DLSU COLLEGE OF LAW

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

ATTY. MCT LEGARDA

STUDENT’S NAME, Nisce, Alyssa Angela R.

SECTION & ID G05
NUMBER 12081000

TOPIC Domicile and Residence of

Persons, NCC 50-51

CASE NAME Romualdez-Marcos,

Petitioner vs. COMELEC
and Cirilo Roy Montejo,
Respondents

CASE NO. G.R. No. 119976

PETITIONER Imelda Romualdez-Marcos

RESPONDENT Commission on Elections

(COMELEC) and Cirilo
Roy Montejo

PONENTE Kapunan, J.

DATE OF
PROMULGATION September 18, 1995

DOCTRINE:
- Mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence without the intention to abandon it does not
result in a loss or change of domicile. When the Constitution speaks of "residence" in election law, it
actually means only "domicile."

1
- "Residence" is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary; "domicile" denotes a
fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning. A man may have a
residence in one place and a domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence
coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time.

- Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate:
● An actual removal or an actual 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.

FACTS:
- ​Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, petitioner, filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative
of the First District of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor on March 8, 1995. On March 23,
1995, Cirilo Roy Montejo, private respondent, the incumbent Representative of the First District of Leyte
and 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.

- Consequently, petitioner filed the Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy with the COMELEC's
Head Office stating that the entry of the word "seven" (referring to months of residency in the
constituency to be elected in) in her original Certificate of Candidacy was the result of an "honest
misinterpretation" which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her
Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as her
domicile or residence.

- On April 24, 1995, the second division of COMELEC issued a resolution (1) finding Montejo’s petition
as meritorious, (2) striking off Mrs. Marcos’ Amended Certificate of Candidacy, and (3) canceling her
original Certificate of Candidacy.

- Petitioner alleged that she has been a resident of the First Legislative District of Leyte since childhood,
although she only became a resident of the Municipality of Tolosa for seven months. She asserts that she
has always been a resident of Tacloban City, a component of the First District, before coming to the
Municipality of Tolosa. From the foregoing, Marcos’ defense of an honest mistake or misinterpretation,
therefore, is devoid of merit.

Respondents averred that while Tacloban is her “place of origin”, she has lived in various places like San
Juan and Manila. When respondent chose to stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila, coupled with her
intention to stay there by registering as a voter there and expressly declaring that she is a resident of that
place, she is deemed to have abandoned Tacloban City, where she spent her childhood and school days, as
her place of domicile. Pure intention to reside in that place is not sufficient, there must likewise be
conduct indicative of such intention.

- On May 8, 1995, COMELEC denied Marcos’ petition. Consequently, on May 11, 1995, the COMELEC
issued a Resolution allowing petitioner's proclamation should the results of the canvass show that she
obtained the highest number of votes in the congressional elections in the First District of Leyte. On the
same day, however, the COMELEC reversed itself and issued a second Resolution directing that the
proclamation of petitioner be suspended in the event that she obtains the highest number of votes.

2
- On account of the resolutions disqualifying petitioner from running for the congressional seat of the
First District of Leyte and the public respondent's Resolution suspending her proclamation, petitioner
filed for relief to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE/S:
- Whether the petitioner was able to sufficiently establish her residency and is therefore capacitated to run
as a representative for the First District of Leyte.

RULING:
- Yes. Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil
obligations, the domicile of natural persons is their place of habitual residence."

The Court ruled that the domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of domicile,
one must demonstrate:
● An actual removal or an actual 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.

The petitioner was able to sufficiently establish her residency according to the requisites provided.

It is also stipulated that the petitioner followed the domicile of her parents and in the absence of clear
proof in changing domicile, the residence of origin is deemed to continue. While Marcos has lived in
different places, she did not show intent in leaving her domicile. It is the fact of residence, not a statement
in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has
satisfied the constitution's residency qualification requirement. The said statement becomes material only
when there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
otherwise render a candidate ineligible. Petitioner merely committed an honest mistake in jotting down
the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification requirement. Moreover, additional
proof is that she usually returns to Tacloban City to celebrate milestones in life. Her marriage with
Ferdinand Marcos does not mean that she has lost her domicile of origin as inferred from Article 110 of
the Civil Code. She may follow her husband without losing her domicile.

The Court held that in election law, the term “residence” is synonymous with “domicile” which imports
not only intention to reside in a fixed place, but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention.