Romualdez-marcos Vs Comelec.docx

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 119976 18 September 1995 FACTS: During the 1995 elections, Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte which was opposed by Cirilio Montejo who filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification before the COMELEC on the ground that she did not meet the constitutional requirement of residency. Petitioner claims that she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile and residence and that she merely committed an honest mistake in writing down the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification requirement in the certificate of candidacy. In or about 1938, petitioner, when she was a little over 8 years old, established her domicile in Tacloban City, Leyte. She pursued her elementary to tertiary level studies in Tacloban, where she earned her degree in Education. Thereafter, she taught in the Leyte Chinese School, still in Tacloban City. In 1952 she went to Manila to work with her cousin, the late speaker Daniel Z. Romualdez in his office in the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married ex-President Ferdinand E. Marcos when he was still a congressman of Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. When her husband was elected Senator of the Republic in 1959, she and her husband lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965, when her husband was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines, she lived with him in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila.

ISSUE: Whether or not Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte for a period of 1 year at the time of the 1995 elections RULING: YES. The Supreme Court declares that for purposes of election law, residence is synonymous with domicile. The Civil Code decrees that for the exercise of civil rights and fulfilment of civil obligations, the domicile of a natural person is their place of habitual residence and the same is composed of two elements, namely: (a) the facts od residing/physical presence in a fixed place; and (b) Animus manendi. Furthermore, the Supreme Court reiterated that a person’s domicile is not easily lost. To effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate (a) an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; (b) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and (c) acts which correspond with the purpose. In the absence of clear and positive proof contrary to the aforementioned standards, the residence of origin is deemed to continue.

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos’ domicile is in Tacloban, Leyte. The fact that she has a residence in Manila does not mean that she has lost her domicile in that province. The absence from one’s domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of domicile. Petitioner kept close ties to Tacloban, Leyte and has always demonstrated her intent to return thereat despite establishing actual residence, as a result of her marriage, in Manila. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that petitioner satisfies the 1 year residency rule for election purposes and qualifies to run for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte.