G.R. No. 191970;
April 24, 2012
Ponente:
Abad
Doctrine:
Proof required to establish domicile of a reinstated Filipino citizen running
for governor of a province
FACTS:
Petitioner
Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City. He migrated to Australia when he
was eight years old and acquired Australian citizenship. In 2008, he
returned to the Philippines and lived in Zamboanga, he took an oath of
allegiance to the Philippines and was issued a certificate of reacquisition of
citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration and he renounced his Australian citizenship.
Jalosjos
applied for registration as a voter in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, but Private
Respondent Erasmo, the barangay captain, opposed the registration.
COMELEC approved the application and included Jalosjos in the voter's
list. This decision was affirmed at the MCTC and at the RTC.
Jalosjos
then filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay
for the 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a petition to cancel the COC on the
ground of failure to comply with the one year residency requirement of the
Local Government Code (LGC).
COMELEC
held that Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona fide intention to
establish a domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. It held that when he first
moved back to the Philippines, he was merely a guest or transient at his
brother's house in Ipil, and for this reason, he cannot claim Ipil as his
domicile. Meanwhile, Jalosjos won the elections.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the COMELEC is correct in holding that petitioner did not present ample
proof of a bona fide intention to establish domicile at Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay.
HELD:
NO.
The COMELEC is incorrect. Jalosjos has successfully proven by his acts of
renouncing his Australian citizenship and by living in Ipil, that he has
changed his domicile to Zamboanga Sibugay.
The
LGC requires that a gubernatorial candidate be a resident of the province for
at least one year before the elections. For the purposes of election
laws, the requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile: i.e. he
must have an intention to reside in a particulaar place, but must also have
personal presence coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.
The
question of residence is a question of intention. To determine compliance
with the residency/domicile requirement, jurisprudence has laid down the
following guidelines:
(a)
every person has a domicile or residence
somewhere;
(b)
where once established, that domicile remains
until he acquires a new one; and
(c)
a person can have but one domicile at a time.
The
facts show that Jalosjos' domicile of origin was Quezon city. When he
acquired Australian citizenship, Australia became his domicile by operation of
law and by choice. On the other hand, 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. He left Australia,
gave up his Australian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to that
country and reacquired his old citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to
the Philippines. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live
in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his domicile there. And he has
since lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
To
hold that Jalosjos has not established a new domicile in Zamboanga Sibugay
despite the loss of his domicile of origin (Quezon City) and his domicile of
choice and by operation of law (Australia) would violate the settled maxim that
a man must have a domicile or residence somewhere.
Neither
can COMELEC conclude that Jalosjos did not come to settle his domicile in Ipil
since he has merely been staying at his brother's house. A candidate is
not required to have a house in order to establish his residence or domicile in
that place. It is enough that he should live there even if it be in a
rented house or in the house of a friend or relative. To insist that the
candidate own the house where he lives would make property a qualification for
public office. What matters is that Jalosjos has proved two things:
actual physical presence in Ipil and an intention of making it his domicile.
As
evidence, Jalosjos presented his next-door neighbors who testified that he was
physically present in Ipil, he presented correspondence with political leaders
and local and national party mates, furthermore, he is a registered voter by
final judgement of the RTC. The court also noted that Jalosjos has since
acquired a lot in Ipil and a fish pond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay.
This, without a doubt is sufficient to establish his intent to set his domicile
in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE
the Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division dated February 11, 2010 and the
Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated May 4, 2010 that disqualified
petitioner Rommel Jalosjos from seeking election as Governor of Zamboanga
Sibugay.
No comments:
Post a Comment