In the Matter of the Petition for Disqualification of Tess Dumpit-Michelena

Tess Dumpit-Michelena, petitioner, vs. Carlos Boado, Fernando Calonge, Salvador Carrera,
Benito Carrerra, Domingo Carrera, and Rogelio De Vera, respondents.
In the Matter of the Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy for
Mayor
Tess Dumpit-Michelena, petitioner, vs. Carlos Boado, Fernando Calonge, Salvador Carrera,
Benito Carrerra, Domingo Carrera, and Rogelio De Vera, respondents.
GR Nos. 163619-20. November 17, 2005.
Carpio, J.

Facts: The respondents filed a petition for the disqualification and cancellation of Tess Dumpit-
Michelena’s certificate of candidacy because she was not a resident of Agoo, La Union in which
she was a candidate for the position of mayor during the May 10, 2004 elections. The respondents
claimed that petitioner is a resident of Naguilian, La Union. Petitioner was a registered voter of
Naguilian and transferred her registration to San Julian West, Agoo, La Union on October 24,
2003. Barangay officials of the San Julian West presented a joint affidavit to prove that petitioner
is not a resident of the barangay.
However, petitioner claimed that when she purchased residential lot in the said barangay on April
19, 2003 from her father, Congressman Tomas Dumpit, Sr. of the Second District of La Union,
she acquired a new domicile. She has a caretaker of her house and gave affidavits and
certifications of her neighbors to prove her claim. COMELEC Second Division cancelled her
certificate on the ground of material misrepresentation under Sections 78 and 74 of the Omnibus
Election Code. They found that the only one of the neighbors who issued the affidavit is a resident
of San Julian West. COMELEC En Banc denied her motion for reconsideration. Hence, the
petition for certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not Dumpit-Michelena satisfied the residency requirement under the Local
Government Code of 1991
Ruling: No. Section 65 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that the qualifications for elective
provincial, city, municipal and barangay officials are those stated in the Local Government Code
(Code). In this case, Section 39(a) of the Code of 1991 states the qualifications of such position.
It is stated that elective local official must be a resident for at least one year immediately preceding
the day of the election.
In Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, the Court ruled that residence is
understood as synonymous with domicile. The meaning of residence regarding the qualifications
is the same with the meaning of domicile. Domicile of origin is not easily lost. There should be an
actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one and acts which correspond with the purpose.
Dumpit-Michelena cannot argue that the acquisition of land made her a resident of San Julian
West. Mere ownership of a property is not an indication of the right to vote or to be voted for an
office. She failed to establish that petitioner abandoned her former domicile. She submitted a
Special Power of Attorney authorizing Clyde Crispino “to apply, facilitate and follow up the
issuance of a building permit of the beach house.” Such beach house is not considered as a place
of residence but a place of temporary relaxation. To add, petitioner also designated a caretaker
for the place which means that she does not regularly reside there. It is established that petitioner
has many residences and the acquisition of the land does not make it her new domicile. The
affiants also repudiated their previous affidavits claiming that petitioner was a resident of San
Julian West. Thus, the petition was dismissed and the Court affirmed the Resolution of the
COMELEC Second Division with modification.

Notes:
SEC. 39. Qualifications. — (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a
registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panglungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where
he intends to be elected; a a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the
day resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election of the
election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.

Domicile – one’s permanent abode

- To effect change, there must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi
- Intention of remaining. No intention of returning
Domicile has a fixed meaning: habitual residence coupled with the intention to remain -- what is
technically called animus manendi. In Conflict of Laws, also known as Private International Law,
domicile requires physical presence and the intention to remain (for good).
Fr. Aquino, R. (2015). Commentary: Who is a resident of the Philippines? Retrieved October 17,
2019 from https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/opinion/content/497386/commentary-who-
is-a-resident-of-the-philippines/story/.