Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION (G)
G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995

FACTS:

• Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy(CoC) for the position of Representative of the 1st District of Leyte, providing the following information; Residence in Constituency: ___ years & 7 months. 
• Cirilo Roy Montejo filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with the COMELEC alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. 
• Petitioner filed an Amended CoC, changing the entry "7 months" to "since childhood". On the same day, the Provincial Election Supervisor informed the petitioner that: This office cannot accept the aforementioned CoC on the ground that it is filed out of time. 
• Petitioner filed the Amended CoC with the COMELEC's Head Office in Manila. Petitioner averred that the entry of the word "7" in her original Certificate of Candidacy was the result of an "honest misinterpretation" which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her Amended CoC and that she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. 
• 2nd Division of COMELEC, by a vote of 2 to 1, came up with a Resolution, 
• Finding private respondent's Petition for Disqualification meritorious; 
• Striking off petitioner's Corrected CoC; and 
• Cancelling her original CoC. 
• COMELEC en banc denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration declaring her not qualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Representatives. 
• COMELEC issued a Resolution allowing petitioner's proclamation should the results of the canvass show that she obtained the highest number of votes in the congressional elections. On the same day, however, COMELEC reversed itself and issued a 2nd Resolution directing that the proclamation of petitioner be suspended in the event that she obtains the highest number of votes. 
• Petitioner averred that she was the winner of the elections held May 8, 1995. Petitioner alleged that the canvass showed that she obtained a total of 70,471 votes compared to the 36,833 votes received by Respondent Montejo. 

ISSUE:

• Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the 1st District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9, 1995 elections. 

HELD:

• Yes, petitioner was a resident of the 1st District of Leyte. 
• There is a difference between domicile and residence. "Residence" is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary; "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous places of residence. 
• Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate: 
• An actual removal or an actual change of domicile; 
• A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and 
• Acts which correspond with the purpose. 
• Even assuming that petitioner gained a new "domicile" after her marriage and only acquired a right to choose a new one after her husband died, petitioner's acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she not only impliedly but expressly chose her domicile of origin as her domicile. This "choice" was unequivocally expressed in her letters to the Chairman of the PCGG when petitioner sought the PCGG's permission to "rehabilitate (our) ancestral house in Tacloban and Farm in Olot, Leyte. . . to make them livable for the Marcos family to have a home in our homeland."