GALLEGO vs.

VERA Facts: This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA affirming the decision of the CFI of Leyte, which declared illegal the petitioner’s election to the office of the municipal mayor of Abuyog, Leyte in the election of Dec. 1940, on the ground that he did not meet the residence qualification. Gallego is a native of Abuyog, Leyte. After his studies, he was employed as a schoolteacher in Catarman, Samar, as well as in some municipalities in Leyte. In 1937, as a municipal mayor in Abuyog Leyte, but lost. In June 1938, he worked in Malaybalay Bukidnon in a plantation of the Bureau of Forestry to make up for the financial drawback caused by his loss in the previous election, and stayed there until he resigned in Sept. 1940. Gallego registered himself as an elector in Bukidnon and voted there in the election for assemblymen held in Dec. 1938, and in Jan. 1940, He obtained and paid for his residence cert. from the municipal treasurer of Malaybalay, in which certificate it was stated that he had resided in the said municipality for one and a half year. The CA declared that Gallego lost his domicile in Abuyog Leyte at the time he was elected mayor there on the grounds that: 1.He registered as a voter in Malaybalay, Bukidnon 2.He voted in Malaybalay in the 1938 election for assemblymen 3.He obtained a residence cert from the municipality of Malaybalay ISSUE/S: Whether or not Gallego lost his domicile of origin in Abuyog, Leyte and acquired a new domicile in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. HELD: Yes. Gallego did not lose his domicile in Abuyog by working in Malaybalay as an employee, registering as voter there and securing his residence certificate there for1940. The decision of the CA is reversed. In the definition of “residence” in the election law under the 1935 Constitution, it states that in order to acquire a domicile by choice, there must concur: 1.Residence or a bodily presence in the new locality2 . A n i n t e n t i o n t o r e m a i n t h e r e 3.An intention to abandon the old domicile The purpose to remain in the domicile should be for an INDEFINITE period of time. The court believed that Gallego had no intention to stay in Malaybalay indefinitelybecause: 1.When he was employed as a teacher in Samar, he always returned in Abuyog and even resigned when he ran for office in 1937 2.His departure was only for the purpose of making up for the financial drawback caused by his loss in the election3.He did not take his wife and children to Malaybalay with him 4.He bought a piece of land in Abuyog and did not avail of the land in the plantation offered to him by the government 5.He visited his family no less than three times despite the great distance between Abuyog, Leyte and Malaybalay Bukidnon The court said that the manifest intent of the law in fixing a residence qualification is to:“exclude a stranger or a newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community.”

Domino v. COMELEC Facts: On 25 March 1998, Juan Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the Lone Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani indicating in item no. 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. O n 3 0 M a r c h 1 9 9 8 , N a r c i s o R a . G r a f i l o , J r . , E d d y B . J a v a , J u a n P . B a y o n i t o , J r . , Rosario Samson and Dionisio P. Lim, Sr., filed 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. They 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. F o r h i s d e f e n s e , D O M I N O m a i n t a i n s t h a t h e h a d c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e o n e - y e a r residency requirement and that he has been residing in Sarangani since January 1997.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. O n 1 1 M a y 1 9 9 8 , t h e d a y o f t h e e l e c t i o n , t h e C O M E L E C i s s u e d S u p p l e m e n t a l Omnibus Resolution No. 3046, ordering that the votes cast for DOMINO be counted but to suspend the proclamation if winning, considering that the Resolution disqualifying him as candidate had not yet become final and executor. D o m i n o r e c e i v e d t h e h i g h e s t v o t e s i n t h e e l e c t i o n t h a t i s w h y h e f i l e d a n M R o f h i s disqualification but was denied. Issue: Was DOMINO a resident of the Province of Sarangani for at least one year immediately preceding the 11 May 1998 e l e c t i o n a s s t a t e d i n h i s c e r t i f i c a t e o f candidacy? Held: No. It is doctrinally settled that the term “residence,” as u s e d i n t h e l a w prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing a s “ d o m i c i l e , ” w h i c h i m p o r t s n o t o n l y a n i n t e n t i o n t o r e s i d e i n a f i x e d place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.“ D o m i c i l e ” d e n o t e s a f i x e d p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n c e t o w h i c h , w h e n e v e r a b s e n t f o r business, pleasure, or some other reasons, one i n t e n d s t o r e t u r n . “ D o m i c i l e ” i s 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 and that sometime in 1991; he acquired a new domicile of choice at 24 Bonifacio St. Ayala H e i g h t s , O l d B a l a r a , Q u e z o n C i t y , a s s h o w n b y h i s c e r t i f i c a t e o f c a n d i d a c y f o r t h e 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. A person’s “domicile” once established is consid ered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is established. To successfully effect a change of domicile one must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; bona fide intentions of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. In other words, there must basically beanimus 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. Actual and physical is not in itself sufficient to show that from said date he had transferred his residence in that place. To establish a new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place must be coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. While “residence” simply requires bodily presence in a given place, “domicile” requires not only such bodily presence in that place but also a declared and probable intent to make it one’s fixed and permanent place of abode, one’s home. 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 c h a n g e o f d o m i c i l e . T h e l e a s e c o n t r a c t m a y b e i n d i c a t i v e o f D O M I N O ’ s i n t e n t i o n t o reside in Sarangani but it does not engender the kind of permanency required to prove a b a n d o n m e n t o f o n e ’ s o r i g i n a l d o m i c i l e . T h e m e r e a b s e n c e o f i n d i v i d u a l f r o m h i s permanent residence, no matter how long, without the intention to abandon it does not result in loss or change of domicile.

Perez vs Comelec October 28,1999 Facts: Aguinaldo filed his certificate of candidacy for elections as representative of the third district of Cagayan. Days later, petitioner, as a voter and citizen, filed a petition for the disqualification of respondent Aguinaldo on the ground that he had not been a resident of the district for at least one year as required by law. In support of her claim, petitioner presented private respondents Certificate of Candidacy for Governor of Cagayan and his voters registration record, all of which states that he is a resident of Gattaran, which is outside the third district of Cagayan. In his answer, respondent presented affidavit’s and actual Contract of Lease of several residential apartments in Cagayan, where he and her mistress lived in order to hide her (mistress) from public view because at that time he still has a subsisting marriage with his former wife.He also presented various letters to show that he had been resident of Tuguegarao,Cagayan for at least one year prior to the election. Issue: Whether or not Aguinaldo failed to meet the one year residency requirement. Held: No, the court ruled that the fact that a person is registered in one district is not enough proof that he is not domiciled in another district. The registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin is not sufficient to consider him to have abandoned or lost his residence. Although, respondent declared in his Certificate of Candidacy prior to the May 1998 elections that he was a resident of Gattaran, Cagayan, the fact is that he was actually a resident of the 3rd District not just for 1 year but for more than seven years considering that he was governor from 1988-1998 of the whole province. Moreover, there can be no doubt that respondent is qualified, having been Governor of the entire province of Cagayan for 10 years before his election as Representaive of the 3rd District of the Province.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful