Frivaldo

vs COMELEC naturalized American citizenship by actively participating in the

G.R. No. 87193 June 23, 1989 elections in this country, such forfeiture did not and could not
have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the
Facts: Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. At best, what might
province of Sorsogon and assumed office in due time. The League have happened as a result of the loss of his naturalized citizenship
of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter, represented by its President, was that he became a stateless individual. The fact that he was
Salvador Estuye, who was also suing in his personal capacity, filed elected by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent
with the Commission on Elections a petition for the annulment of violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment
Frivaldo; election and proclamation on the ground that he was not only to the citizens of this country. The rule requires strict
a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United States and application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person
had not reacquired Philippine citizenship on the day of the seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his
election. Frivaldo admitted that he was naturalized in the United total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty
States as alleged but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses and fidelity to any other state.
that he had sought American citizenship only to protect himself
Labo Jr. Vs. COMELEC
against President Marcos. He argued that the challenge to his title
G.R. No. 86564 August 1, 1989
should be dismissed, being in reality a quo warranto petition that

should have been filed within ten days from his proclamation, in
Facts: Ramon Labo asks this Court to restrain the Commission on
accordance with Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. He
Elections from looking into the question of his citizenship as a
afurther contended that his oath in his certificate of candidacy that
qualification for his office as Mayor of Baguio City. He was
he was a natural-born citizen should be a sufficient act of
proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City. However, there were
repatriation and his active participation in the 1987 congressional
administrative decisions on the question of the petitioner's
elections had divested him of American citizenship under the laws
citizenship. The first was rendered by the Commission on
of the United States, thus restoring his Philippine citizenship.
Elections and found the petitioner to be a citizen of the
Issue: WON Juan G. Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the Philippines. The second was rendered by the Commission on
time of his election Immigration and Deportation and held that the petitioner was not
a citizen of the Philippines. The decision of the CID took into
Held: No. The Court held that his contention that his naturalization
account the official statement of the Australian Government,
was not the result of his own free and voluntary choice is totally
through its Consul in the Philippines, that the petitioner was still
unacceptable and must be rejected outright. It was also ruled that
an Australian citizen as of that date by reason of his naturalization
if he really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and
in 1976. Labo does not question the authenticity of the evidence
reacquire Philippine citizenship, the petitioner should have done
submitted. Neither does he deny that he obtained Australian
so in accordance with the laws of our country. Under CA No. 63 as
Passport No. 754705, which he used in coming back to the
amended by CA No. 473 and PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship
Philippines in 1980, when he declared before the immigration
may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or
authorities that he was an alien and registered as such under Alien
by repatriation. It should be obvious that even if he did lose his
Certificate of Registration No. B-323985. Records show that He
also categorically declared that he was a citizen of Australia in a them is lost during incumbency, title to the office itself is deemed
number of sworn statements voluntarily made by him and even forfeited. In the case at bar, the citizenship and voting
sought to avoid the jurisdiction of the barangay court on the requirements were not subsequently lost but were not possessed
ground that he was a foreigner. The petitioner's contention that at all in the first place on the day of the election. The petitioner
his marriage to an Australian national in 1976 did not was disqualified from running as mayor and, although elected, is
automatically divest him of Philippine citizenship is irrelevant. not now qualified to serve as such.
There is no claim or finding that he automatically ceased to be a
Aquino vs. COMELEC
Filipino because of that marriage. He became a citizen of Australia
G.R. No. 120265 September 18, 1995
because he was naturalized as such through a formal and positive

process, simplified in his case because he was married to an
Facts: Agapito A. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the
Australian citizen. As a condition for such naturalization, he
position of Representative for the new Second Legislative District
formally took the Oath of Allegiance and/or made the Affirmation
of Makati City. Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and
of Allegiance.
Mateo Bedon, Chairman of the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay
Even if it be assumed that, as the petitioner asserts, his Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Agapito A. Aquino
naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that his on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a
marriage to the Australian citizen was bigamous, that candidate for congressman which, under Section 6, Art. VI of the
circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Philippine 1987 the Constitution, should be for a period not less than one (1)
citizenship. His divestiture of Australian citizenship does not year immediately preceding the May 8, 1995 elections. The Second
concern us here. What we must consider is the fact that he Division of the COMELEC promulgated a Resolution declared
voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine citizenship and willingly Aquino eligible to run for the Office of Representative in the
and knowingly embraced the citizenship of a foreign country. The Second Legislative District of Makati City. The parties filed for a
possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, after the latter obtained
Australia, as he claims, does not mean that he has been the lead in the election, Move Makati and Bedon filed an Urgent
automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines. Motion Ad Cautelum to Suspend Proclamation of petitioner.
COMELEC en banc issued an Order suspending petitioner's
Issue: WON Ramon Labo was a citizen of the Philippines at the
proclamation should he obtain the winning number of votes for
time of his election
the position of Representative of the Second District of the City of
Held: No. The Court held that He was ineligible as a candidate for Makati. The Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the
mayor of Baguio City under Section 42 of the Local Government Second Division was granted, thus, Agapito A. Aquino wass
Code. The electorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his declared ineligible and disqualified as a candidate.
total allegiance to the Queen of Australia, or at least a stateless
Issue/s: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction to determine the issue on
individual owing no allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
disqualification (not with House of Representatives
to preside over them as mayor of their city. Only citizens of the
Electoral Tribunal - HRET)
Philippines have that privilege over their countrymen. The
qualifications provided are continuing requirements; once any of
 WON petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Facts: The 1987 Constitution mandates that an aspirant for
Representative of the Second District of Makati City election to the House of Representatives be "a registered voter in
the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for
Held: Yes. The Court held that petitioner's contention that "after
a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the
the conduct of the election and (petitioner) has been established
election. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of
the winner of the electoral exercise from the moment of election,
Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of
the COMELEC is automatically divested of authority to pass upon
Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor. Cirilo Roy Montejo,
the question of qualification" finds no basis. Petitioner
the incumbent Representative of the First District of Leyte and a
conveniently confuses the distinction between an unproclaimed
candidate for the same position, filed a "Petition for Cancellation
candidate to the House of Representatives and a member of the
and Disqualification" 5 with the Commission on Elections alleging
same. Obtaining the highest number of votes in an election does
that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for
not automatically vest the position in the winning candidate. T he
residency as Mrs. Marcos lacked the Constitution's one year
electoral tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction over all contests
residency requirement for candidates for the House of
relative to the election, returns and qualifications of candidates for
Representatives. petitioner averred that the entry of the word
either the Senate or the House only when the latter become
"seven" in her original Certificate of Candidacy was the result of an
members of either the Senate or the House of Representatives.
"honest misinterpretation" 10 which she sought to rectify by
No. The Court held that while property ownership is not and adding the words "since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected
should never be an indicia of the right to vote or to be voted upon, Certificate of Candidacy and that "she has always maintained
the fact that petitioner himself claims that he has other residences Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. the Second Division of
in Metro Manila coupled with the short length of time he claims to the Commission on Election cancelled the original Certificate of
be a resident of the condominium unit in Makati (and the fact, of Candidacy of Marcos.
his stated domicile in Tarlac) "indicate that the sole purpose of
Issue: WON petitioner was eligible to run for the position of
(petitioner) in transferring his physical residence is not to
Representative of the First District of Leyte
acquire's new residence or domicile "but only to qualify as a
candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City." Held: Yes. The Court held that the case at hand reveals that there is
To successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove confusion as to the application
an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide
of Domicile and Residence in election law. The deliberations of
intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification for certain
establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with
elective positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that
the purpose. Petitioner's alleged connection with the Second
when the Constitution speaks of "residence" in election law, it
District of Makati City is only an alleged lease agreement of
actually means only "domicile".
condominium unit in the area.
It cannot be contested that the petitioner held various residences
Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC
inher lifetime. The Courts reiterate that an individual does not lose
G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995 hisdomicile even if she has maintained different residences

fordifferent purposes. None of these purposes pointed to her
intentionof 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
fatherbrought them to Leyte;

2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal
orchange of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning
the formerresidence and establishing a new one, and acts
which correspondwith 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
domicilebecause the term residence in Civil Law does not
mean the samething in Political Law. When Imelda married
late President Marcos in1954, she kept her domicile of
origin and merely gained a new homeand not domicilium
necessarium.*Civil Code kasi sa Art 110: The husband shall
fix the residence of thefamily. Sobrang distinguished yung
residence at domicile sa Civil law.

4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her
marriageand acquired right to choose a new one only after
the death of Pres.Marcos, her actions upon returning to the
country clearly indicatedthat 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. Sheeven kept close ties by establishing
residences in Tacloban,celebrating her birthdays and other
important milestones