RAMON LABO, JR.

vs COMELEC

FACTS:
In 1988, petitioner Labo, Jr. Was elected as mayor of Baguio City. His rival, Luis Lardizabal filed a petition for quo warranto
against Labo, asserting that the latter is an Australian citizen, hence diqualified to hold such office; and that he was naturalized
as an Australian after he married an Australian. Labo, on the other hand avers that his marriage with an Australian did not
make him an Australian; that at best, he has dual citizenship--Australian and Filipino; that even if he indeed became an
Australian upon marrying an Australian, such citizenship was lost when his marriage was declared void for being bigamous.
Labo further asserts that even if he’s considered as an Australian, his lack of citizenship is just a mere technicality which should
not frustrate the will of the electorate of Baguio who voted for him by a vast majority.

ISSUE: WON petitioner’s naturalization in Australia divested him of his Philippine citizenship

RULING: YES. Petitioner’s claim that his naturalization in Australia made him at worst only a dual national and did not divest
him of his Philippine citizenship cannot stand against the clear provisions of CA No. 63, which enumerates the modes by which
Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among these are: (1) naturalization in a foreign country; (2) express renunciation of
citizenship; and (3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country, all of which
are applicable to the petitioner.

Even if it be assumed that his naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that his marriage was bigamous, that
circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. Under CA No. 63 as amended by PD No. 725,
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does not appear in
the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of these methods.

NORLAINIE LIMBONA vs. COMELEC & MALIK “BOBBY” T. ALINGAN

FACTS:
Petitoner Norlainie Limbona, her husband Mohammad, and private repondent Malik were mayoralty candidates in Pantar,
Lanao Del Norte. Malik filed a petition to disqualify Mohammad, and subsequently Norlainie, both for failure to comply with
the residency requirement. Norlainie filed an Affidavit of Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy which the Comelec en banc
granted. Meanwhile, the First Div. Comelec granted Malik’s petition and disqualified Mohammad for failing to satisfy the one
year residency requirement. Consequently, Norlainie filed a new certificate of candidacy as substitute candidate for
Mohammad which was given due course by the Comelec en banc. Thus, Malik filed a second petition for disqualification
against Norlainie. After the elections, Norlainie emerged as the winning candidate and accordingly took her oath and assumed
office. However, Comelec 2nd div disqualified Norlainie on the same ground stated by 1st div in the case of Mohammad.
Petitioner, however, claims that “has been staying, sleeping and doing business in her house for more than 20 months” in
Lower Kalanganan.

ISSUE: WON petitioner satisfied the one-year residency requirement

RULING: NO. Petitioner failed to satisfy the residency reqt. The term “residence” as used in the election law 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. In order to acquire a domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or bodily
presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile.

From the record, Norlainie’s domicile of origin was in Maguing, Lanao del Norte, which is her place of birth. When she got
married, she became a resident of Marawi City, specifically, in Barangay Rapasun. This is her domicile by operation of law
pursuant to the Family Code. Norlainie’s claim that she has been physically present and actually residing in Pantar for almost
20 months prior to the elections, is self-serving and unsubstantiated. Further, SC found no other act that would indicate
Norlainie’s intention to stay in Pantar for an indefinite period of time. The filing of her Certificate of Candidacy in Pantar,
standing alone, is not sufficient to hold that she has chosen Pantar as her new residence.