Author: Czar Paguio
Romualdez-Marcos vs Comelec (1995)
Petition: Appeal by certiorari
Petitioner: Imelda Marcos
Respondent: Comelec and Cirilo Montejo
Ponencia: Kapunan
DOCTRINE: If a person retains his domicile of origin for purposes of
the residence requirement, the 1 year period is irrelevant because
wherever he is, he is a resident of his domicile of origin. Second, if a
person reestablishes a previously abandoned domicile, the 1 year
requirement must be satisfied. (Bernas book)
FACTS:
1.) Imelda Marcos established her domicile in Tacloban City, which
was her father’s hometown, in 1938 when she was 8 years old. She
pursued her studies (GS,HS, College) in the aforementioned city and
subsequently taught in the Leyte Chinese School. In 1952, she went
to Manila to work in the House of Representatives. Two years after,
she married Pres. Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a
Congressman in Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. In
1959, her husband was elected a Senator and they lived in San Juan,
Rizal where she again registered as a voter. And in 1965, she lived in
the Malacanang Palace when her husband became the President.
This time, she registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila. After their
exile in Hawaii, she ran for President in 1992 and indicated in her
CoC that she was a resident and register voter of San Juan, Metro
Manila.
2.) Marcos filed her CoC for the position of Representative of the
First District of Leyte.
3.) The incumbent Representative, Montejo, filed for her
disqualification alleging that she did not meet the 1 year
constitutional requirement for residency.
4.) Apparently, she wrote down in her CoC in item no.8, which asked
for the number of years of residency, that she had been a resident
for 7 months.
5.) Marcos filed an amended CoC changing “7 months” to “since
childhood”, claiming that it was an honest misinterpretation that she
thought she was being asked for her actual and physical presence in
Tolosa, and not her domicile.
6.) The COMELEC found the petition for her disqualification
meritorious and cancelled her amended CoC. For them, it was clear
that Marcos has not complied with the 1 year residency
requirement.
 In election cases, the term residence has always been
considered synonymous with domicile. This is the
intention to reside in the place coupled with the personal
presence.
 When she returned after her exile, she did not choose to
go back to Tacloban. Thus, her animus revertendi
(intention to return) #JudgePrincess points to Manila.
 Pure intention to reside in Tacloban is not sufficient, there
must be conduct indicative of such intention.
7.) The COMELEC denied her motion for reconsideration but issued a
resolution allowing for her proclamation should she obtain the
highest number of votes. On the same day, however, the COMELEC
reversed itself and directed the suspension of her proclamation.
8.) Marcos found out that she was won by a landslide in the said
elections and prayed for her proclamation. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of
the First District of Leyte for a period of one year.
RULING + RATIO:
The case at hand reveals that there is confusion as to the application
of ‘Domicile’ and ‘Residence’ in election law.
- Originally, the essential distinction between residence and
domicile lies in the fact that residence is the PHYSICAL presence
of a person in a given area and domicile is where a person
intends to remain or his permanent residence. A person can
only have a single domicile.
- It was ascertained from the intent of the framers of the
1987 Constitution that residence for election purposes is
synonymous with domicile.
It cannot be contested that the petitioner held various residences in
her lifetime. The Courts reiterate that an individual does not lose his
domicile even if she has maintained different residences for
different purposes. None of these purposes pointed to her intention
of abandoning her domicile of origin.
The Courts ruled in favor of Marcos because of the ff reasons:
1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became
Imelda’s domicile of origin by operation of law when her father
brought them to Leyte;
2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal or
change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond
with the purpose. In the absence and concurrence of all these,
domicile of origin should be deemed to continue.
3. A wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile
because the term “residence” in Civil Law* does not mean the same
thing in Political Law. When Imelda married late President Marcos in
1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home
and not domicilium necessarium.
*Civil Code kasi sa Art 110: The husband shall fix the residence of the
family. Sobrang distinguished yung residence at domicile sa Civil law.
4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her marriage
and acquired right to choose a new one only after the death of Pres.
Marcos, her actions upon returning to the country clearly indicated
that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of
choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her residence certificate in
1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while living in her brother’s house, an act,
which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She
even kept close ties by establishing residences in Tacloban,
celebrating her birthdays and other important milestones.
DISPOSITION: COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial
Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected
Representative of the First District of Leyte.