Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC (1995) | G.R. No. 119976 | September 18, 1995 | Ponente: Kapunan, J.

Nature of the Case: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
Petitioner: IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS
Respondent: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CIRILO ROY MONTEJO

Summary: Imelda Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the congressional seat of the First District of Leyte.
Her qualifications, particularly her residency, were questioned by Cirilo Montejo, who was then the incumbent
representative of the district. The court ruled in her favor ruling that she did not lose her domicile of origin.

Topic: Power, Composition, Qualification and Term of Office; House of Representatives

FACTS:

 08 March 1995 – Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
Representative of the First District of Leyte. Said certificate contained the information:
“RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION:
__________ Years and seven Months.”
 23 March 1995 – Respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent Representative of the First District of Leyte
and a candidate for the same position filed a petition for cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC
o Petition alleged that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency.
o That Mrs. Marcos lacked the Constitution's one year residency requirement for candidates for the
House of Representatives.
 29 March 1995 – Petitioner filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, changing the entry
"seven" months to "since childhood" in item no. 8 of the amended certificate
o Petition was not received by the COMELEC on the ground that it is filed out of time, the deadline for
the filing of the same having already lapsed on March 20, 1995
 31 March 1995 – Petitioner filed the Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy with the COMELEC's Head
Office in Intramuros, Manila; she likewise filed her answer to Montejo’s petition:
o The entry of the word "seven" in her original Certificate of Candidacy was the result of an "honest
misinterpretation" which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her
Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as
her domicile or residence.”
 24 April 1995 – COMELEC Second Division (Second Division) Resolution1
o Finding Montejo’s petition meritorious
o Striking off petitioner's Corrected/Amended Certificate of Candidacy
o Canceling her original Certificate of Candidacy
 COMELEC likewise ruled, re: Disqualification
o She implicitly acceded to Montejo’s claim that she is a resident of Tolosa and not Tacloban by
registering as a voter at precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.
o Prior to her registration in Tolosa, she was in fact a registered voter of San Juan, Metro Manila.
o Accuracy of the “7 months” statement:
 Voter's Registration Record accomplished on January 28, 1995 – she is a resident of Brgy.
Olot, Tolosa, Leyte for 6 months at the time of registration.
 Letter to the election officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, dated August 24, 1994, requesting
for the cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters thereat so that she can
be re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.
o Respondent has not complied with the one year residency requirement of the Constitution.
 Petitioner chose to stay in San Juan, Manila; she registered as a voter there.
 In 1965, she lived in San Miguel, Manila where she was again a registered voter.

1
Vote of 2 to 1
  In 1978, she served as member of the Batasang Pambansa as the representative of the City
of Manila and later on served as its Governor.
o Respondent's conduct reveals her lack of intention to make Tacloban her domicile. She registered as
a voter in different places and on several occasions declared that she was a resident of Manila.
 Petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the COMELEC En Banc; COMELEC likewise
issued a Resolution directing that the proclamation of petitioner be suspended in the event that she obtains
the highest number of votes.
 She won the elections for the congressional seat in the First District of Leyte on May 8, 1995; canvass
showed that she obtained a total of 70,471 votes compared to the 36,833 votes received by Respondent
Montejo.

ISSUE/S + RULING:

 W/N petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year at
the time of the May 9, 1995 elections. – YES
o Held: It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be
decisive in determining whether or not and individual has satisfied the constitution's residency
qualification requirement
 Petitioner merely committed an honest mistake in jotting the word "seven" in the space
provided for the residency qualification requirement.
o COMELEC, in the Resolution, was actually referring to petitioner's various places of actual residence,
not her domicile.
o A minor follows the domicile of his/her parents – it is retained until one acquires another2
 In the absence of clear and positive proof that domicile is lost, or an new domicile is gained,
the residence of origin should be deemed to continue
o Petitioner did not lose her domicile of origin when she married then Congressman Ferdinand Marcos
 Wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile; what the petitioner gained was
actual residence.
 Nothing (in law and jurisprudence) suggests that the female spouse automatically loses her
domicile of origin in favor of the husband's choice of residence upon marriage.
o Petitioner's acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she expressly chose her
domicile of origin
 W/N COMELEC properly exercised its jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioner outside the period mandated by
the Omnibus Election Code for disqualification cases under Article 78 of the said Code. – NO
o Held: With the enactment of Sections 63 and 74 of R.A. 6646 in relation to Section 78 of B.P. 881, it is
evident that the Comelec does not lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending disqualification
case under Section 78 of B.P. 881 even after the elections.
o A statute requiring rendition of judgment within a specified time is generally construed to be merely
directory "so that non-compliance with them does not invalidate the judgment on the theory that if
the statute had intended such result it would have clearly indicated it."

2
Domicile of origin is not easily lost – the following are required to change domicile: (1) An actual removal or an actual change of
domicile, (2) A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one (3) Acts which
correspond with the purpose
3
Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or
Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or
any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
4
Sec. 7. Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. - The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply
to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881
  W/N the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the
question of petitioner's qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections. – NO
o Held: HRET at this point has no jurisdiction over the question.
o HRET's jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of members of Congress begins only after a candidate has become a member of the
House of Representatives
 Petitioner is not yet a member of the House of Representatives.

Final Ruling:

COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May 11, and May 25, 1995 are SET ASIDE

COMELEC is directed to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected
Representative of the First District of Leyte.

Padilla, J. – Dissent: vote to DISMISS the petition and to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte to proclaim
the candidate receiving the highest number of votes, from among the qualified candidates, as the duly elected
representative of the 1st district of Leyte.

 The one year residence period is crucial regardless of whether or not the term "residence" is to be
synonymous with "domicile."
o The candidate's intent and actual presence in one district must in all situations satisfy the length of
time prescribed by the fundamental law.
o One must be familiar with the environment and problems of a district he intends to represent in
Congress and the one-year residence in said district would be the minimum period to acquire such
familiarity, if not versatility.
 The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
o Her COC contained in her answer under oath of "seven months" to the query of "residence in the
constituency wherein I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election."
 The votes cast for a disqualified candidate shall not be counted
o Cf. Labo vs. COMELEC

Regalado, J. – Dissent: vote to DISMISS petition for lack of merit.

 Petitioner lost her domicile of origin when she married Ferdinand Marcos.
o it is conceded that petitioner had acquired a domicilium necesarium in Batac, Ilocos Norte
 Domicile once lost in accordance with law can only be recovered likewise in accordance with law.
 Petitioner not only voluntarily abandoned her domicile of choice (unless we assume that she entered into
the marital state against her will) but, on top of that, such abandonment was further affirmed through her
acquisition of a new domicile by operation of law.

Davide Jr., J. – Dissent: vote to deny the petition.

 A writ of certiorari may be granted only if the COMELEC has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion.
o COMELEC committed no grave abuse of discretion.
 Petitioner lost her domicile by operation of law upon her marriage to Ferdinand Marcos.
 The burden is upon her to prove that she has exercised her right to acquire her own domicile.
 Petitioner’s “honest mistake” claim is self-serving.