Title
Domino vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 134015
Decision Date
Jul 19, 1999
DOMINO disqualified for failing to meet one-year residency requirement for Sarangani Representative; SC upheld COMELEC's decision due to insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 134015)

Petitioners and Respondents

Petitioner: Juan Domino.
Respondents: COMELEC (Second Division and en banc) and its members.
Intervenor: Lucille Chiongbian-Solon.

Key Dates

– March 25, 1998: Domino filed his certificate of candidacy, claiming residency in Sarangani since January 1997.
– March 30, 1998: Private respondents filed a petition to cancel his candidacy.
– May 6, 1998: COMELEC Second Division issued a resolution disqualifying him.
– May 11, 1998: Election day; votes for Domino counted but his proclamation suspended.
– May 29, 1998: COMELEC en banc denied his motion for reconsideration.
– July 14, 1998: SC issued a status-quo order.
– September 15, 1998: Intervenor admitted.
– July 19, 1999: SC rendered final decision.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 6: one-year residency requirement for House members.
– Omnibus Election Code, Article IX, Section 78: jurisdiction over petitions to cancel certificates of candidacy.
– Republic Act No. 8189, Section 12: transfer of voter registration.

Procedural History

Private respondents alleged that Domino remained a registered voter of Quezon City as late as June 22, 1997, and thus did not satisfy the one-year residency in Sarangani. COMELEC Second Division granted the petition to cancel his candidacy; the en banc denied his reconsideration. Domino filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction; the SC maintained status quo and admitted intervenor.

Facts and Evidence Presented by Private Respondents

– Voter’s Registration Record (VRR) dated June 22, 1997, in Quezon City.
– Community Tax Certificates showing multiple issuances and cancellations in Sarangani.
– Prior certificate of candidacy in Quezon City (1995).
– Application for transfer of registration received September 22, 1997.
– Sworn cancellation of Quezon City registration dated October 22, 1997.

Facts and Evidence Presented by the Petitioner

– Lease contract in Sarangani executed January 15, 1997.
– Deed of sale of the leased property dated November 4, 1997.
– MTC decision (January 19, 1998) excluding him from Quezon City voter list and approving transfer.
– Transfer applications approved October 20, 1997; cancellation of prior registration.
– Affidavits and a 55-name certification attesting his residency in Sarangani since January 1997.
– Income tax returns for 1997 and personal affidavit detailing relocation chronology.

COMELEC Decisions

Second Division (May 6, 1998) found his June 22, 1997 VRR in Quezon City “negate[d]” his claim of residency in Sarangani since January 1997. It held that from June 23, 1997 to May 11, 1998 he lacked the one-year requirement and cancelled his candidacy. En banc (May 29, 1998) denied reconsideration. On May 11, 1998, COMELEC issued a supplemental omnibus resolution allowing votes for Domino to be counted but not proclaimed.

Issues for Supreme Court Review

  1. Whether the MTC exclusion decision is conclusive on COMELEC.
  2. Whether Domino satisfied the one-year residency requirement.
  3. Whether COMELEC had jurisdiction to cancel his candidacy post-election.
  4. Whether the intervenor, as second-placer, could be proclaimed.

Issue 1: Binding Effect of Exclusion Proceedings

Exclusion or inclusion proceedings under the Administrative Code are summary and limited to the voter list within the tribunal’s territorial jurisdiction. Their factual findings (other than the specific right to vote in that precinct) do not constitute res judicata in COMELEC’s qualification proceedings. The MTC exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering transfer of registration; only the Election Registration Board may effect such change. No identity of parties, subject matter, or cause of action exists to invoke res judicata.

Issue 2: One-Year Residency Requirement

“Residence” for elective office under the Constitution is equated with “domicile,” requiring both physical presence and intent to remain indefinitely (animus manendi and animus non revertendi). Domino’s January 1997 lease and subsequent purchase did not conclusively show abandonment of his Quezon City domicile. His VRR of June 1997 in Quezon City and participation in local registration presumptively indicated continued domiciliary intent there. Even with transfer applications in late 1997, he failed to complete one full year of residency in Sarangani before the May 11, 1998 election. Consequently, he was ineligible.

Issue 3: COMELEC’s Jurisdiction

Under the Omnibus Election Code, COMELEC h

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.