ROMMEL APOLINARIO G.R. No.
191970
JALOSJOS,
Petitioner, Present:
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
- versus - PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
SERENO,
REYES,
and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and DAN ERASMO, SR., Promulgated:
Respondents.
April 24, 2012
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the proof required to establish the
domicile of a reinstated Filipino citizen who seeks election as governor of a
province.
The Facts and the Case
Petitioner Rommel Jalosjos was born in
From the time of his return, Jalosjos acquired a
residential property in the same village where he lived and a fishpond in
Undaunted, Erasmo filed before the 1st Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ipil-Tungawan-R.T. Lim in Ipil a petition for the
exclusion of Jalosjos name from the official voters list. After hearing, the MCTC rendered a decision,
denying the petition.[5] On appeal,[6]
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MCTC decision. The RTC decision became final and executory.
On November 28, 2009 Jalosjos filed his Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay Province for the May 10, 2010
elections. Erasmo promptly filed a petition
to deny due course or to cancel Jalosjos COC[7]
on the ground that the latter made material misrepresentation in the same since
he failed to comply with (1) the requirements of R.A. 9225 and (2) the one-year
residency requirement of the Local Government Code.
After hearing, the Second Division of the COMELEC ruled
that, while Jalosjos had regained Philippine citizenship by complying with the
requirements of R.A. 9225, he failed to prove the residency requirement for a
gubernatorial candidate. He failed to
present ample proof of a bona fide
intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. On motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En
Banc affirmed the Second Divisions decision, ruling that Jalosjos had been a
mere guest or transient visitor in his brothers house and, for this reason, he
cannot claim Ipil as his domicile.
Acting on Jalosjos prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order, the Court resolved on May 7, 2010 to issue a status quo ante order, enjoining
the COMELEC from enforcing its February 11, 2010 decision pending further
orders. Meanwhile, Jolosjos won the
election and was proclaimed winner of the 2010 gubernatorial race in the
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the
COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in ruling that Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona
fide intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
The Courts Ruling
The Local Government Code requires a candidate seeking the position
of provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at least one year before
the election.[9] For purposes of the election laws, the
requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile,[10]
meaning that a person must not only intend to reside in a particular place but must
also have personal presence in such place coupled with conduct indicative of
such intention.[11]
There is no hard and fast rule to determine a candidates
compliance with residency requirement since the question of residence is a
question of intention.[12] Still, jurisprudence has laid down the
following guidelines: (a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere;
(b) where once established, that domicile remains until he acquires a new one;
and (c) a person can have but one domicile at a time.[13]
It is inevitable under these guidelines and the precedents
applying them that Jalosjos has met the residency requirement for provincial
governor of Zamboanga Sibugay.
One. The COMELEC appears hasty in concluding that Jalosjos
failed to prove that he successfully changed his domicile to Zamboanga
Sibugay. The COMELEC points out that,
since he was unable to discharge the burden of proving Zamboanga Sibugay to be
his rightful domicile, it must be assumed that his domicile is either
But it is clear from the facts that
On the other hand, when he
came to the
To hold that Jalosjos has
not establish a new domicile in Zamboanga Sibugay despite the loss of his
domicile of origin (Quezon City) and his domicile of choice and by operation of
law (Australia) would violate the settled maxim that a man must have a domicile
or residence somewhere.
Two. The COMELEC concluded
that Jalosjos has not come to settle his domicile in Ipil since he has merely been
staying at his brothers house. But this
circumstance alone cannot support such conclusion. Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that a
candidate is not required to have a house in a community to establish his
residence or domicile in a particular place.
It is sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented
house or in the house of a friend or relative.[15] To insist that the candidate own the house
where he lives would make property a qualification for public office. What matters is that Jalosjos has proved two
things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an intention of making it his
domicile.
Jalosjos presented the affidavits
of next-door neighbors, attesting to his physical presence at his residence in
Ipil. These adjoining neighbors are no
doubt more credible since they have a better chance of noting his presence or
absence than his other neighbors, whose affidavits Erasmo presented, who just
sporadically passed by the subject residence.
Further, it is not disputed that Jalosjos bought a residential lot in
the same village where he lived and a fish pond in
Three. While the Court ordinarily respects the factual
findings of administrative bodies like the COMELEC, this does not prevent it
from exercising its review powers to correct palpable misappreciation of evidence
or wrong or irrelevant considerations.[16] The evidence Jalosjos presented is sufficient
to establish Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, as his domicile. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
holding otherwise.
Four. Jalosjos won and was proclaimed winner in the
2010 gubernatorial race for Zamboanga Sibugay.
The Court will respect the decision of the people of that province and
resolve all doubts regarding his qualification in his favor to breathe life to
their manifest will.
WHEREFORE, the
Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the Resolution of the COMELEC
Second Division dated February 11, 2010 and the Resolution of the COMELEC En
Banc dated May 4, 2010 that disqualified petitioner Rommel Jalosjos from
seeking election as Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 110.
[2]
[3] An Act making the
Citizenship of the Philippines who acquire Foreign Citizenship permanent,
amending for the purpose Commonwealth Act 63, as amended and for other
purposes.
[4] Rollo, p. 111.
[5] Docketed as Election Case 589.
[6] Docketed as RTC Election Case 0007-2K9.
[7] Docketed as SPA 09-115 (DC).
[8] Rollo, p. 445.
[9] Republic Act 7160, Section 39.
[10] Domicile is
classified into: (a) domicile of origin, which is acquired by every person at
birth; (b) domicile of choice, which is acquired upon abandonment of the
domicile of origin; and (c) domicile by operation of law, which attributes to a
person independently of his residence or intention (See Ugdoracion, Jr. v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179851, April 18, 2008, 552 SCRA 231,
240-241).
[11] Limbona v. Commission
on Elections, G.R.
No. 181097, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 391, 401.
[12]
[13] Pundaodaya v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179313, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 178, 184-185.
[14] See Caasi v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. Nos.
88831 and 84508, November 8, 1990, 191 SCRA 229, 235.
[15] Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives,
G.R. Nos. 92191-92 and 92202-03, July 30, 1991, 199 SCRA 692, 715, citing De los Reyes v. Solidum, 61 Phil. 893,
899 (1935).
[16] Mitra v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No.
191938, July 2, 2010, 622 SCRA 744, 767.