Professional Documents
Culture Documents
19TH
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
7TH Judicial Region
Balilihan-Sikatuna-Corella
Balilihan, Bohol
ESTEBAN CHATTO,
Petitioner,
- versus –
x-------------------------------------x
DECISION
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution specifically provides that suffrage
may be exercised by (1) all citizens of the Philippines, (2) not otherwise
disqualified by law, (3) at least eighteen years of age, (4) who are
residents in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where
they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the
election.
This petition contests the qualification of residency of not just any voter
of Balilihan, Bohol but of its highest public official, the municipal mayor.
1
It was filed pursuant to Section 35, Republic Act No. 8189 or the Voter’s
Registration act of 1996 on 31 January 2019. A reading of the petition
showed that it complied with the requirement of filing this case “at any
time except one hundred (100) days prior to a regular election x x x”. The
petition was also accompanied by a certificate of service which shows
proof of compliance with Section 35’s requirement that the petition “shall
be accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged
voter”.
In compliance with section 32b, the petition was set for hearing on
February 6, 2019 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning. Respondent and her two
lawyers, Atty. Teodoro Lagang and Atty. Alona A. Crystal appeared on
the said date. Petitioner also appeared but without any lawyer. To ensure
that this case will not be won on account of legal knowledge and legal
technicalities often equipping a lawyer, petitioner was required to obtain
the services of counsel. It was also at this juncture that the undersigned
judge upon double-checking the records, observed that the two copies of
the petition filed by the petitioner were both photocopies. Petitioner was
thus required to submit an original copy of his petition in the afternoon
session.
The case was reset at 1:30PM where Atty. Danilo Bantugan appeared by
way of special appearance, merely to reset the case. So as not to waste
time, the COMELEC Election Board Chair of Balilihan was placed on the
witness stand for some clarificatory questions. Petitioner was then asked
if he would be able to prosecute this case pro se to which he answered
yes, but he was the only one present and his witnesses were not around.
To preempt the preposterous situation where petitioner would be asking
questions from himself and answering them, and considering that he has
not made any legal manifestations on his own, the court was constrained
to reset. But still in the afternoon session, petitioner failed to submit the
original copy of the petition prompting the undersigned judge to warn
him that if he would not be able to submit until 5PM of that day, his
petition will be dismissed on the ground that the photocopies of the
petition have no probative value and should be treated as unsigned
pleading or scraps of paper. This case was thereafter reset to the next day
for hearing or on February 7, 2019.
2
court was a mere photocopy, and for his lack of preparation during the
first hearing of this case.
g) The petition shall be heard and decided within ten (10) days
from the date of its filing. Cases appealed to the Regional Trial
Court shall be decided within ten (10) days from receipt of the
appeal. In all cases, the court shall decide these petitions not later
than fifteen (15) days before the election and the decision shall
become final and executory.
In accordance with Section 32(g) the last day to render the decision is
February 10, 2019. However, since this date falls on a Sunday, this
decision was scheduled to be issued on 11 February 2019. The parties
agreed to be present in open court to receive their copies of this decision
to enable the court to swiftly process the transfer of the records of this
case to the Regional Trial Court should any of the parties wish to appeal.
THE PETITION
The petition calls for the exclusion of the respondent mayor from the list
of voters in Precinct No. 009A on the ground that she never established
her domicile in Balilihan. Paragraph 25 of the petition claims that right
after respondent got married to Edgardo Chatto in 1992, “the newlyweds
settled and established their family home in Bagong Lipunan, Poblacion
3, Tagbilaran City, Bohol. They have been living in the said house from
1992 up to the present.” Petitioner claims that he has personal knowledge
of where the respondent is actually domiciled because he is the first
degree cousin of respondent’s husband, “having shared childhood
experience and having started our career in politics together” and that
they grew up together. He also mentioned that he worked for
respondent’s husband from the time the husband was a mayor, to vice
governor, to congressman and at present, as governor of the province of
Bohol. He claimed that as close relative and public officer, “we usually
hold our meetings at their residence in Tagbilaran’”. And as his first
3
degree cousin, he was often invited to their family gatherings in
Tagbilaran City1.
Petitioner adds that from the time respondent sought the transfer of her
voter’s registration to Barangay Del Carmen Weste up to last year, he
gave respondent the “benefit of the doubt” that she really wants to
establish her residency in Balilihan but even when respondent’s mother-
in-law died in 2016, respondent and her husband never moved into the
Chatto ancestral house in Balilihan.
“41. Through the years, the Respondent has merely treated elective
offices she has held at Balilihan as a mere “day job”. Respondent
has repeatedly circumvented the law to suit her convenience when
it is in fact of public knowledge that she never had any intention to
establish her residence in Del Carmen Weste, Balilihan.”
“62. The Respondent has never stayed in the ancestral house of her
husband’s family, except for visits during special occasions (fiestas,
death, sumad). After every occasion, she would go back home to
Tagbilaran City.
4
for her use must be returned and parked in the vicinity of the
Capitol, in compliance with COA Circular 75-6, Item 5.”
Paragraph 29 of the petition also states that the couple’s only child was
enrolled and educated at Bohol Wisdom School in Tagbilaran City and
further proof of the respondent’s residence in Tagbilaran City, by way of
paragraph 30 is that respondent maintains two (2) businesses in that city,
particularly the First Flower Avenue along CP Garcia and the Bohol
HRD Review Center along Bagong Lipunan fronting their residence.
That respondent does not have any business interest or properties in
Balilihan only shows that “she has not contributed a single cent of tax to
the fund that pays for her salary”3, petitioner claims. Her only business
interest in Balilihan, Petitioner expounds, “is the business of politics
where she enjoys the perks and financial gains of the Mayor’s Office to
the prejudice of the voters in Balilihan”4. This, petitioner claims “is at the
expense of the Province of Bohol. The coffer of the province,
unfortunately, has to shoulder her daily commute expenses to and from
her residence in Tagbilaran City”5 and that “[E]very single working day,
Respondent takes advantage of provincial government resources (vehicle
and gas) to transport her to and from Balilihan, which is 22 kilometers
away from Tagbilaran”6.
Petitioner adds that respondent could not even go to the barangay hall to
personally obtain her community tax certificate, as “any normal
constituent would do” but instead summoned the barangay treasurer,
Felipe M. Terec to issue one for her and that Terec, “pressured and
intimidated”, obliged7. Felipe Terec executed an affidavit claiming that
from the time he entered office in 2014 until 2019, respondent sought the
issuance of Community Tax Certificates (CTC) either by instructing her
5
secretary, who is an employee of the province named Florencia Chatto to
obtain one from him, personally or via a text message, and asking him
(Terec) to bring the CTCs to the mayor’s office. Terec further disclosed
that “during those times that the mayor sought the issuance of CTC
through Florencia Chatto, she has never affixed her thumbmark in front
of me unlike other residents of the Barangay who would really go to the
Barangay hall to pick up their CTCs”8. The photocopies of the CTCs of
the respondent showing her lack of thumbmarks and signatures were
annexed to the petition as Annexes E to E-4.
Additionally, petitioner asserts that respondent and her husband are not
part of the households belonging to Purok 5, Del Carmen Weste11. In
support of this, paragraphs 50 to 60 reads:
“51. In the case of the Respondent, she was never a member of the
said Purok, from the time that the Purok Power Movement (PPM)
was institutionalized by her husband in 2011.
“52. The attendance sheet for Purok 5 – Batong meeting year 2017
reveals that there is only one household in the address that the
Respondent claims to reside. Note that the head of that household
was her mother in law who back then paid fines for not being able
to attend or send a representative in purok meetings. X x x
6
“53. For 2018, the name of the Respondent’s husband was added to
replace his mother as head of the household by default being the
only Bohol based child. However, he has not attended any of the
purok meetings in 2018. X x x
“Xxx
“60. This callousness only bolsters the fact that she has no
community interest simply because she is not a resident of
Balilihan.”
THE ANSWER
7
In her answer, respondent sought the dismissal of the petition since it is
undated12 and filed way out of time, as it should have been filed when
respondent first registered as a voter in Balilihan in 1992 since exclusion
proceedings should be filed only upon the registration of the concerned
voter13. She adds that petitioner is barred by estoppel since petitioner was
well aware that respondent has been domiciled for 24 years yet he has
failed to question respondent’s residency at the most opportune time.
Also, during the hearing, respondent accused petitioner of unclean
hands, claiming that he was the one who was not qualified as a voter
since he does not have properties or business interests in Balilihan as
shown by Certifications marked as Exhibits 11 and 12, and that he has a
property registered in his name in Tagbilaran City as shown by a
certification from the Office of the City Assessor of Tagbilaran City and
marked as Exhibit 13.
8
“continue to reside in Del Carmen Weste since every now and then, they
would attend Sunday masses in Balilihan and thereafter proceed to their
family farm named after the late Victoria Chatto in Sal-ing, Balilihan. Not
only that, respondent and her husband would attend masses during
Christmas eve, New Year, Holy Week, All Souls Day, Fieta, Sumad, and
any other special occasions. In fact, their constituents would celebrate
Christmas with the respondent and her family in their residence in Del
Carmen Weste since gift giving is a yearly traditional activity of the
family” 18.
Article 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In
case of disagreement, the court shall decide.
The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the
latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling
reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not
apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the
family.
9
Respondent added that petitioner failed to show that respondent and her
husband maintain separate residences, and petitioner did not bother to
contest Edgar Chatto’s residency as a voter21.
10
COMELEC Resolution 10429 sets the deadline for filing petition for
exclusion of voters on 1 February 2019.
That the court opted to relax procedural rules and conduct a marathon
hearing is in harmony with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kabataan
Party List v. COMELEC22, where the august body said:
Photocopies
Immediately after this case was filed in court, and considering the time
limitations with which the court will have to act on the petition, such as
the requirement that a notice of hearing shall be issued immediately
upon the filing of the petition, and that the court only has ten days
11
within which to issue its decision from the time of the filing of the
petition, the undersigned judge read the contents of the petition, saw
compliance to the rules as espoused in RA8189 and immediately issued a
notice of hearing to the parties. She noticed that the signature of the
petitioner as appearing in the petition was very light, hence she
presumed that the two copies of the petition filed were originals. On the
day of the hearing, however, the undersigned judge took a second look
at the petition and discovered that the two copies of the petition filed
were mere photocopies, as were the annexes attached thereto. Hence she
gave a marching order to the petitioner to immediately submit an
original copy of the petition. The petitioner complied with this directive
in the afternoon of the same day.
This is also the first time that a petition for exclusion has been filed in
this court according to the COMELEC chair since 2004 or for a period of
fourteen (14) years. The issue involves the right to vote or the right of
suffrage, hence the judge deemed it best to proceed on the merits of the
case.
Undated Pleading
12
Respondent claims that since the petition was undated, then it should be
treated as an unsigned pleading and thus a scrap of paper. There is no
procedural rule, however, that when the pleading is undated, then it is
considered unsigned. The dates in a pleading are only considered when
these are material to the rules on prescriptive periods as to when they
should be filed. Since the petition was filed within the prescriptive
period, it is of no moment that it was undated.
Respondent next faults the petitioner for putting a date on the original
petition that he filed on 6 February 2019 which now appears to be
January 31, 2019 but the verification and certification of forum shopping
was notarized on 28 January 2019. In Peak Ventures Corp. v. Heirs of
Villareal23, the Supreme Court did not consider as fatally defective the
fact that a petition for review on certiorari's verification and certification
of non-forum shopping was dated November 6, 2008, while the petition
itself was dated November 10, 2008.
Prescriptive Period
Respondent posits that a petition for exclusion should be filed upon the
original registration of a voter and can never be filed thereafter.
Accordingly, she asseverates that this petition for exclusion should have
been filed when she first registered to vote in Balilihan in 1991; or at the
very least, when by operation of RA8189, the registration of voters was
required in 1997. Considering that this was filed 22 years after the
original registration, this case should be dismissed.
Section 35. Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List. Any
registered voters, representative of a political party or the Election
Officer, may file with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of
a voter from the permanent list of voters giving the name, address
and the precinct of the challenged voter at any time except one
hundred (100) days prior to a regular election or sixty-five (65)
days before a special election. The petition shall be accompanied by
proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged voter and shall
be decided within ten (10) days from its filing.
If the decision is for the exclusion of the voter from the list, the
Board shall, upon receipt of the final decision, remove the voter’s
registration record from the corresponding book of voters, enter
the order of exclusion therein, and thereafter place the record in the
inactive file.
13
The said provision does not qualify that a petition for exclusion of voters
can only be filed upon the initial registration of a voter. On the contrary,
the provision is clear that any registered voter, representative of a
political party or the Election Officer may file a petition for exclusion
from the permanent list of voters.
What applies in the instant case is Comelec Resolution No. 10429 dated
October 1, 2018 which sets February 1, 2019 as the “last day to file
petition for the exclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters (Section
35, RA8189)”.
14
2001 of private respondents' petition to exclude petitioner was
timely.
On the basis of Luna v. Hon. Tamin, this action has not prescribed and
petitioner cannot be deemed in estoppel for filing this petition 24 years
after respondent first registered as a voter, and was elected into public
office in Balilihan for the last two elections.
Unclean Hands
The court cannot apply the doctrine of unclean hands since to do so will
compel this court to look into the qualifications of respondent as a voter,
and consequently, this will result to the issue of whether petitioner must
be excluded from the voter’s list in Balilihan or not. To do so will treat
this case as one also as a petition for the exclusion of petitioner as a voter,
hence it will indirectly rule on an issue of exclusion that was filed out of
time since the last filing for petitions for exclusion for the 2019 elections
already lapsed on 1 February 2019. Besides, it was conceded by both
parties during the hearings in this case that neither property nor business
interests qualifies one to vote.
15
THE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
We now proceed to the sole substantial issue in the instant case, which is
whether or not respondent is a resident of Balilihan.
16
meetings are conducted in the said Tagbilaran residence, and
that she has never moved to Balilihan31.
17
On the other hand, respondent claims that she is a resident of Balilihan
because:
We now look into these pieces of evidence and rule on whether these are
determinative of respondent’s domicile with the elements of domicile
(actual bodily presence, and intent to keep returning), as well as the three
requisites of domicile of choice (actual physical presence, intent to
remain, intent to abandon the old one) as parameters of analysis.
18
law; unless there is showing that the facebook application knows the
stark difference between the concepts of residence and domicile as
applied in Philippine election law. It will be preposterous to assume that
the facebook application has defined the verb “lives” to be the
domiciliary concept of residence, unless facebook was primarily
conceptualized to cater to quirky election lawyers who treat residence
and domicile as per their technical definitions in election law. Rather,
facebook would use the verb “lives” in its general meaning, which as per
Webster’s Dictionary is “to pass through or spend the duration of”37 or to
refer to the place where the account user can be found.
Petitioner next asserts that respondent has been raised and schooled in
Tagbilaran City thereby making this city her domicile of origin.
Respondent never denied this fact, but claims that she has abandoned
this domicile of origin upon her marriage to Edgardo M. Chatto.
19
However, on cross, petitioner admitted that the conjugal dwelling that he
referred to in his petition, is not a separate family domicile or a conjugal
dwelling that was exclusively established by the couple, but a building
owned by the late Eladio Chatto (Exhibit 3). Also as will be later on
discussed, petitioner’s assertion that the couple never occupied the
ancestral home of the Chattos in Balilihan, Bohol as their family home
was rebutted by respondent’s witnesses Nimia Lungay and Ernesto
Llorente who worked in the said ancestral house and observed that the
couple lived there from 1991 to 1994 while respondent’s husband was the
mayor in Balilihan, Bohol.
39 G.R. No. 193261, April 24, 2012, also see Mitra v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191938, 2 July 2010.
20
(b) It was made by the public officer in the performance of his
duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law; and
While Felipe Terec, the barangay secretary as per his affidavit, testified
for the petitioner, it was with respect to Terec’s responsibility of issuing
Community Tax Certificates and not as to his responsibility to keep an
updated record of all the inhabitants of the barangay. Section 394 of
Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code provides this
responsibility, among others:
21
(4) Assist in the preparation of all necessary forms for
the conduct of barangay elections, initiatives, referenda
or plebiscites, in coordination with the Comelec;
(5) Assist the municipal civil registrar in the registration
of births, deaths, and marriages;
(6) Keep an updated record of all inhabitants of the
barangay containing the following items of
information: name, address, place and date of birth,
sex, civil status, citizenship, occupation, and such
other items of information as may be prescribed by
law or ordinances;
(7) Submit a report on the actual number of barangay
residents as often as may be required by the
sangguniang barangay; and
(8) Exercise such other powers and perform such other
duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or
ordinance. (Emphasis supplied).
22
testimonies of these witnesses to determine if these testimonies can
sufficiently establish that respondent is not a resident of Balilihan, Bohol.
23
thereby contradicting the contents of his affidavit that since respondent
got married, she never tried residing in the said residence44.
Esmeralda Batac testified next and like Hangad, she identified and
confirmed the truth and veracity of her affidavit (Exhibit C). She said that
she is a barangay kagawad and a resident of Del Carmen Weste and that
it is easy to see if somebody “lives” in the Chatto house because it is
located by the road. She said that there is nobody living in the said house
except the caretaker, “Nang Bebe”. She added that the Chatto house is
only bustling with activity or “mabibo” during election time, during the
sumad (foundation day) of Balilihan, and during the day of the dead. She
also added in her affidavit that she already tried attending the fiesta in
the Chatto house in Tagbilaran in 2010 upon the invitation of the
governor.
Batac also identified the facebook account of respondent that showed the
description, “lives in Tagbilaran City”. She said that she asked her son to
open respondent’s account in facebook and she personally saw the said
description.
On cross, she added that she was not originally from Del Carmen Weste
but only established her residence in Del Carmen Weste because her
husband is from Del Carmen Weste. She added that she does not have
any facebook account but she asked his son to look for the facebook
account of respondent. It was her son who printed out the contents of the
facebook account of the respondent.
44 Paragraph 6 of Hangad’s affidavit reads: “6. Na katong nagpakasal si Mayor Edgar ni Puresa
katong tuig 1992, hangtod karon, wala man gyud sila naka suway ug puyo sa balay katiguwangan
sa mga Chatto;”
24
months preceding the elections can never fulfil the residence
requirement under Section 39 of the LGC. In addition, COMELEC
cancelled petitioner's COC without any prior determination of
whether or not she had intended to deceive or mislead the
electorate. This omission also constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Xxx
Couple’s only child was enrolled and educated in Bohol Wisdom School
located in Tagbilaran City. That respondent’s sole daughter was enrolled
and educated in Bohol Wisdom School located in Tagbilaran City does
not by itself establish that respondent is domiciled in Tagbilaran City.
Again in Sabili, the Supreme Court said:
25
both husband and wife. In addition, we note that the transfer to
Lipa City occurred in 2007, when petitioner’s children were already
well into college and could very well have chosen to study
elsewhere than in Lipa City.
26
that since he started issuing CTCs in 2014 until 2019, respondent never
came to his office to request for the issuance of the CTC, instead
respondent asked her secretary Florencia Chatto to issue the said CTC
hence all the duplicate copies of the CTCs issued to respondent in the
possession of the barangay do not contain respondent’s thumbmark and
signature.
Upon cross, Terec was confronted with several CTCs that he issued
which also had no signatures and thumbmarks. Atty. Teodoro Lagang
marked some of these CTCs as Exhibits 14 to 18. Exhibits 14 to 18 for the
respondents, as well as Exhibits F to F-5 for the petitioners which are all
CTCs do not show any signatures and thumbmarks of those who were
named as holders of the same. All of these exhibits show that on the
blank where the signature is supposed to appear, the entry “B. B.
PAROCHA” is indicated.
The undersigned judge was also able to scan through these CTC booklets
and saw the numerous CTCs issued to persons that do not have
signatures or thumbmarks. She also discovered that in all these booklets,
there were CTCs issued to persons whose addresses did not indicate Del
Carmen Weste but indicated other addresses such as Cortes, Catigbian,
Inabanga, Panglao, Sevilla, and other towns in Bohol.
27
a CTC, which raises doubt as to her physical presence in the barangay,
but Exhibits 14 to 18, as well as the booklets scanned by the presiding
judge show the whole situation wherein Felipe Terec issues the CTCs to
1) any representative of the requester, not only limited to the respondent;
2) any representative of the requester thereby negating the need for
physical bodily presence in obtaining the same; and 3) anyone, including
those residing in other municipalities can be issued a CTC.
Moreover, when Llorente was asked where the respondent’s name was
in Exhibits G and series, she spontaneously pointed to the entry “Victoria
28
Chatto” in Exhibits G, G-1, and G-2; and to the entry “Edgardo Chatto
M.” in the other Exhibit G-2. This automatic response only shows that
respondent was considered to be part of the Chatto household that
resides in the ancestral house of the Chattos in Del Carmen Weste.
On the contrary, petitioner and his witnesses all agree that they saw
respondent during special occasions like fiestas, sumad (foundation day),
day of the dead, and during election period. This is respondent’s intent
to continuously and permanently return to Balilihan.
It must be stressed that domicile includes the twin elements of the fact of
residing or physical presence in a fixed place and the intention of
returning there permanently.
Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "[f]or the exercise of civil
rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of
natural persons is their place of habitual residence." In Ong vs.
Republic this court took the concept of domicile to mean an
individual's "permanent home", "a place to which, whenever absent
for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on
facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent."
Based on the foregoing, 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.
30
unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence for election
purposes is used synonymously with domicile.
In Nuval vs. Guray, the Court held that "the term residence. . . is
synonymous with domicile which imports not only intention to
reside in a fixed place, but also personal presence in that place,
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention." Larena vs.
Teves reiterated the same doctrine in a case involving the
qualifications of the respondent therein to the post of Municipal
President of Dumaguete, Negros Oriental. Faypon vs. Quirino,
held that the absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a
profession or registration as a voter other than in the place where
one is elected does not constitute loss of residence. So settled is the
concept (of domicile) in our election law that in these and other
election law cases, this Court has stated that the mere absence of an
individual from his permanent residence without the intention to
abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile.
The COMELEC concluded that Jalosjos has not come to settle his
domicile in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his brother’s
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. To insist that the candidate own the house where he lives
would make property a qualification for public office. What
31
matters is that Jalosjos has proved two things: actual physical
presence in Ipil and an intention of making it his domicile.
Paradoxically, it is this same marital bond that makes the domicile of the
respondent all the more in Balilihan. It is correct that in Marcos v.
COMELEC, the marriage of Imelda Marcos to Ferdinand Marcos did not
ipso facto render abandonment of her domicile of origin. However, the
facts of this case do not fall squarely as that in Marcos v. COMELEC.
Unlike in Marcos, in the instant case, respondent abandoned her
domicile of origin when she came to live in Balilihan and followed her
husband’s domicile of origin by virtue of marriage.
Would it have been the other way around, where respondent maintained
Tagbilaran City as her domicile of origin and failed to adopt a domicile
by choice upon her marriage? This court does not believe so. While it can
be argued that petitioner established respondent’s physical presence in
Tagbilaran City, petitioner failed to establish respondent’s intent to
permanently return to Tagbilaran City. What is extant in petitioner’s
evidence is that respondent can be found wherever respondent’s
husband is and that respondent can be found at the ancestral house
during holidays and election time throughout the years, which shows
respondent’s intention to permanently return to Balilihan.
33
Let us now determine if respondent indeed adopted Balilihan as her
domicile of choice.
Respondent testified that she has lived in the Chatto ancestral house in
Balilihan since 1991, during the period when her husband was mayor of
the town. However, when her husband was elected vice-governor, she
decided to occupy the residence of the Chattos in Tagbilaran City as it
was her obligation to live together with her husband. Since her husband
has been elected as a provincial official, the couple has been living in
34
Tagbilaran City well up to the time that she testified. She added that she
was actually physically present in Balilihan since she was elected mayor
because she reported for office and went around the barangays as part of
her responsibilities. It was only that she had to go home to Tagbilaran
City in the evenings because she had the obligation to sleep with her
husband.
Respondent emphasized that throughout her married life, she has been
occupying the Chatto houses specifically in Balilihan, and Tagbilaran
City and that there was no need to build a family house for their family’s
needs because of the existence of these houses which were not frequently
used by the other siblings of her husband inasmuch as three of them
were abroad, whereas one lived in Luzon.
Nimia Lungay thereafter testified for the respondent. She said she has
personal knowledge that the couple lived in the ancestral home of the
Chattos in Del Carmen Weste because she was employed as the nanny of
the couple’s only daughter, Trisha. She confirmed the veracity of her
affidavit (Exhibit 8) which stated that after the marriage of the
respondent to Edgardo Chatto, “the couple lived in Del Carmen Weste,
Balilihan and transferred their residence in the ancestral house of the late
Eladio Chatto and Victoria M. Chatto since Gov. Chatto was already the
mayor”48. Because she was one of the principal sponsors, Lungay
testified that respondent’s daughter Esther Patrisha V. Chatto was
christened in Balilihan, Bohol on 22 November 1992. She added in
paragraphs 10 to 12 of Exhibit 8 that during Sundays, midnight
Christmas, and Holy Week, Gov. Edgar Chatto, Puresa Chatto, and their
daughter Trisha attended masses in Balilihan. Specifically on Christmas,
the family would invite churchgoers to the Chatto ancestral house after
the governor would deliver his Christmas message in church.
35
Ernesto Llorente testified next. He testified that he worked in the Chatto
household as a working student for the period 1991 till 1994. He was
personally aware that respondent transferred residence in Balilihan since
he was also living with the respondent and her husband at the Chatto
Ancestral house, doing errands for them such as buying vegetables, fish,
bread, and other basic needs in the house.
36
The general rule is that the domicile of origin is not easily lost; it is lost
only when there is an 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 such purpose.50
DAMAGES
37
But just a word of caution to the parties in this case: this decision does
not bar the filing of a similar petition in the future as it is not considered
res judicata. In Velasco v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court
unconditionally said:
38