Title
Bascon vs. Negre, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 191299-191302
Decision Date
Mar 14, 2023
Petitioners sought to exclude 153 voters, alleging they were transient workers, not residents of Barangay Punta. Courts upheld respondents' residency claims, citing employment and barangay certifications. SC denied the petition, affirming lower courts' findings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191299-191302)

Procedural History and Rulings Below

On December 4, 2009, petitioners filed before the MCTC petitions to exclude respondents from voter registration in four precincts of Barangay Punta. Petitioners alleged respondents did not meet residency requirements and merely used their employer’s bunkhouse as temporary quarters. Respondents countered with certificates of employment, community tax certificates, barangay certification of residency, and ERB records.

The MCTC, by decision dated December 18, 2009, denied petitioners’ petitions, affirmed respondents’ registration, and allowed them to vote. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MCTC’s decision in January 2010, holding that the factual findings of the ERB, supported by evidence, are conclusive and that respondents complied with residency and qualification requirements to register as voters.

Issue Presented

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether respondents, employees residing temporarily in their employer’s bunkhouse, could qualify as voters of Barangay Punta, San Remigio.

Petitioners’ Arguments

Petitioners contended that respondents were not bona fide residents, but transient workers using the bunkhouse temporarily when not at sea. They questioned the partiality of the ERB, citing political affiliation ties, and asserted that certificates of employment and community tax certificates were inadequate proofs of residency. They urged the courts below to conduct an ocular inspection of the alleged bunkhouse and argued that respondents’ actual residences were in other municipalities, hence disqualifying them from registration in Barangay Punta. Petitioners also argued that the petition raised factual issues unsuitable for review under Rule 45.

Respondents’ Position

Respondents argued the petition lacked procedural compliance, including failure to attach critical documents. They maintained the issue involved factual questions subject to the ERB’s and trial courts’ findings, which should be accorded finality. They emphasized the presumption of regularity on the ERB’s actions and contended that the petitioners filed the wrong remedy under Rule 45 instead of Rule 65. Respondents underscored the sufficiency of their certificates of employment, community tax certificates, and barangay certification to prove residency.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Scope of Review

The Court reaffirmed that petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 are limited strictly to questions of law. Factual issues, such as residency determination—a matter of evidence evaluation—are beyond the scope of such review. The factual findings by the ERB and trial courts, supported by evidence, were binding and conclusive.

Analysis on Residency and Qualification to Vote

The Court found that petitioners failed to prove respondents were mere temporary occupants of their employer’s bunkhouse or that they resided elsewhere. The sworn statements and affidavits offered by petitioners lacked specificity and conclusive proof of respondents’ non-residency in Barangay Punta. In contrast, respondents’ declarations, certificates of employment, community tax certificates, and crucially, the certification of the Punong Barangay, were sufficient evidence of bona fide residence and intention to establish domicile in Barangay Punta, San Remigio.

The Court emphasized that property ownership is not required to qualify as a voter in a city or municipality. Residency may be as a lessee or occupant. It suffices that the applicant physically resides in the locality for the required period—at least one year in the Philippines and six months in the place of voting prior to the election—as mandated by Sections 9 and 10 of RA 8189.

Evidentiary Weight of Barangay Captain’s Certification

The Court accorded significant probative value to the certification issued by the Punong Barangay, referencing Rule 130, Section 44 of the Rules of Court, which treats official entries by public officers as prima facie evidence of facts stated. As the barangay captain is intimately familiar with residents in his jurisdiction and responsible for local governance, his certification attests compellingly to actual residency.

Burden of Proof and Factual Determinations

The burden to prove non-residency rested with petitioners, who failed to discharge it. The Court reiterated the legal tenet that allegations without substantial proof cannot overturn official findings. Petitioners’ request for an ocular inspection of the bunkhouse suggested doubt even on their own part as to the factual basis of their claims, further weakening their position.

Conclusion and Final Resolution

The Court found no valid question of law since the petition challenged factual findings properly resolved below. Petitioners did not meet the exceptions that would trigger review of factual findings under Rule 45. Respondents’ evidence substantiated compliance with residency and

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms