01

DOMICILE

Domicile includes the twin elements of the “fact of residing or physical presence
in a fixed place” and animus manendi or “the intention of returning there permanently.”

Domicile implies something more permanent while residence is temporary. A

person may have several residences, but he can only have one domicile.

KINDS OF DOMICILES

1.) Domicile of origin – the domicile of a person’s parents, the head of his family,
or the person whom he is legally dependent, at the time of birth.
2.) Domicile of choice – a place chosen by a person to replace his former
domicile.
3.) Domicile by operation of law – the domicile assigned or attributed by law to a
person. (Ex: the parents of a child have different citizenships)

DOMICILE AND CITIZENSHIP

Domicile and citizenship are two different concepts and they do not necessarily
go or occur together.

In determining a person’s domicile, one must look beyond a person’s citizenship

to determine his domicile.

In the dissenting and concurring opinion in Arnado v COMELEC of the honorable

Justice Marvic Leonen, he distinguished citizenship from domicile as follows:

Residency as a requirement for public office must also be interpreted as a

separate matter from citizenship. Residence is said to be synonymous to
domicile. Domicile requires both physical presence and animus revertendi or
intent to return. Citizenship may be presumed from one's domicile, but this
presumption is disputable. Further proof other than domicile may be required to
prove citizenship.

A person residing in the Philippines is presumed to be a Filipino citizen.

Domicile, however, does not ipso facto prove his or her citizenship. A Filipino
 may reside in the United States but still remain a Filipino citizen. An American
may also reside in the Philippines and still remain an American citizen. The
presumption created by residency is not conclusive of one's citizenship.

LOSS AND RETENTION

Domicile may be lost through the performance of certain acts indicative of an

intent to abandon domicile.

ACTS INDICATIVE OF DOMICILE:

A person’s: 1.) residence; 2.) membership in church; 3.) voting; 4.) holding
office; 5.) paying taxes; and 6.) ownership of property

A person may abandon his domicile by choosing a new domicile, residing

therein, and intending that place to be his permanent residence. For refugees and
asylum seekers, they do not act with voluntariness in choosing their place of residence,
so they do not lose their domicile.

02

Permanent Residency Overseas and the Process of Foreign Naturalization

Naturalization

People already in the United States People still in the Philippines

 People with non-immigrant visas  People petitioned by their loved

 File a petition for adjustment of ones abroad
status from non-immigrant status  They have to wait for the approval
to a permanent resident and release of their immigrant visas
before they can go abroad

Permanent Visa Card (Green Card)

 Issued to applicants who are given the privilege to stay in the United States on a
permanent basis.

Permanent Residents
  Deemed to make the United States their own home. They could not be away from
the United States for too long, usually more than one year, without endangering
their status.

Permanent Residents Holders of tourist or student visas

 Getting permanent resident status  Only allowed temporary

necessarily implies abandonment of his stay in the United States
foreign domicile  Still maintain their
domicile in their country of
origin

 Once the person complies with the conditions of his permanent residency and after
a continued stay in the United States, the permanent resident becomes eligible to
apply for US citizenship.

US citizenship

 A more permanent status and is not lost even if the person later on moves to
another country to establish his domicile there.

Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC

Facts:

Grace Poe-Llamanzares was a foundling subsequently adopted by Fernando Poe

Jr. and Susan Roces. Grace married Fil-American Brian Llamanzares in 1991. She joined
her husband in the US where she was naturalized as a citizen in 2001. In 2004, she
returned to the Philippines to be with her ailing father and remained until February 2005.
She claims to have returned to the Philippines on May 2005 to settle here for good.

In the process of settling here, they sold their house in the US and informed the
US Postal Service of the abandonment of their US address. Her husband resigned from
his job in the US and started working for a Philippine company. They bought a lot in
Corinthian Gardens and built their house therein. Grace applied for repatriation under RA
9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act) and took her oath of allegiance to
the Philippines on July 7, 2006. On October 20, 2010, she executed an Affidavit of
Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of America and Renunciation of American
Citizenship. She subsequently executed and Oath/Affirmation of renunciation of
Nationality of the United States before the US Embassy.

On October 2, 2012, she filed her certificate of candidacy for senator for the 2013
elections. She won as a Senator in that elections. On October 15, 2015, she filed her
certificate of candidacy for president for the 2016 elections. She declared in her COC that
she is a natural born citizen of the Philippines and that she is a resident of the Philippines
for 10 years and 11 months from May 24, 2005.

A petition to deny due course or cancel COC was filed against her for material
misrepresentation concerning her natural-born status and residency.

Issue:

WON petitioner’s domicile is the Philippines?

Held: YES

Jurisprudence provides that it is the fact of residence, not the statement of the
person that determines residence for purposes of compliance with the constitutional
requirement of residency for election as President.

In this case, petitioner presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her
family abandoned their US domicile and relocated to the Philippines for good. These
evidence include among others:

(1) Petitioner’s former US passport showing her arrival on 24 May 2005 and her
return to the Philippines every time she travelled abroad;

(2) School records of her children showing enrolment in Philippine schools starting
June 2005 and for succeeding years;

(3) Titles for condominium and parking slot issued in February 2006 and their
corresponding tax declarations issued in April 2006;

(4) Affidavit from Jesusa Sonora Poe (attesting to the return of petitioner on 24
May 2005 and that she and her family stayed with affiant until the condominium was
purchased); and

(5) Affidavit from petitioner’s husband (confirming that the spouses jointly decided
to relocate to the Philippines in 2005 and that he stayed behind in the US only to finish
some work and to sell the family home).

03

ABSENTEE VOTING and DOMICILE

 -It is a state policy of the Philippines to enfranchise its citizens who are qualified
to vote in the elections.

 SEC 1, Art V of the Constitution – “suffrage may be exercised by all

citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at
least 18 years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at
least 1 year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least 6
months immediate preceding the election”
-There is thus a requirement of residency before a person can exercise his right
of suffrage.

-This residency requirement must conform with the doctrine of domicile so that
persons who have the intention of returning to their domicile may be allowed to
vote despite being absent thereat for a considerable time.

 SEC 1 – prescribes residency qualification for the voter

 SEC 2 - prescribes absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad
 Enacted mainly for qualified overseas Filipino workers (OFW)
 Grants citizens who are abroad and who may not otherwise be
able to cast their votes on election day in PH precincts to vote in
PH consulates and authorized foreign stations
-Efforts of OFW in nation-building are therefore recognized by giving the the right to
vote despite lacking actual residency in the PH

-However, even if they lack actual residency, they must still demonstrate that the PH is
their domicile and that they have the intention of returning before they can be allowed to
vote.

RA NO. 10590 further reinforced the right to vote of absentee voters by omitting
the affidavit requirement found in RA 9189

THE STATE OF THE LAW NOW IS THAT ALL FILIPINOS OVERSEAS MAY
VOTE WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING ACTUAL RESIDENCY OR DOMICILE IN THE
PHILIPPINES.

CASE:

MACALINTAL V. COMELEC GR No. 157013, July 10 2003

Facts: Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity of the
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He questions the validity of the said
act on the following grounds, among others:

1. That the provision that a Filipino already considered an immigrant abroad can be
allowed to participate in absentee voting provided he executes an affidavit stating
his intent to return to the Philippines is void because it dispenses of the
requirement that a voter must be a resident of the Philippines for at least one
year and in the place where he intends to vote for at least 6 months immediately
preceding the election;
2. That the provision allowing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to
proclaim winning candidates insofar as it affects the canvass of votes and
proclamation of winning candidates for president and vice-president, is
unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution for it is Congress which is
empowered to do so.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 9189 violates the residency
requirement in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution.

HELD: No. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 enumerates those who are disqualified voting
under this Act. It disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized
as such in the host country. However, an exception is provided i.e. unless he/she
executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission
declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the
Philippines not later than 3 years from approval of registration. Such affidavit shall also
state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return
shall be cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from
the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote
in absentia.

Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets down plainly its whole
meaning, the Court is prevented from making it mean what the Court pleases. In fine,
considering that underlying intent of the Constitution, as is evident in its statutory
construction and intent of the framers, which is to grant Filipino immigrants and
permanent residents abroad the unquestionable right to exercise the right of suffrage
(Section 1 Article V) the Court finds that Section 5 of RA No. 9189 is not constitutionally
defective.
 04

Republic Act No. 10590 – “An Act Providing for A System of Overseas Absentee
Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating Funds
There for and For Other Purposes” – otherwise known as “The Overseas Voting
Act of 2013”

- RA 10590 (2013) – amended RA 9180 (2003)

Provisions pertinent to Conflict of Laws

o SEC 3 – Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended as follows:

 SEC 4 – Coverage:
WHO MAY VOTE:

1. Citizens abroad not otherwise disqualified by law.

2. At least 18 years of age on the day of election.

(Vote for President, Vice-President, Senators and Party-

List Representatives, as well as in all national referenda
and plebiscites.)

o SEC 4 – Section 5 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

 SEC 5 – Disqualifications:
The following shall be disqualified from registering and
voting under this Act:

Those who:

a. Lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with

Philippine laws;
b. Expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and
who have pledged allegiance to a foreign country.
(Except those who have reacquired or retained their
Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 – citizen retention
and reacquisition act of 2003)
c. Have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by
a Philippine court or tribunal of an offense punishable
by imprisonment of not less than one (1) year.
 Provided, however, that any person disqualified under
this subsection shall automatically acquire the right to
vote upon the expiration of five (5) years after service of
sentence.
d. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared
insane or incompetent by competent authority in the
Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine
embassies, consulates or foreign service establishments
concerned. (Unless such competent authority
subsequently certifies that such person is no longer
insane or incompetent.)

- RA 10590 deleted the requirement under RA 9180 for immigrant or permanent

residents to execute an affidavit before they are allowed to exercise their right to
vote.

o The affidavit is a declaration that they “shall resume actual physical

permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years from
approval of their resignation” and that “they have not applied for
registration in another country.

Affidavit has for its purpose:

1. To show the intention of resuming residency in the Philippines

2. An explicit expression that he had not abandoned his domicile of
origin.

HOWEVER, jurisprudence provides that without the affidavit, the

presumption of abandonment of the Philippine domicile shall remain.

Macalintal v Comelec

---

Venue in Estate Proceedings

The residence of a person is significant in determining the venue of estate
proceedings and ordinary civil actions. Residence, for VENUE purposes, usually
refer only to actual residence or place of abode, and not to a person’s domicile.

The word “resides” connotes “actual residence” as distinguished from “legal residence”
or “domicile”.

Domicile refers to – the place where a person has his true, fixed, permanent home and
principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of
returning, and from which he has no present intention of moving otherwise it is
residency.

CASES:

JAO vs CA GR No. 128314 2002

VENUE for the settlement of decedent’s intestate estate refers only to ORDINARY
RESIDENCE and not to DOMICILE.

Facts: Spouses Jao died. Son filed a petition for the issuance of letter of administration
before RTC of QC. Another Son filed for dismissal for improper VENUE.

ISSUE: is the venue proper.

SAN LUIS vs SAN LUIS GR No. 134029 2007

There is distinction between residence for purposes of election laws and residence for
purposes of fixing the venue of actions for settlement of estate.

In ELECTION CASES, residence and domicile are treated as synonymous terms, that
is, the fixed permanent residence to which when absent, one has the intention of
returning. However, for purposes of fixing VENUE under the RULES OF COURT, the
residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence
or place of abode, which may not be necessarily be his legal residence oe domicile
provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.

Facts: Former Laguna governor died, leaving a third wife and children from first and
second wife. Third wife filed a petition for the issuance of administration with RTC of
Makati City. Then, a son from the first wife filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Third wife presented proof of residency. Hence.