IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CIRILO ROY MONTEJO,
respondents.

1995 Sep 18 En Banc G.R. No. 119976

FACTS:

Imelda, a little over 8 years old, in or about 1938, established her domicile in
Tacloban, Leyte where she studied and graduated high school in the Holy Infant
Academy from 1938 to 1949.  She then pursued her college degree, education, in
St. Paul’s College now Divine Word University also in Tacloban.  Subsequently,
she taught in Leyte Chinese School still in Tacloban.  She went to manila during
1952 to work with her cousin, the late speaker Daniel Romualdez in his office in
the House of Representatives.  In 1954, she married late President Ferdinand
Marcos when he was still a Congressman of Ilocos Norte and was registered there
as a voter.  When Pres. Marcos was elected as Senator in 1959, they lived together
in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter.  In 1965, when Marcos won
presidency, they lived in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San
Miguel Manila.  She served as member of the Batasang Pambansa and Governor of
Metro Manila during 1978.

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was running for the position of Representative of the

First District of Leyte for the 1995 Elections.  Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent
Representative of the First District of Leyte and also a candidate for the same
position, filed a “Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification"with the
Commission on Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional
requirement for residency.  The petitioner, in an honest misrepresentation, wrote
seven months under residency, which she sought to rectify by adding the words
"since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy filed on
March 29, 1995 and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile
or residence.  She arrived at the seven months residency due to the fact that she
became a resident of the Municipality of Tolosa in said months.

ISSUE: 
Whether petitioner has satisfied the 1year residency requirement to be eligible in
running as representative of the First District of Leyte.

HELD:

Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election purposes.  The court
are in favor of a conclusion supporting petitioner’s claim of legal residence or
domicile in the First District of Leyte despite her own declaration of 7 months
residency in the district for the following reasons:

1.  A minor follows domicile of her parents.  Tacloban became Imelda’s 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 husband’s 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.  

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 residence
certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while living in her brother’s 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.