Case Summary (G.R. No. 161685)

Distinction Between Actual Residence and Domicile

The case under review emphasizes the legal distinction between "actual residence" and "domicile," which is crucial in determining the proper venue for filing legal actions. Actual residence refers to the physical location where a person lives, while domicile is the legal residence where a person has established a permanent home with the intention of returning. This distinction is significant in the context of the Revised Penal Code, particularly in cases involving defamation and the filing of civil actions for damages.

• Actual residence is the physical location of a person's habitation.
• Domicile is the legal residence with the intention of permanence.
• The distinction affects the venue for legal actions, particularly in defamation cases.

Background of the Parties Involved

Petitioner Ang Kek Chen resides in Manila and is not a lawyer, representing himself in the proceedings. Respondent Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan, a registered voter in Aparri, Cagayan, owns property there but also maintains a residence in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, where he and his family primarily reside due to his profession. The relationship between the parties is contentious, stemming from allegations of libel and subsequent legal actions initiated by both sides.

• Ang Kek Chen is the petitioner residing in Manila.
• Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan is the respondent with properties in both Aparri and Las Piñas.
• The conflict arose from allegations of libel related to a business dispute.

Initial Legal Proceedings

Respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, which was dismissed due to improper venue. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. The RTC upheld the dismissal, leading respondents to seek relief from the Court of Appeals (CA).

• Respondents filed a complaint for damages in Aparri RTC.
• The RTC dismissed the complaint for improper venue.
• Respondents appealed to the CA, seeking to overturn the dismissal.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA initially dismissed the respondents' petition for lack of merit but later granted a motion for reconsideration, setting aside the RTC's dismissal and ordering the trial to proceed. This reversal prompted petitioner Ang Kek Chen to file a petition for review, challenging the CA's decision and the interpretation of venue requirements under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.

• The CA initially dismissed the appeal but later reversed its decision.
• The CA ordered the trial court to proceed with the case.
• Petitioner filed a petition for review challenging the CA's interpretation of venue.

Core Legal Issues Presented

Petitioner raised several issues regarding the CA's decisions, particularly whether the dismissal of the original complaint was correct and whether the CA erred in reversing its earlier ruling. The primary legal question revolves around the interpretation of "actual residence" as it pertains to the venue for filing defamation claims.

• Petitioner questioned the correctness of the CA's dismissal of the original complaint.
• The core issue is the interpretation of "actual residence" under Article 360.
• The distinction between actual residence and domicile is pivotal for venue determination.

Findings of the Trial Court

The trial court found that while respondents were legally domiciled in Aparri, their actual residence was in Las Piñas, where they spent most of their time due to their professional obligations. This finding was crucial in determining the proper venue for the libel case, as it established that the respondents were habitual residents of Las Piñas rather than Aparri.

• The trial court recognized respondents' domicile in Aparri.
• It determined that their actual residence was in Las Piñas.
• This distinction influenced the venue for the libel case.

Court of Appeals' Reversal and Error

Upon reconsideration, the CA erroneously concluded that respondents' residence was in Aparri, equating residence with domicile. This misinterpretation led to a flawed understanding of the venue requirements, as the trial court had already established that respondents were actually residing in Las Piñas.

• The CA reversed the trial court's findings regarding residence.
• It incorrectly equated residence with domicile.
• This error affected the venue determination for the libel case.

Legal Precedents and Interpretations

The decision references previous cases that clarify the distinction between &quo...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 161685)

Case Overview

• This case revolves around a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Ang Kek Chen against respondents Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan and Leticia B. Calasan.
• The primary legal issue involves the distinction between "actual residence" and "domicile" in the context of venue in libel cases, specifically regarding Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.

Facts of the Case

• Petitioner Ang Kek Chen resides at 1287-1291 Jose Abad Santos Avenue, Tondo, Manila.
• Respondent Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan was born in Aparri, Cagayan, and has been a registered voter there since 1969. He owns real property in Aparri and a house in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, where he and his family primarily reside due to his profession.
• Atty. Calasan was the legal counsel for Jaime U. Lim, who was an opponent of the petitioner. Disputes arose when the petitioner alleged damages to his residence caused by Lim's corporation.
• Petitioner filed a counter-affidavit and a letter that Atty. Calasan found defamatory, leading him to file criminal libel cases against the petitioner, which were dismissed.
• In retaliation, the petitioner filed administrative cases against Atty. Calasan, alleging serious misconduct and seeking disbarment.
• On December 4, 2001, the spouses Calasan filed a civil complaint for damages against the petitioner in Aparri, Cagayan, which was later dismissed due to improper ...continue reading