BOOK 1

PERSONS

Title II

CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE

ARTICLE 50 and ARTICLE 51

by Ma. Cristina B. Perez

ARTICLE 50
For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the
domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence.

Domicile

The place of a person’s habitual residence. It is that place where he has his
true, fixed permanent home and principal establishment, and to which place, he
has, whenever he is absent, the intention of returning, and from which he has no
present intention of moving.

 A Minor follows the domicile of his parents

 The husband and the wife shall fix the family domicile.
In case of disagreement , the court shall decide.

KINDS OF DOMICILE:

1. Domicile of origin - Received by a person at birth

2. Domicile of choice - the place freely chosen by a person
( sui juris)
3.Constructive domicile - assigned to a child by law at the time
of his birth
Two elements of domicile:

(1) the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place;

(2) the intention to remain permanently or animus manendi.

Domicile of origin is not easily lost, to successfully effect a change of domicile,

one must demonstrate:

1. 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 corresponds to the purpose

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF NEW DOMICILE:

1. Bodily presence in a new locality

2. Intention to remain therein (animus manendi)
3. Intention to abandon the old domicile (animus non revertendi)

Residence in the Civil law is a material fact, referring to the physical presence of a
person in a place. Residency is acquired by living in a place; on the other hand,
domicile can exist without actually living in the place.

Citizenship - in the Philippine jurisdiction, what is followed is the concept of jus

sanguinis (citizenship by blood) as opposed to jus soli (citizenship by place of
birth).
CASE:

IMELDA R. MARCOS, vs.

COMELEC, et al.
248 SCRA 300, 64 SCAD 358

FACTS:

Imelda R. Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of

Representative of the First District of Leyte stating, among others, that her
residence in the place was seven (7) months. Cong. Cirilo Roy Montejo, another
candidate, filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with the
COMELEC contending, among others, that she failed to comply with the 1-year
residence requirement under the Constitution. An order was issued by the
COMELEC disqualifying Imelda and cancelling her certificate of candidacy. She
filed an Amended Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, changing the “seven
months” to “since childhood.” It was denied because it was filed out of time. In an
en banc resolution, the COMELEC declared her as qualified to run and allowed her
proclamation should it appear that she’s the winner. In another resolution on the
same day, it directed that the proclamation be suspended in the event that she
obtained the highest number of votes; hence, she went to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Imelda Marcos was a resident of the First District of Leyte for a
period of one year at the time of the election on May 9, 1995.
HELD:

YES, Imelda Marcos was considered a resident of the First District of Leyte for a
period of one year at the time of the election on May 9, 1995.

The Court was convinced that the facts established by the parties weigh heavily in
favor of the petitioners’ claim of legal residence or domicile in the First district of
Leyte. The Court carefully made differentiation between residence and domicile. It
clearly stated that an individual does not lose his/her domicile even if she lived and
maintained residence in different places. Being a resident of different places plays
a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes and that it is just a mere
physical presence on the place. In Article 50 of the Civil Code of the Philippines -
for the exercise of civil rights and fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of a
natural person is the place of his habitual residence. The court took the concept of
domicile to mean as an individual’s permanent home or a place to which he intends
to return. Therefore, the court declared that the petitioner did not lose her domicile
of origin, she is considered a resident of First District of Leyte and that she is
qualified to run as the Representative of First District of Leyte.

Reference: Family Code of the Philippines

By Judge Ed Vincent S. Albano & Co-Authors 2017 edition
248 SCRA 300, 64 SCAD 358
https://www.merriam-webster.com
Article 51

When the law creating or recognizing them, or any other provision does not fix the
domicile of juridical persons, the same shall be understood to be the place where
their legal representation is established or where they exercise their principal
functions. (41a)

The law contemplates a situation where a juridical person is created by law, but the
law does not state its domicile. A private corporation, for example may have been
established by law, but its domicile has not been fixed. It is understood that its
domicile is the place where its legal representation is made or where it exercises its
principal functions. So that, if it exercises its principal functions in Manila, that is
its domicile.

Reference: Family Code of the Philippines

By Judge Ed Vincent S. Albano & Co-Authors 2017 edition