Aquino vs. COMELEC G.R. No.

120265, September 18, 1995

Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes

Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Petitioner Agapito Aquino filed his certificate of candidacy for the
position of Representative for the Second District of Makati City. Private
respondents Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and Mateo Bedon,
Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Brgy. Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to
disqualify petitioner on the ground that the latter lacked the residence
qualification as a candidate for congressman which, under Sec. 6, Art. VI of the
Constitution, should be for a period not less than 1 year immediately preceding
the elections.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner lacked the residence qualification as a

candidate for congressman as mandated by Sec. 6, Art. VI of the Constitution

Held: In order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Representative

of the Second District of Makati City, he must prove that he has established not
just residence but domicile of choice.

Petitioner, in his certificate of candidacy for the 1992 elections, indicated not
only that he was a resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he
was a resident of the same for 52 years immediately preceding that elections.
At that time, his certificate indicated that he was also a registered voter of the
same district. His birth certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of
his parents. What stands consistently clear and unassailable is that his domicile
of origin of record up to the time of filing of his most recent certificate of
candidacy for the 1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac.

The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in his
leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. While a lease contract may
be indicative of petitioner’s intention to reside in Makati City, it does not
engender the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of one’s
original domicile.

Petitioner’s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati
is a bare assertion which is hardly supported by the facts. To successfully effect
a change of domicile, petitioner must prove 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 definite acts which correspond with
the purpose. In the absence of clear and positive proof, the domicile of origin
should be deemed to continue.