Case Summary (G.R. No. 193314)
Facts and Issue Raised
Petitioner filed her CoC for mayor of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, declaring her residence as Barangay Tugas, Baliangao. Respondents challenged her candidacy alleging she did not comply with the one-year residency requirement, asserting petitioner was born in San Juan, Metro Manila, and had not abandoned her prior domicile in Dapitan City. The controversy focused on whether petitioner established domicile in Baliangao at least one year before the May 2010 elections. The COMELEC initially granted the petition to deny due course to or cancel her CoC, leading to this Court’s review.
Evidence Presented by Both Parties
Respondents provided certifications from local offices showing no tax declaration or birth record of petitioner in Baliangao, and affidavits from local officials and residents denying petitioner’s residence there. Petitioner countered with her Certificate of Live Birth, ownership documents of two parcels of land in Baliangao obtained through extrajudicial partition, real property declarations, sketch plans, various affidavits from construction workers and local organization leaders supporting her residence claim, voter registration documents, and photographs showing her alleged residence and resort construction.
COMELEC’s Rulings
The COMELEC Second Division disqualified petitioner from running for mayor, ruling that despite a misrepresentation of her place of birth, which was non-material, she failed to prove bodily presence and intention to remain in Baliangao for one year before the election. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this, citing insufficiency of petitioner’s evidence including lack of deed of sale for the properties, lack of authentication for sketch plans, and partiality of affiants.
Due Process and Procedural Issues
Petitioner challenged the validity of the COMELEC resolutions, arguing denial of due process due to lack of prior notice of their promulgation as required by COMELEC Resolution No. 8696. The Court found that the COMELEC validly suspended this rule via a May 4, 2010 En Banc order pursuant to its constitutional power to promulgate its own rules. Furthermore, the Court held non-compliance with advance notice is a procedural lapse that does not invalidate the resolutions if the parties were otherwise afforded opportunity to be heard.
Legal Standards on Domicile and Residency
Under the 1987 Constitution, residency for elective office is equated with domicile, requiring: (1) bodily presence in the locality, (2) intention to remain there, and (3) intent to abandon prior domicile. These must be proven by clear and positive evidence. The Court emphasized that ownership of property alone does not establish domicile, and that residency as a voter (minimum six months) differs from the one-year residency required to run for office.
Court’s Findings on Residency Requirement
The Court found petitioner failed to prove with clear and positive evidence her actual and continuous bodily presence in Baliangao one year before the election. Affidavits showed contradictions such as petitioner sometimes residing in a different barangay during construction and only occasionally staying in Baliangao. Testimonies also indicated construction was ongoing six months before the elections, implying petitioner had not fully established residence. The Court upheld the finding that petitioner’s prior domicile in Dapitan City continued, as no deliberate abandonment and acquisition of new domicile was proven.
Effect
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 193314)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Svetlana P. Jalosjos filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for mayor of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, for the May 10, 2010 elections, stating her place of birth and residence as Barangay Tugas, Baliangao.
- Private respondents Edwin Elim Tumpag and Rodolfo Y. Estrellada filed a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy, alleging false representation of place of birth and residence, claiming petitioner was born in San Juan, Metro Manila, and had domicile in Dapitan City.
- Evidence presented by respondents included absence of tax declarations and civil registry records in Baliangao, joint affidavits by barangay officials and residents denying petitioner’s residency, and affidavits from local officials.
- Petitioner claimed she established residence in Barangay Tugas since December 2008 by purchasing two parcels of land and staying at a neighbor’s home during house construction; she attributed the error in place of birth in the CoC to her secretary.
- Petitioner submitted evidence including certificate of live birth, extrajudicial partition documents, transfer certificates of title, real property declarations, property plans, photographs of residence and resort under development, voter registration documents, joint affidavits from construction workers, and affidavits from various local community leaders and organizations.
- The petition to cancel the CoC was pending at the time of election; petitioner won the highest number of votes and was proclaimed mayor by the local board of canvassers on May 10, 2010.
- COMELEC Second Division, by resolution dated June 4, 2010, disqualified petitioner for failing to meet the one-year residency requirement, ruling that she did not acquire domicile in Baliangao despite error in place of birth not being a ground for cancellation.
- COMELEC En Banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on August 19, 2010, affirming disqualification based on failure to prove bodily presence, intention to remain, and abandonment of original domicile; found evidentiary deficits in petitioner’s proofs.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC and violation of due process due to lack of promulgation notice for resolutions.
- Supreme Court issued a status quo ante order on September 7, 2010, pending resolution.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to promulgate its resolutions in accordance with its own rules, thus violating petitioner’s right to due process.
- Whether the Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in holding petitioner failed to comply with the one-year residency requirement for local elective officials, justifying cancellation of her Certificate of Candida