IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995
KAPUNAN,J.

FACTS:

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of

Representative of the First District of Leyte. Cirilo Roy Montejo, incumbent of and candidate
for the same position, filed a petition for cancellation and disqualification with the
COMELEC, alleging that Marcos did not meet the one-year residency requirement. Marcos
had only lived in Tolosa recently and have yet to “reside” in the first district for the required 1
year. Montejo is contending that Imelda had set up residency in various places throughout
her lifetime from teaching in Tacloban up to the time she married where she stayed for
years in San Juan, Metro Manila.
Marcos then filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy claiming that her error in
the first certificate was the result of an ―honest misrepresentation and that she has always
―maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner has Imelda Romualdez Marcos satisfied the residency
requirement mandated by Article VI, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution

RULING:
1. YES, Marcos has satisfied the residency requirement. It is the fact of residence, not
a statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining
whether or not and 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. It would be plainly ridiculous for a candidate to
deliberately and knowingly make a statement in a certificate of candidacy which
would lead to his or her disqualification.
It stands to reason therefore, that petitioner merely committed an honest mistake in
jotting the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification
requirement. The circumstances leading to her filing the questioned entry obviously
resulted in the subsequent confusion which prompted petitioner to write down the
period of her actual stay in Tolosa, Leyte instead of her period of residence in the
First district, which was "since childhood" in the space provided.
2. Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an individual to a
certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or
country. The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that
residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken
up his abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or
health. If a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave
as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. 22 It is thus, quite perfectly normal
for an individual to have different residences in various places. However, a person can
only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his
domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.

SC held that Tolosa remains as her “domicile of origin”. Residence is to be synonymous

with domicile particularly in election law. Marcos domicile of origin was established in
Tolosa because she followed the domicile of her parents. This domicile of origin was no
lost because she got married as residence and domicile have different meanings under
civil law. The SC even added that considering that her husband died and she went free
to choose her domicile, her intentions were manifest in her actions that Tolosa was to be
her domicile.