DOMICILE &

PROPERTY
DOMICILE
◦ Domicile is the RELATIONSHIP which the law CREATES between an INDIVIDUAL and a
particular LOCALITY/COUNTRY.

◦ The domicile of a person is the place where he has his TRUE, FIXED, PERMANENT HOME
and PRINCIPAL ESTABLISHMENT, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the
INTENTION OF RETURNING.

◦ Domicile includes the twin elements of (a) the fact of residing or physical presence in a
fixed place; and (b) the intention of returning there permanently.
 Difference between Domicile &
Residence
◦ DOMICILE implies something more
PERMANENT while RESIDENCE is
TEMPORARY.
◦ Also, a person may have several
residence, but he can only have one
domicile.
◦ In example: A man may have several
woman but he can only have one true
love.
 Domicile of Origin/Birth

• is a domicile of a person’s parents,

the head of his family, or the person
on whom he is legally dependent, at

Three (3) the time of his birth.

Kinds of Domicile of Choice

Domicile:
• is the place chosen by a person to
replace his former domicile.

Domicile by Operation of Law

• is the domicile assigned or attributed

by law to a person
 In Arnado vs. COMELEC, Justice Marvic Leonen
distinguished citizenship from domicile as follows;

◦ Domicile requires both PHYSICAL PRESENCE and animus

ANIMUS REVERTENDI or intent to return while Citizenship may
be presumed from one’s domicile, but this presumption is
disputable. Further proof other than the domicile may be
required to prove citizenship.

◦ A person residing in the Philippines is presumed to be a

Domicile and
Filipino Citizen. Domicile, however, does not ipso facto prove
his or her citizenship. Citizenship
◦ In example, a Filipino may reside in the United States but still
remain a Filipino Citizen. An American may also reside in the
Philippines and still remain an American Citizen.

◦ The presumption created by residency is not conclusive of

one’s citizenship.
Home Is More Than Just Where the Heart Is
(The Rest of the Person Must Be There, Too)
Issue: Whether Robert was a “resident
relative” of James at the time of the accident?
Schill v.
Held: No. Robert was not a resident relative of Cincinnati Ins.
James because Florida was not Jame’s
domicile. Co.
◦ Domicile may be lost through the performance of certain
acts indicative of an intent to abandon domicile.
◦ These acts, however, may also be indicate the intent to
retain one’s domicile.
◦ Acts Indicative of domicile of a person are the following:
1. His residence;
2. Membership in church;
3. Voting;
4. Holding office; Loss and
5. Paying taxes; and
6. Ownership of property Retention
◦ As in the case of Imelda Romualdez Marcos, she couldn’t
have chosen the United States as her domicile of choice
since her presence there was involuntary.
◦ Domicile is significant for it is the source of rights and
obligations. Article 50 of the Civil Code States that “ [f]or
the exercise of civil rights and fulfillment of civil obligations,
the domicile of the natural persons is the place of their
habitual residence.
Issue: Whether Marcos possessed the one-year
residency requirement for the position of representative
of Leyte? Stated differently, whether Leyte is the domicile
of Marcos?
Romualdez
Held: Yes, Leyte is the domicile of Marcos.
There is a difference between domicile and
Marcos v.
residence. “Residence” is used to indicate a place of
abode, whether permanent or temporary, “Domicile” COMELEC
(1995)
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 domicileis
residence coupled with the intention to remain for an
unlimited time.
Issue: Whether the COMELEC was correct in
holding that Jalosjos filed to present ample
proof of a bona fide intention to establish his
domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
Jalosjos v.
COMELEC
Held. No, COMELEC was wrong.
Permanent Residency Overseas and
The Process of Foreign Naturalization

Naturalization in the United States are done in two-ways:

1. They usually file a petition for adjustment of status from non-immigrant status to
permanent resident; and

2. For people in the Philippines, and who are petitioned by their loved ones abroad, they
have to wait for the approval and release of their immigrant visas before they can go
abroad. A permanent visa card, usually referred to as Green Card, is usually issued to
applicants who are given the privilege to stay in the United States on a permanent basis.
Issue: Whether Petitioner had abandoned his domicile in
Uyugan, Batanes?
Held: Yes, petitioner has abandoned his domicile in
Uyugan Batanes
Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born
and raised in Uyugan, Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he
had his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However, he
later worked in Canada and become a Canadian citizen. In Caballero v.
Coquilla v. COMELEC, we ruled that naturalization in foreign
country may result in an abandonment of domicile in the
Philippines. This holds true in petitioner’s case as permanent
COMELEC
resident status in Canada is required for the acquisition of
Canadian Citizenship. Hence, petitioner had effectively
abandoned his domicile of choice in Canada. His frequent
visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation from work in
Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such
abandonment.
Issue: 1. Whether Miguel abandoned his domicile in the Philippines?

2. Whether Miguel, by returning to the Philippines in November

1987 and presenting himself as a candidate for Mayor of Bolinao in
January 18, 1988 local elections, waive his status as a permanent resident
or immigrant of the United States.

Held: 1.Miguel’s immigration to the United States in 1984 constituted

an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. For he
did not go to the United States merely to visit his children or his doctor
there; he entered the United States with the intention to live there
permanently as evidenced by his application for an immigrant’s (not a
visitor’s or tourist’s) visa. Based on that application of his, he was issued by
Caasi v.Court
the U.S Government the requisite green card or authority to reside there
permanently. of Appeals
2.To be ”qualified to run for elective office” in the Philippines,
the law requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have
“waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign
country”. Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective
office in the Philippines did not of itself constitute a waiver of his status as a
permanent resident or immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his
green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of
and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country.
Withourt such prior waiver, he was “disqualified to run for any elective
office”. (Sec. 68, Omnibus Election Code).
Issue: No, he lacks the requisite residency
requirement.
Held: No, he lacks the requisite residency
requirement.
In the case at bar, petitioner lost his
domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a U.S. Coquilla v.
citizen after enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1965.
From then on and until November 10, 2000, COMELEC
when he re-acquired Philippine Citizenship,
petitioner was an alien without any right to
reside in the Philippines save as our immigration
laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor
or as a resident alien.
Issue: Whether petitioner’s domicile is the
Philippines?
Poe-
Held: Yes. Petitoner’s claim that she will have Llamanzares v.
been a resident for ten (10) years and eleven
(11) months on the day before the 2016 COMELEC
election is true.
 While Section 1 prescribes residency qualification for the voter,
Section 2 thereof prescribes absentee voting by qualified
qualified ilipinos abroad. Enacted mainly for qualified overseas
Filipino workers (OFW), the provisions grants citizen who are
abroad and who may not otherwise be able to cast their votes
on election day in Philippine precincts to vote in Philippine
consulates and authorized foreign stations.

Absentee
Voting and
Republic Act No. 9225, have allowed citizens of the Philippines to
vote even though they lack the residency and domiciled
required by law.

Domicile
Republic Act No. 10590 further reinforced the right to vote of
absentee voters by omitting the affidavit requirement found in
R.A 9189. The state of the law now is that all Filipinos overses may
vote whithout demonstrating actual residency or domicile in the
Philiipines.
Issue: Whether Section 5(d) of RA No. 9189
violates Section 1, Article V of the 1987
Constitution? Macalintal v.
COMELEC
Held: No.
◦ Enacted on July 23, 2013 by Congress and signed into law by Pres.
Benigno S. Aquino on May 27, 2013;
◦ Entitled as “An Act Providing for A System of Overseas Absentee
Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating
Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes”
◦ Relevant provisions pertinent to Conflict of Laws are the Following:
a) “Sec. 4. Coverage- All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are
not otherwise disqualified by law, atleast 18 years of age on the
day of the elections, may vote for President, Vice-President,

Republic Act
Senators and Party-List Representatives, as well as in all national
referenda and plebiscites.”
b) Sec.5. Disqualifications:
i.
ii.
Those who lost their Filipino Citizenship
Those who renounced their Philippine Citizenship & Pledge
No. 10590
Allegiance to a foreign country
iii. Those convicted in a final judgment by a Philippine
court/tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of
not less than 1 year
iv. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared
insane/incompetent
◦ Under R.A 10590, immigrant/permanent residents are no longer
required to execute an affidavit before they are allowed to vote
 Conflict of law arises in the area of
property law when a FOREIGN ELEMENT is
involved in the case.

Foreign Element may be in the form of (a)

PROPERTY
a foreigner owning property in another
country or (b) there is a foreign law on
land ownership that conflicts with
domestic law.

When a foreign is involved, there is a

need to determine the applicable law
governing the problem, otherwise, the
problem has only a domestic character
where Philippine law applies.
 Laurel v. Garcia
A conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) There is a dispute
over the title or ownership of an immovable, such that the capacity
to take and transfer immovables, the formalities of conveyance,
the essential validity and effect of the transfer, or the interpretation
and effect of a conveyance, are to be determined ; and (2) A
foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to
conflict with a domestic law on the same matters. Hence, the need
to determine which law should apply.

In the instant case, none of the above elements exists. The issues
are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no
question that the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is
the authority of the respondent officials to validly dispose of
property belonging to the State. And the validity of the
procedures adopted to effect its sale. This is governed by
Philippine Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.
◦ The Philippine adheres to the rule of LEX
REI SITAE or the law of the place where
Rule as to
the property is situated. As provided
under Art. 16 of the civil code states
Real and
that “real property as well as personal
property is subject to the law of the
Personal
country where it is situated.” Property
Facts: Appellant Amy Roberts and Appellee Steven Locke
divorced in mid-July of 2010. Among their marital assets was a
beachfront property in Costa Rica. After a trial, the district
court ordered the property sold and the proceeds divided,
and later held Roberts in contempt for impeding the sale. She
now appeals that order. We affirm.
Issue: Did the District Court had authority to order the sale of
the Costa Rican property? Roberts vs.
Held: Yes. For over a hundred of years it has been settled
black-letter law that a court lacks authority to directly Locke
determine and affect title to real property located outside
the state in which the court sits. However, it is equally well-
established the court of equity having jurisdiction over a
person may act indirectly upon that person’s extraterritorial
real estate by ordering him or her to act or to cease to act in
some particular way in relation relation to the property.
◦ Philippine law governs real property situated
within its territory. The following are rules
relating to the ownership of real property in
the Philippines:
1. Sec.7, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution – Prohibits the Specific Rules
as to
transfer of private lands to individuals,
corporations, or associations or which are not

Ownership of
qualified to hold lands of public domain. It
however allows transfer to qualified individuals
through hereditary succession.
2. Sec.8, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution –Allows former Real Property
natural-born citizens of the Philippines to be
transferees of private lands. Hence these
people may purchase or acquire private lands
subject to area exceptions.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The manner of partitioning the testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez
among the principal beneficiaries, namely: his widow Marcelle
Demoron de Ramirez, his two grandnephews Roberto and Jorge
Ramirez, and his companion Wanda de Wrobleski.

ISSUE: Whether or not the usufruct over real properties of the estate in
favor of Wanda is void because it violates the constitutional
Ramirez v.
prohibition against the acquisition of lands by aliens.
Held: The court upheld the validity of the usufruct given to Wanda on
Vda. De
the ground that the constitution covers not only succession by
operation of law but also testamentary succession. We are of the
opinion that the constitution provision w/c enables aliens to acquire
Ramirez
private lands does not extend to testamentary succession otherwise
the prohibition will be naught and meaningless. Any alien would be
able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine
landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land.
Quiz:
1. Differentiate Domicile from Residence.
2. What are the three (3) kinds of domicile and explain each.
3. What is an “Animus Revertindi”?
4. What are the Acts Indicative of a domicile of a person?
5. Two-ways that Naturalization in the United States are done.