municipality;
4. He grew up in said municipality;
5. He raised his own family and established a family
home thereat;
6. He served his community for twelve (12) years and
had been the former Mayor for three (3) terms;
7. From 1986 to 1988, he was appointed as
Officer-in-Charge;
8. He ran for the same position in 1988 and won;
9. He continued his public service as Mayor until his last
term in the year 1998;
10. After his term as Mayor, he served his people again
as Councilor;
11. He built his house at the very place where his
ancestral home was situated;
12. He still acquired several real properties at the same
place;
13. He never lost contact with the people of his town;
and
14. He secured a residence certificate on May 5, 2006 at
Western Poblacion, Albuquerque, Bohol and faithfully
paid real property taxes.
ISSUE​:
WON the representations contained in Ugdoracion's
COC, specifically, that he complied with the residency
requirement and that he does not have "green card"
holder status, are false.
Ugdoracion's assertions miss the mark completely. The
dust had long settled over the implications of a "green
card" holder status on an elective official's qualification
for public office. We ruled in Caasi v. Court of Appeals
that a Filipino citizen's acquisition of a permanent
resident status abroad constitutes an abandonment of
his domicile and residence in the Philippines. In short,
the
"green card" status in the USA is a renunciation of one's
status as a resident of the Philippines.
We agree with Ugdoracion that residence, in
contemplation of election laws, is synonymous to
domicile. Domicile is the place where one actually or
constructively has his permanent home, where he, no
matter where he may be found at any given time,
eventually intends to return (animus revertendi) and
remain (animus manendi). It consists not only in the
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative
of such intention.
Domicile is classified into:
(1) domicile of origin, which is acquired by every person
at birth;
(2) domicile of choice, which is acquired upon
abandonment of the domicile of origin; and
(3) domicile by operation of law, which the law
attributes to a person independently of his
residence or intention.
In a controversy such as the one at bench, given the
parties' naturally conflicting perspectives on
domicile, we are guided by three basic rules, namely:
(1) a man must have a residence or domicile
somewhere;
(2) domicile, once established, remains until a new one
is validly acquired; and
(3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at any
given time.
The general rule is that the domicile of origin is not
easily lost; it is lost only when there is an actual removal
or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former residence and establishing a
new one, and acts which correspond with such purpose.
In the instant case, however, Ugdoracion's acquisition
of a lawful permanent resident status in the United
States amounted to an abandonment and renunciation
of his status as a resident of the Philippines; it
constituted a change from his domicile of origin, which
was Albuquerque, Bohol, to a new domicile of choice,
which is the USA.
The contention that Ugdoracion's USA resident status
was acquired involuntarily, as it was simply the result of
his sister's beneficence, does not persuade. Although
immigration to the USA through a petition filed by a
family member (sponsor) is allowed by USA immigration
laws, the petitioned party is very much free to accept or
reject the grant of resident status. Permanent residency
in the USA is not conferred upon the unwilling; unlike
citizenship, it is not bestowed by operation of law.
And to reiterate, a person can have only one residence
or domicile at any given time.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
hereby DENIED. The COMELEC Resolutions dated May 8,
2007 and September 28, 2007 are AFFIRMED.