Constitutional Law I

GALLEGO V. VERRA

Key words: Malaybalay, Leyte, Abuyog, Mayor,

G.R. No. L-48641, November 24, 1941

Ponente: Ozaeta

I. Terms
A. Residence - synonymous with domicile in election law
In order to acquire a domicile by choice, there must concur;
residence or bodily presence in the new locality
a.
an intention to remain there (animus manendi)
b.
an intention to abandon the old domicle (animus non revertendi)
c.

II. Reliefs Sought

Certiorari

III. Facts
This case is on petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Court of
First Instance of Leyte, that declared illegal the petitioners election to the office of municipal mayor of Abuyog, Leyte, in
the general elections of December, 1940, on the ground that he did not have the residence qualification, and ordered that
he be ousted from the said office. Respondent Vicente Verra (petitioner of the cases in the trial court and Court of
Appeals), was the unsuccessful opponent of the petitioner Pedro Gallego, who was declared elected by the municipal
board of canvassers with a majority of nearly 800 votes.
Pedro Gallego facts:
a. Native of Abuyog, Leyte
b. Worked as a school teacher in Catarman, Samar and in Burawen, Dulag, and Abuyog, province of Leyte
c. Ran as mayor in Abuyog, Leyte, but was defeated
d. June 20, 1938 - After his defeat, finding himself in debt and unemployed, he went to Kaato-an, municipality of
Malaybay, Bukidnon and found work as a nurseryman in the chichona plantitation of the Bureau of Forestry
e. July 30 - went back to Abayog where he was offered a job as teacher in Sagod, Leyte, but did not accept
f. August 23 - returned to Katoo-an to resume work in the chichona plantation
g. September 1940 - resigned from employment
h. During his stay, his wife and children remained in Abuyog and visited them in the month of August of years
1938, and 1940

Constitutional Law I

i. He was offered a free house and parcels of land within the chichhona plantation but he refused
j. He and his wife own real property in Abuyog, part of which he acquired during his stay in Malaybay
k. October 1, 1938 - he registered as elector in precinct No. 14 of Lantapan, municipality of Malaybalay, Bukidnon,
l. December 1938 - voted there in the election of assemblymen
m.January 20, 1940 - he obtained and paid for his residence certificate from the municipal treasure of Malaybalay,
in which certificate it was stated that he had resided in the said municipality for one year and a half
-in his voters affidavit, he did not fill the blank space corresponding to the length of time he had resided in
Malaybalay
n. December 10, 1940 - won as mayor in Abuyog, Leyte
Court of First Instance, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, declared that Pedro Gallego lost his domicile in the municipality
of Abuyog, Leyte, at the time he was elected mayor of the latter municipality, which therefore made his election void, due
to the following reasons:
a. registration as a voter
b. his having actually voted in Malaybay
c. his residence certificate for 1940

IV. Issue/s and Held

Issue: W/N Pedro Gallego has been resident for at least one year prior to December 10, 1940
Held: YES
1. He did not lose his domicile in Abuyog by the mere fact that he worked in Malaybalay as a government employee,
registered himself as a voter and voted there in the election for assemblymen in December, 1938, and secured his
residence certificate there for the year 1940.
2. Using the definition of residence as stated above, the Court believed that he did not reside in Malaybalay with the
intention of remaining there indefinitely. Notwithstanding his periodic absences from there, he always returned to his
native home. Further, he refused the offer of a house and land in the chinchona plantation, and bought a piece of land
in Abuyog. During the short period of about 2 years in Malaybalay as a government employee, he visited his home town
and family no less than three times notwithstanding the great distance between the two places.
3. Using the Teves doctrine, the SC revoked the judgement of the trial court and CA.

Constitutional Law I

4. The manifest intent of the law in fixing a residence qualification is to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted
with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that
community.
5. When the evidence on the alleged lack of residence qualification is weak or inconclusive and it clearly appears that the
purpose of the law would not be thwarted by upholding the right to the office, the will of the electorate should be
respected.
PETITION WAS GRANTED.

V. Teves doctrine
1. Mere registration in a municipality in order to be an elector therein does not make on a resident of said municipality.
2. Registration in the list of voters is not one of the conditions prescribed by Section 431 of the Election Law in order to be
an elector; neither does the failure to register as such constitutes one of the disqualifications prescribed in Section 432
of said law.