Title
Japzon vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 180088
Decision Date
Jan 19, 2009
Japzon challenged Ty's mayoral candidacy, alleging misrepresentation of residency and citizenship. SC upheld COMELEC, ruling Ty met residency and citizenship requirements, affirming election results.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 180088)

Petitioner and Respondents

Petitioner: Manuel B. Japzon, mayoralty candidate defeated in the 14 May 2007 elections.
Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Jaime S. Ty, proclaimed winner of the same elections.

Key Dates

– October 9, 1943: Ty’s birth in Pambujan Sur (now General Macarthur).
– March 28, 2007: Ty’s Certificate of Candidacy filed.
– May 14, 2007: Local elections held.
– June 15, 2007: Japzon filed disqualification petition (SPA 07-568).
– July 31, 2007: COMELEC First Division denied petition.
– September 28, 2007: COMELEC en banc affirmed.
– January 19, 2009: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution, Article X, Section 3 (local official qualifications).
– Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), Section 39 (one-year residency).
– Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act).
– Jurisprudence on domicile and residence: Coquilla v. COMELEC, Caasi v. Court of Appeals, Papandayan Jr. v. COMELEC.

Facts of the Petition

Ty, born Filipino, became a naturalized U.S. citizen and resided in the U.S. for 25 years. Upon RA 9225’s effectivity, he applied for and reacquired Philippine citizenship (Oath on October 2, 2005), obtained a Philippine passport, secured community tax certificates (March 2006, January 2007), registered as voter (July 17, 2006), and executed renunciation of U.S. citizenship (March 19, 2007). Japzon alleged Ty misrepresented his bona fide one-year residency in General Macarthur immediately preceding the election and remained a U.S. permanent resident.

Procedural History

Japzon’s SPA 07-568 was denied by COMELEC First Division (July 31, 2007) and en banc (September 28, 2007). He then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 before the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether Ty’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship automatically restored his Philippine domicile.
  2. Whether Ty met the one-year residency requirement under RA 7160.
  3. Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying cancellation of Ty’s Certificate of Candidacy.

Ruling of the COMELEC First Division

Found Ty validly reacquired citizenship under RA 9225 (Sections 3 and 5) and renounced foreign allegiance. Held that domicile is a question of animus manendi and that Ty’s passport application, tax payments, voter registration, and presence in the municipality for over one year satisfied legal residence.

Ruling of the COMELEC en banc

Affirmed presumption of citizenship regularity and that no material misrepresentation occurred. Emphasized burden on challenger to prove change of domicile and material intent to mislead.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Under RA 9225, citizenship and residence are distinct; reacquisition of citizenship does not ipso facto reinstate Philippine domicile. Residence is established by bodily presence and intent to remain indefinitely, inferred from acts (animus manendi and animus non revertendi). The one-year period runs from establishment of new domicile.

R


...continue reading

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