ERNESTO ARELLANO and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

Respondents.
G.R. No. 181644
Facts:
On September 3, 2007, COMELEC annulled the proclamation of
Hermiliana Abainza as councilor of the the Municipality of Jovellar,
Albay due to erroneous tally of votes. The tally showed that 114 votes
were in favour of Ernesto Arellano but only indicated 14 votes in words
and figures in the election return. After counterchecking the copy of
the said return, members of the Board of Elections admitted the
clerical error of votes. The, MR was also denied. Hence, this petition
for certiorari.
Issues:
(1)
Whether the COMELEC has original jurisdiction over the
petition for correction of manifest error; and
(2)
Whether the COMELEC erred in granting the petition for
correction of manifest error which was in the nature of a preproclamation controversy despite the proclamation and oath by
petitioner as elected councillor.
Held:
1) Yes, it has jurisdiction over correction of manifest error
pursuant to Sec.5, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure.
Sec. 5. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed
Directly With the Commission. - (a) The following preproclamation controversies may be filed directly with the
Commission:
2) When the issue involves the correction of
manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results
during the canvassing as where (1) a copy of the election
returns or certificate of canvass was tabulated more than
once, (2) two or more copies of the election returns of one
precinct, or two or more copies of certificate of canvass
were tabulated separately, (3) there has been a mistake in
the copying of the figures into the statement of votes or
into the certificate of canvass, or (4) so-called returns from
non-existent precincts were included in the canvass, and
such errors could not have been discovered during the
canvassing despite the exercise of due diligence and
proclamation of the winning candidates had already been
made.
A manifest error is one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the
understanding; that which is open, palpable, incontrovertible, needing
no evidence to make it more clear. As stated in the assailed Resolution
of the COMELEC, the error in the entry in the election return is very
evident to the eye, needing no evidence to make it clear. Petitioners
proclamation, and eventual assumption of office, was predicated on a
clerical and manifest error, not on the legitimate will of the
electorate.

The petition was however dismissed because the petition raised purely
technical objections and did not dispute the finding of the COMELEC on
the error in the total number of votes reflected in the election return.

ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS, vs

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and DAN ERASMO, SR., Respondents.
G.R. No. 191970
April 24, 2012
FACTS:
Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City on October 26, 1973. He
migrated to Australia in 1981 when he was eight years old and there
acquired Australian citizenship. On November 22, 2008, at age 35, he
decided to return to the Philippines and lived with his brother in Ipil,
Zamboanga Sibugay. Four days upon his return, he took an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, hence, he was issued a
Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of
Immigration. On September 1, 2009 he renounced his Australian
citizenship, executing a sworn renunciation of the same in compliance
with Republic Act (R.A.) 9225. From the time of his return, Jalosjos
acquired a residential property in the same village where he lived and
maintained a fish pond.
He applied for registration as a voter in the Municipality of Ipil but
respondent Erasmo, the Barangay Captain, opposed the said act.
Election Registration Board approved it and included Jalosjos name in
the COMELEC voters list. Erasmo filed before the MTC a petition for the
exclusion of Jalosjos name from the official voters list. The MTC denied
Erasmos petition. He appealed to RTC but RTC upheld the MTC
decision. On November 28, 2009 Jalosjos filed his Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay Province for the
May 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a petition to deny due course or
to cancel Jalosjos COC on the ground that Jalosjos made material
misrepresentation in the same since he failed to comply with (1) the
requirements of R.A. 9225 and (2) the one-year residency requirement
of the Local Government Code. COMELEC ruled against Jalosjos,
because he failed to comply with the 1-year residency ruequirement.
Subsequently, Jalosjos won the elections
ISSUE: Whether or not Jalosjos failed to comply with the 1-year
residency requirement
HELD:
Jalosjos complied with the 1-year requirement. It is true that his
domicial was Quezon City, his domicile of origin, the place of his birth.

However, his domicile was changed from Quezon City to Australia

when he migrated there at the age of eight, acquired Australian
citizenship, and lived in that country for 26 years. Australia became his
domicile by operation of law and by choice.
When he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his
brother in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with
intent to change his domicile for good. In addition, he reacquired his
old citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, resulting in his being issued a Certificate of Reacquisition
of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration. By his acts,
Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly proving that
he gave up his domicile there.He has since lived nowhere else except
in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
As to the issue that he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile as he was living
in his brothers house, the court said that a candidate need to have a
house in a community to establish residence. It is sufficient that he
rents a house or in the house of a friend or relative. Only 2 important
things must be proved: actual physical presence and an intention of
making it his domicile.
Jaloslos was able to prove the two
requirements. Hence, he is qualified.
LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE , Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND MIGUEL R. VILLAFUERTE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014
FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent were both candidates for the Gubernatorial
position of the Province of Camarines Sur in the May 13, 2013 local and
national elections. On October 25, 2012, petitioner filed with the
COMELEC a Verified Petition3 to deny due course to or cancel the
certificate of candidacy (COC) of respondent, alleging that respondent
intentionally and materially misrepresented a false and deceptive
name/nickname that would mislead the voters when he declared under
oath in his COC that LRAY JR.MIGZ was his nickname or stagename
and that the name he intended to appear on the official ballot was
VILLAFUERTE, LRAY JR.MIGZ NP; that respondent deliberately omitted
his first name MIGUEL and inserted, instead LRAY JR., which is the
nickname of his father, the incumbent Governor of Camarines Sur,
LRay Villafuerte, Jr. 4 respondent denied the commission of any
material misrepresentation and asserted, among others, that he had
been using the nickname LRAY JR. MIGZ and not only MIGZ; that
the choice of name/word to appear on the ballot was solely his choice
or preference; and that the presumption that the voters would be
confused on the simple fact that his name would be placed first in the
ballot
was
misplaced.
On January 15, 2013, the COMELECs First Division denied the petition
for lack of merit. Laws and jurisprudence on the matter are clear that
material misrepresentation in the COC pertains only to qualifications of
a candidate, such as citizenship, residency, registration as a voter, age,
etc. Nothing has been mentioned about a candidates name/nickname

as a ground to deny due course or cancel his/her COC. COMELEC en

banc affirmed the First Divisions decision. Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not respondent committed a material

misrepresentation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code so
as to justify the cancellation of his COC.
Held:
NO. Material misrepresentation under the earlierquoted Section 78
of the Omnibus Election Code refers to qualifications for elective
office. It need not be emphasized that there is no showing that there
was an intent to deceive the electorate as to private respondents
identity, nor that by using his Filipino name the voting public was
thereby deceived. Thus, the use of a name other than that stated in
the certificate of birth is not a material misrepresentation. Clearly, from
the foregoing, for the petition to deny due course or cancel the COC of
one candidate to prosper, the candidate must have made a material
misrepresentation involving his eligibility or qualification for the office
to which he seeks election, such as the requisite residency, age,
citizenship or any other legal qualification necessary to run for local
elective office as provided in the Local Government Code. 15 Hence,
petitioners allegation that respondents nickname LRAY JR. MIGZ
written in his COC is a material misrepresentation is devoid of merit.
Moreover, the false representation under Section 78 must consist of a
deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
otherwise render a candidate ineligible. As we said, respondents
nickname is not considered a material fact, and there is no substantial
evidence showing that in writing the nickname LRAY JR. MIGZ in his
COC, respondent had the intention to deceive the voters as to his
identity which has an effect on his eligibility or qualification for the
office
he
seeks
to
assume.