DOMINO vs. COMELEC Digest

TOPIC: COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, and TERMS OF OFFICE
B. House of Representatives
CASE: JUAN DOMINO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 134015 July 19, 1999
DAVIDE, JR., CJ.:
Facts:
Challenged in this case for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction are the Resolution of 6
May 19981 of the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (hereafter COMELEC), declaring
petitioner Juan Domino (hereafter DOMINO) disqualified as candidate for representative of the Lone
Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani in the 11 May 1998 elections, and the Decision of 29
May 19982 of the COMELEC en banc denying DOMINO's motion for reconsideration.
 On March 25 1998, DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of
the Lone Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani indicating in item nine (9) of his certificate
that he had resided in the constituency where he seeks to be elected for one (1) year and two (2)
months immediately preceding the election.
 On March 30 1998, private respondents Narciso Ra. Grafilo, Jr., Eddy B. Java, Juan P. Bayonito,
Jr., Rosario Samson and Dionisio P. Lim, Sr., fied with the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due
Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy. Private respondents alleged that DOMINO, contrary
to his declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not a resident, much less a registered voter, of
the province of Sarangani where he seeks election.
 DOMINO maintains that he had complied with the one-year residence requirement and that he has
been residing in Sarangani since January 1997. In support of the said contention, DOMINO
presented before the COMELEC copy of the Contract of Lease and other evidence of his transfer
of residence from Balara Quezon City to Alabel Sarangani.
 On May 6 1998, the COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated a resolution declaring DOMINO
disqualified as candidate for the position of representative of the lone district of Sarangani for lack
of the one-year residence requirement and likewise ordered the cancellation of his certificate of
candidacy.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner herein has resided in the subject congressional district for at least
one (1) year immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 elections.
Ruling:
We hold in the negative.

It is doctrinally settled that the term "residence," as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for
suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing as "domicile," which imports not only an
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention.[21] "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, whenever
absent for business, pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to return.[22] "Domicile" is a
question of intention and circumstances. In the consideration of circumstances, three rules must be
borne in mind, namely: (1) that a man must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) when once
established it remains until a new one is acquired; and (3) a man can have but one residence or
domicile at a time.
Records show that petitioner's domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos Sur and that sometime in 1991,
he acquired a new domicile of choice at 24 Bonifacio St. Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon City, as
shown by his certificate of candidacy for the position of representative of the 3rd District of Quezon City
in the May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he had effectively abandoned his "residence"
in Quezon City and has established a new "domicile" of choice at the Province of Sarangani.
A person's "domicile" once established is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a
new one is established.[25] 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 definite acts which correspond with the purpose.[26] In
other words, there must basically be Animus Manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The
purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of
residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be
actual.
It is the contention of petitioner that his actual physical presence in Alabel, Sarangani since December
1996 was sufficiently established by the lease of a house and lot located therein in January 1997 and
by the affidavits and certifications under oath of the residents of that place that they have seen
petitioner and his family residing in their locality. While this may be so, actual and physical is not in
itself sufficient to show that from said date he had transferred his residence in that place. To establish
a new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place must be coupled with conduct indicative of
that intention. While "residence" simply requires bodily presence in a given place, "domicile"
requires not only such bodily presence in that place but also a declared and probable intent to
make it one's fixed and permanent place of abode, one's home.
As a general rule, the principal elements of domicile, is physical presence in the locality
involved and intention to adopt it as a domicile, must concur in order to establish a new
domicile. No change of domicile will result if either of these elements is absent. Intention to
acquire a domicile without actual residence in the locality does not result in acquisition of
domicile, nor does the fact of physical presence without intention. The lease contract entered
into sometime in January 1997, does not adequately support a change of domicile.
Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his residence in Quezon City is further strengthened by
his act of registering as voter in one of the precincts in Quezon City. While voting is not conclusive of
residence, it does give rise to a strong presumption of residence especially in this case where
DOMINO registered in his former barangay. Exercising the right of election franchise is a
deliberate public assertion of the fact of residence, and is said to have decided preponderance
is a doubtful case upon the place the elector claims as, or believes to be, his residence. The
fact that a party continuously voted in a particular locality is a strong factor in assisting to
determine the status of his domicile.
His claim that his registration in Quezon City was erroneous and was caused by events over which he
had no control cannot be sustained. The general registration of voters for purposes of the May 1998
elections was scheduled for two consecutive weekends, viz.: June 14, 15, 21, and 22. While,
Domino's intention to establish residence in Sarangani can be gleaned from the fact that be
bought the house he was renting on November 4, 1997, that he sought cancellation of his
previous registration in Quezon City on 22 October 1997 and that he applied for transfer of
registration from Quezon City to Sarangani by reason of change of residence on 30 August
1997, DOMINO still falls short of the one year residency requirement under the Constitution.
In showing compliance with the residency requirement, both intent and actual presence in the
district one intends to represent must satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental
law. Domino's failure to do so rendered him ineligible and his election to office null and void.

DOMINO vs. COMELEC Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOMINO vs. COMELEC Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOMINO vs. COMELEC Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOPIC: COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, and TERMS OF OFFICE

CASE: JUAN DOMINO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

We hold in the negative.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.