Case Summary (G.R. No. 164375)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Relevant chronology from the record: Dano obtained a CTC on 2 February 2012, took her Oath of Allegiance (reacquisition of Philippine citizenship) on 30 March 2012, applied for voter registration on 2 May 2012, left for the U.S. on 10 May 2012 and returned 28 September 2012, executed a sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship on 30 September 2012, filed her COC on 4 October 2012, and was the subject of a COMELEC cancellation resolution (First Division, 8 May 2013) later denied by the COMELEC En Banc (15 December/20 November 2013 as reflected in the record). The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in September 2016.
Applicable Law
Constitutional basis: judicial review under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution (power to determine grave abuse of discretion).
Statutory provisions: Section 39, Local Government Code (residency requirement); Republic Act No. 9225 (reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and attendant requirements for those seeking elective office); Omnibus Election Code Sections 74 and 78 (contents of COC; ground and procedure to deny due course or cancel a COC).
Governing jurisprudential principles: domicile/residence defined by animus manendi et revertendi (intent to remain and not to return), and controlling precedents cited in the record (e.g., Limbona, Japzon, Sabili, Mitra, and related authority).
Facts — Chronology and Principal Acts Alleged to Establish Residence
Dano was born in Sevilla and later naturalized in the U.S. She reacquired Philippine citizenship by oath on 30 March 2012, obtained a CTC on 2 February 2012, applied for voter registration in Sevilla on 2 May 2012 (approved July 16, 2012), purchased real property in Sevilla (Deed of Absolute Sale executed 18 May 2012), returned to the U.S. shortly after to wind up affairs and sold U.S. assets, executed a Sworn Renunciation of Any and All Foreign Citizenship on 30 September 2012, and filed her COC for mayor on 4 October 2012. Digal alleged that these acts did not establish the continuous one‑year residency required and that Dano materially misrepresented her residency in the COC.
Evidence Presented to COMELEC
Petitioner’s evidence: civil registrar certification, community tax certificate (CTC), voter registration application, Philippine passport, deed of sale for local properties, affidavits from the Punong Barangay (Tristan Cabagnot) and a long‑time resident (Praxides Mosqueda), and documentary proof of sale of U.S. properties and shares.
Private respondent’s evidence: certifications from the municipal assessor and COMELEC election officer indicating no declared real property or voting record as of 30 October 2012, and an affidavit by Ceferino Digal alleging nonresidence.
COMELEC First Division Resolution — Grounds for Cancellation
The First Division cancelled Dano’s COC, reasoning that reacquisition of citizenship alone does not retroactively establish domicile; a candidate must show positive acts re‑establishing domicile after reacquisition. The Division emphasized that Dano took her oath in March 2012 but executed the sworn renunciation only on 30 September 2012 and was absent from Sevilla for several months in between; her May 2012 voter registration and other acts were insufficient to establish continuous domicile because she made frequent trips to the U.S. The Division concluded that the four‑month absence undermined the one‑year residency requirement.
COMELEC En Banc Action and Petitioner’s Interim Assumption of Office
Petitioner moved for reconsideration and was proclaimed and assumed office pending resolution. The COMELEC En Banc denied reconsideration and upheld the First Division’s cancellation. Petitioner then sought certiorari relief before the Supreme Court; the question whether succession should follow the next highest‑vote candidate or the vice‑mayor was later treated as moot by the Court due to expiration of the term.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Primary issue: whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by concluding that Dano failed to satisfy the one‑year residency requirement and by cancelling her COC. Secondary (moot) issue: the proper succession if the cancellation were sustained — the next highest vote‑getter or the vice‑mayor.
Standard of Review — Grave Abuse of Discretion and Scope of Judicial Review
The Court reiterated the narrow scope of certiorari review: COMELEC’s factual findings are generally final if supported by substantial evidence, but the Court must intervene when COMELEC’s actions demonstrate grave abuse of discretion (patent and gross arbitrariness amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction). The Court examined whether COMELEC misapplied the law or gravely misappreciated the evidence.
Legal Principles on Residence and Domicile Applied by the Court
Residence is equated with domicile and requires concurrence of bodily presence and intent (animus manendi et animus non revertendi). Jurisprudence permits intervening absences; continuous physical presence is not required for the entire durational period. The Court referenced decisions (e.g., Japzon, Sabili, Limbona) holding that temporary or explained absences do not necessarily interrupt domiciliary residence and that the residency requirement focuses on intent as manifested by acts.
Court’s Evaluation of the Evidence and COMELEC’s Errors
The Court found that COMELEC improperly discounted petitioner’s evidence and gave undue weight to the affidavit of an interested partisan (Ceferino Digal) while disregarding affidavits of the punong barangay and a long‑time resident and documentary proof (CTC, voter registration, deed of sale, passport, renunciation). COMELEC’s rigid focus on the four‑month absence and its conclusion that any such absence necessarily frustrates the one‑year requirement was held to be a misapplication of jurisprudential standards. The Court emphasized that COMELEC must decide cancellation petitions against the legal standard for material misrepresentation — deliberate intent to deceive — and should not cancel a COC absent a finding of intent to mislead.
Burden of Proof and Material Misrepresentation Analysis
Pursuant to Sections 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, the petitioner seeking cancellation bears the burden to prove that a material representation in the COC is false and was made with intent to deceive. The Court concluded that Digal failed to carry that burden: petitioner’s evidence demonstrated animus manendi and steps consistent with re‑establishing domicile, and at worst produced an equipoise that must be resolved in favor of the candidate, not as proof
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 164375)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking annulment of: (1) COMELEC First Division Resolution dated 8 May 2013 cancelling Juliet B. Dano’s Certificate of Candidacy (COC) in SPA No. 13-083 (DC); and (2) COMELEC En Banc Resolution denying Dano’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- Cancellation petition filed by private respondent Marie Karen Joy B. Digal with COMELEC contesting Dano’s compliance with the one-year residency requirement under Section 39 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
- Petitioner filed supplemental pleadings attaching documents evidencing sale of U.S. properties.
- Vice-Mayor-Elect Maria Emily D. Dagaang filed Petition-in-Intervention claiming succession rights under Section 44 of the LGC should Dano’s COC be cancelled.
- Supreme Court initially divided but ultimately concluded COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion; petition granted by the Court (Decision dated 13 September 2016).
Relevant Dates and Key Case Timeline
- 30 January 2012: Civil Registrar certification issued upon petitioner’s request.
- 2 February 2012: Community Tax Certificate (CTC) issued to petitioner.
- 27 April 2012: Philippine passport issued to petitioner.
- 30 March 2012: Petitioner took Oath of Allegiance before Vice Consul, Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles (reacquisition under RA No. 9225).
- 2 May 2012: Petitioner applied for voter registration in Sevilla, Bohol.
- 10 May 2012: Petitioner left for the U.S.; returned 28 September 2012.
- 18 May 2012: Deed of Absolute Sale for parcels of land in favor of petitioner executed.
- 30 September 2012: Petitioner executed Sworn Renunciation of Any and All Foreign Citizenship.
- 4 October 2012: Petitioner filed COC for mayor of Sevilla, Bohol (represented residency from 2 May 2012).
- 10 October 2012: Marie Karen Joy B. Digal filed petition with COMELEC for cancellation of petitioner’s COC.
- 8 May 2013: COMELEC First Division issued resolution cancelling petitioner’s COC (five days before elections).
- 20 November 2013: COMELEC En Banc resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (dated per record).
- 13 May 2013: Elections held; petitioner proclaimed and assumed office pending resolution.
- 13 September 2016: Supreme Court Decision granting the petition.
Factual Background (Petitioner’s Personal and Residency Acts)
- Petitioner: natural-born Filipino from Municipality of Sevilla, Province of Bohol; worked as a nurse in the U.S. and acquired American citizenship.
- Early 2012 onward actions evidencing intent to re-establish Philippine domicile:
- Requested and obtained civil registrar certification (30 Jan 2012).
- Obtained CTC (2 Feb 2012).
- Reacquired Philippine citizenship by Oath of Allegiance (30 Mar 2012).
- Obtained Philippine passport (27 Apr 2012) and used same for travel.
- Applied for voter registration in Sevilla (2 May 2012; approved 16 July 2012).
- Executed Deed of Absolute Sale acquiring real property in Sevilla (18 May 2012).
- Traveled to the U.S. on 10 May 2012 to wind up affairs (sale of house in Stockton, CA and shares of stock); returned 28 Sep 2012.
- Executed Sworn Renunciation of Any and All Foreign Citizenship (30 Sep 2012).
- Filed COC for mayor on 4 Oct 2012, representing residence in Sevilla from 2 May 2012 (1 year and 11 days prior to 13 May 2013 election).
Evidence Presented by Private Respondent (Digal) Before COMELEC
- Certification of Office of the Municipal Assessor stating petitioner had no real property declared under her name in Sevilla as of 30 Oct 2012.
- Certification of the COMELEC Election Officer that petitioner had no voting record available as of 30 Oct 2012.
- Affidavit executed by Ceferino Digal (husband of Ernesita Digal, petitioner’s mayoralty rival), containing general allegations that petitioner had never been a resident of Sevilla since naturalization as an American citizen.
Evidence Presented by Petitioner Before COMELEC (and to the Court)
- Certification of the Office of the Civil Registrar of Sevilla (issued 30 Jan 2012).
- Community Tax Certificate issued 2 Feb 2012.
- Application for Registration as voter dated 2 May 2012 (approved 16 July 2012).
- Philippine passport issued 27 Apr 2012.
- Deed of Absolute Sale of parcels of land in favor of petitioner executed 18 May 2012.
- Affidavit of Tristan Cabagnot, Punong Barangay of Poblacion, Sevilla (11/14/2012).
- Affidavit of Praxides G. Mosqueda, retired public school teacher and long-time resident of Sevilla (11/14/2012).
- Supplemental documents attached to petition: California Residential Purchase Agreement; Buyer’s Inspection Advisory; Short Sale Addendum; Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationship; Trade Confirmation of sale of shares of stocks (all dated and paginated in the record as set out in the rollo).
COMELEC First Division Ruling (8 May 2013) — Reasoning
- Cancelled petitioner’s COC on ground that she failed to reestablish domicile in Sevilla for purposes of the one-year residency requirement despite reacquiring citizenship and registering as voter.
- Focused on gap between Oath of Allegiance (30 Mar 2012) and Sworn Renunciation (30 Sep 2012): concluded no concrete acts during the six-month intervening period to clearly establish that petitioner chose Sevilla as domicile of choice.
- Emphasized that physical presence is required to establish domicile and that registration as voter alone may indicate intention but is insufficient by itself.
- Noted petitioner’s frequent trips to the U.S. after May 2, 2012 and concluded these absences were more than temporary and undermined establishment of domicile of choice.
- Relied on affidavits (notably Ceferino Digal) and certifications (Assessor, Election Officer) to support cancellation.
COMELEC En Banc Ruling — Reasoning and Disposition
- En Banc affirmed First Division’s cancellation of petitioner’s COC and denied Motion for Reconsideration (resolution dated in record).
- Agreed that application for voter registration alone cannot establish domicile when coupled with subsequent absences and other circumstances showing lack of concrete acts to fix domicile in Sevilla.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Primary issue: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner failed to prove compliance with the one-year residency requirement for local elective officials (Section 39, LGC).
- Secondary (rendered moot by Court): If cancellation were upheld, whether succession should be by the qualified candidate with next highest votes or by the vice-mayor (intervenor’s claim under Section 44, LGC).
Governing Legal Provisions and Doctrines Cited
- Section 39, Local Government Code — durational residency requirement and other qualifications for elective local officials.
- RA No. 9225 — reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by for