Author: Czar Paguio Romualdez-Marcos vs Comelec (1995) Petition: Appeal by certiorari Petitioner: Imelda Marcos Respondent: Comelec and

Cirilo Montejo Ponencia: Kapunan

highest number of votes. On the same day, however, the COMELEC reversed itself and directed the suspension of her proclamation. 8.) Marcos found out that she was won by a landslide in the said elections and prayed for her proclamation. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: W/N the petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year. RULING + RATIO: The case at hand reveals that there is confusion as to the application of Domicile and Residence in election law. Originally, the essential distinction between residence and domicile lies in the fact that residence is the PHYSICAL presence of a person in a given area and domicile is where a person intends to remain or his permanent residence. A person can only have a single domicile. It was ascertained from the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution that residence for election purposes is synonymous with domicile. It cannot be contested that the petitioner held various residences in her lifetime. The Courts reiterate that an individual does not lose his domicile even if she has maintained different residences for different purposes. None of these purposes pointed to her intention of abandoning her domicile of origin. The Courts ruled in favor of Marcos because of the ff reasons: 1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became Imeldas domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought them to Leyte; 2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose. In the absence and concurrence of all these, domicile of origin should be deemed to continue. 3. A wife does not automatically gain the husbands domicile because the term residence in Civil Law* does not mean the same thing in Political Law. When Imelda married late President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium. *Civil Code kasi sa Art 110: The husband shall fix the residence of the family. Sobrang distinguished yung residence at domicile sa Civil law. 4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired right to choose a new one only after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon returning to the country clearly indicated that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while living in her brothers house, an act, which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She even kept close ties by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important milestones.

DOCTRINE: If a person retains his domicile of origin for purposes of the residence requirement, the 1 year period is irrelevant because wherever he is, he is a resident of his domicile of origin. Second, if a person reestablishes a previously abandoned domicile, the 1 year requirement must be satisfied. (Bernas book) FACTS: 1.) Imelda Marcos established her domicile in Tacloban City, which was her fathers hometown, in 1938 when she was 8 years old. She pursued her studies (GS,HS, College) in the aforementioned city and subsequently taught in the Leyte Chinese School. In 1952, she went to Manila to work in the House of Representatives. Two years after, she married Pres. Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a Congressman in Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. In 1959, her husband was elected a Senator and they lived in San Juan, Rizal where she again registered as a voter. And in 1965, she lived in the Malacanang Palace when her husband became the President. This time, she registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila. After their exile in Hawaii, she ran for President in 1992 and indicated in her CoC that she was a resident and register voter of San Juan, Metro Manila. 2.) Marcos filed her CoC for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. 3.) The incumbent Representative, Montejo, filed for her disqualification alleging that she did not meet the 1 year constitutional requirement for residency. 4.) Apparently, she wrote down in her CoC in item no.8, which asked for the number of years of residency, that she had been a resident for 7 months. 5.) Marcos filed an amended CoC changing 7 months to since childhood, claiming that it was an honest misinterpretation that she thought she was being asked for her actual and physical presence in Tolosa, and not her domicile. 6.) The COMELEC found the petition for her disqualification meritorious and cancelled her amended CoC. For them, it was clear that Marcos has not complied with the 1 year residency requirement. In election cases, the term residence has always been considered synonymous with domicile. This is the intention to reside in the place coupled with the personal presence. When she returned after her exile, she did not choose to go back to Tacloban. Thus, her animus revertendi (intention to return) #JudgePrincess points to Manila. Pure intention to reside in Tacloban is not sufficient, there must be conduct indicative of such intention. 7.) The COMELEC denied her motion for reconsideration but issued a resolution allowing for her proclamation should she obtain the

DISPOSITION: COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Leyte.