Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Romualdez-Marcos vs.

COMELEC 248 SCRA 300 Facts: Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of Leyte First District. On March 2 , !""#, private respondent $irilio Monte%o, also a candidate for the same position, filed a petition for dis&ualification of the petitioner 'ith $OM(L($ on the )round that petitioner did not meet the constitutional re&uirement for residency. On March 2", !""#, petitioner filed an amended certificate of candidacy, chan)in) the entry of seven months to *since childhood+ in item no. , in said certificate. -o'ever, the amended certificate 'as not received since it 'as already past deadline. .he claimed that she al'ays maintained /aclo0an $ity as her domicile and residence. /he .econd Division of the $OM(L($ 'ith a vote of 2 to ! came up 'ith a resolution findin) private respondent1s petition for dis&ualification meritorious. ssue: 2hether or not petitioner lost her domicile of ori)in 0y operation of la' as a result of her marria)e to the late 3resident Marcos. !eld: For election purposes, residence is used synonymously 'ith domicile. /he $ourt upheld the &ualification of petitioner, despite her o'n declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in the district for only 4 months, 0ecause of the follo'in)5 6a7 a minor follo's the domicile of her parents8 /aclo0an 0ecame petitioner1s domicile of ori)in 0y operation of la' 'hen her father 0rou)ht the family to Leyte8 607 domicile of ori)in is lost only 'hen there is actual removal or chan)e of domicile, a 0ona fide intention of a0andonin) the former residence and esta0lishin) a ne' one, and acts 'hich correspond 'ith the purpose8 in the a0sence of clear and positive proof of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of ori)in should 0e deemed to continue8 6c7 the 'ife does not automatically )ain the hus0and1s domicile 0ecause the term *residence+ in $ivil La' does not mean the same thin) in 3olitical La'8 'hen petitioner married 3resident Marcos in !"#9, she :ept her domicile of ori)in and merely )ained a ne' home, not a domicilium necessarium8 6d7 even assumin) that she )ained a ne' domicile after her marria)e and ac&uired the ri)ht to choose a ne' one only after her hus0and died, her acts follo'in) her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose /aclo0an, her domicile of ori)in, as her domicile of choice.