Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC

GR No 119976 18 September 1995

Facts: Imelda Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy for the
1st district of Leyte stating that she has been residing there for seven
months. Incumbent, Cirilo Montejo filed for motion for disqualification
of Marcos for failing the required residency. Marcos amended her
certificate of candidacy to residing in the district since childhood.
COMELEC decided in favour of Montejo. Marcos received the highest
number of votes and her proclamation was suspended, hence the
petition.
Issue: Whether or not Marcos failed the constitutional residency
requirement?
Decision: COMELEC resolution was set aside and directed to proclaim
Marcos as duly elected representative of the 1st district of Leyte. The
essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that
residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the
resident has taken his abode ends. If a persons intent be to remain, it
becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave then as soon as his
purpose is established it is residence.
LABO vs. COMELEC
176 SCRA 1
Facts: Petitioner Ramon Labo, elected mayor of Baguio City was
questioned on his citizenship. He was married in the Philippines to an
Australian citizen. The marriage was declared void in the Australian
Federal Court in Sydney on the ground that the marriage had been
bigamous. According to Australian records, Labo is still an Australian
citizen.
Issue: Whether or not Petitioner Labo is a citizen of the Philippines.
Held: The petitioners contention that his marriage to an Australian
national in 1976 did not automatically divest him of Philippine
citizenship is irrelevant. There is no claim or finding that he

automatically ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. He

became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized as such
through a formal and positive process, simplified in his case because
he was married to an Australian citizen. As a condition for such
naturalization, he formally took the Oath of Allegiance and/or made the
Affirmation of Allegiance, renouncing all other allegiance. It does not
appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has
reacquired Philippine citizenship.
FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC
GR # 87193, June 23, 1989
FACTS: Private respondent questioned petitioner governors candidacy
and election for being null and void ab initio due to his alienage.
Petitioner governor contends that his active participation in the
elections had divested him of American citizenship under the laws of
the US, and restored him of his Philippine citizenship.
ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of a certificate of candidacy by a
naturalized
American effectively recovers his Philippine citizenship.
HELD: No, Philippine citizenship previously disowned is not that
cheaply recovered. Citizenship once lost may be reacquired either by
naturalization or repatriation or by direct grant by law (CA 63) which
was not invoked by the petitioner.
Aquino v COMELEC
Facts:
Agapito Aquino filed a Cert. of Candidacy to run for Rep in the
2nd district of Makati. However, Mateo Bedon ( Chairman of LAKASNUCD-UMDP) filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the grounds that
he lacked the residence qualification under Sec 6, Art 7 of the 1987
Consti. Hearings were conducted by the COMELEC and dismissed
Bedons petition to disqualify.
During the counting of votes, Aquino garnered more votes against
Agusto Syjuco. Bedon then filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend
Proclamation of Aquino to which COMELEC agreed by issuing an Order.
COMELEC then again issued another Order declaring Aquino to be
disqualified due to the lack of constitutional qualification of residence.
Issue:
W/N COMELEC erred in deciding that petitioner lacked the
constitutional requirements for residence.

Held:
No. Aquino failed to prove that he was a resident of the 2nd Legislative
District of Makati for a period of one year at the time of election. His
domicile of origin was in Concepcion, Tarlac. COMELEC said that the
intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati is evident in his
leasing a condo unit instead of buying one. While a lease contract may
give an indication that he intends to reside in Makati, it does not
engender the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of
ones domicile. Aquino himself testified that his intention was really for
a year because he has other residences in Manila or Quezon City.