Author: Czar Paguio

Romualdez-Marcos vs Comelec (1995)

7.) The COMELEC denied her motion for reconsideration
but issued a resolution allowing for her proclamation
should she obtain the highest number of votes. On the
same day, however, the COMELEC reversed itself and
directed the suspension of her proclamation.

Petition: Appeal by certiorari

Petitioner: Imelda Marcos
Respondent: Comelec and Cirilo Montejo
Ponencia: Kapunan
DOCTRINE: If a person retains his domicile of origin for
purposes of the residence requirement, the 1 year
period is irrelevant because wherever he is, he is a
resident of his domicile of origin. Second, if a person
reestablishes a previously abandoned domicile, the 1
year requirement must be satisfied. (Bernas book)

8.) Marcos found out that she was won by a landslide in

the said elections and prayed for her proclamation.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner was a resident, for election
purposes, of the First District of Leyte for a period of
one year.
RULING + RATIO:

FACTS:
1.) Imelda Marcos established her domicile in Tacloban
City, which was her fathers hometown, in 1938 when
she was 8 years old. She pursued her studies (GS,HS,
College) in the aforementioned city and subsequently
taught in the Leyte Chinese School. In 1952, she went
to Manila to work in the House of Representatives. Two
years after, she married Pres. Ferdinand Marcos when
he was still a Congressman in Ilocos Norte and
registered there as a voter. In 1959, her husband was
elected a Senator and they lived in San Juan, Rizal
where she again registered as a voter. And in 1965, she
lived in the Malacanang Palace when her husband
became the President. This time, she registered as a
voter in San Miguel, Manila. After their exile in Hawaii,
she ran for President in 1992 and indicated in her CoC
that she was a resident and register voter of San Juan,
Metro Manila.
2.) Marcos filed her CoC for the position
Representative of the First District of Leyte.

of

3.) The incumbent Representative, Montejo, filed for

her disqualification alleging that she did not meet the 1
year constitutional requirement for residency.
4.) Apparently, she wrote down in her CoC in item no.8,
which asked for the number of years of residency, that
she had been a resident for 7 months.
5.) Marcos filed an amended CoC changing 7 months
to since childhood, claiming that it was an honest
misinterpretation that she thought she was being
asked for her actual and physical presence in Tolosa,
and not her domicile.
6.) The COMELEC found the petition for her
disqualification meritorious and cancelled her amended
CoC. For them, it was clear that Marcos has not
complied with the 1 year residency requirement.
In election cases, the term residence has
always been considered synonymous with
domicile. This is the intention to reside in the
place coupled with the personal presence.
When she returned after her exile, she did not
choose to go back to Tacloban. Thus, her
animus revertendi (intention to return)
#JudgePrincess points to Manila.
Pure intention to reside in Tacloban is not
sufficient, there must be conduct indicative of
such intention.

The case at hand reveals that there is confusion as to

the application of Domicile and Residence in election
law.
Originally, the essential distinction between
residence and domicile lies in the fact that
residence is the PHYSICAL presence of a person in
a given area and domicile is where a person
intends to remain or his permanent residence. A
person can only have a single domicile.
It was ascertained from the intent of the framers of
the 1987 Constitution that residence for election
purposes is synonymous with domicile.
It cannot be contested that the petitioner held various
residences in her lifetime. The Courts reiterate that an
individual does not lose his domicile even if she has
maintained different residences for different purposes.
None of these purposes pointed to her intention of
abandoning her domicile of origin.
The Courts ruled in favor of Marcos because of the ff
reasons:
1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban
became Imeldas domicile of origin by operation of law
when her father brought them to Leyte;
2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is 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 the purpose.
In the absence and concurrence of all these, domicile
of origin should be deemed to continue.
3. A wife does not automatically gain the husbands
domicile because the term residence in Civil Law*
does not mean the same thing in Political Law. When
Imelda married late President Marcos in 1954, she kept
her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home
and not domicilium necessarium.
*Civil Code kasi sa Art 110: The husband shall fix the
residence of the family. Sobrang distinguished yung
residence at domicile sa Civil law.
4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after
her marriage and acquired right to choose a new one
only after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon
returning to the country clearly indicated that she
chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile
of choice.
To add, petitioner even obtained her

Author: Czar Paguio

residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while
living in her brothers house, an act, which supports the
domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She even kept
close ties by establishing residences in Tacloban,
celebrating her birthdays and other important
milestones.

DISPOSITION: COMELEC is hereby directed to

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