Case Summary (G.R. No. 191938)
Petitioner, Respondents, Key Dates
• Petitioner: Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra
• Respondents: COMELEC; Antonio V. Gonzales; Orlando R. Balbon, Jr.
• Reclassification of Puerto Princesa City: March 26, 2007
• Application to transfer voter registration to Aborlan: March 20, 2009
• Filing of COC for Governor: November 28, 2009
• COMELEC First Division Resolution cancelling COC: February 10, 2010
• COMELEC En Banc denial of reconsideration: May 4, 2010
• Supreme Court ruling: July 2, 2010
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article X, Section 3 (mandating local government code)
• Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), Section 39 (one‐year residency requirement)
• Omnibus Election Code, Sections 74 (contents of COC) and 78 (grounds to deny or cancel COC)
• Jurisprudence on domicile (Nuval v. Guray; Romualdez‐Marcos; Torayno v. COMELEC)
Background and Procedural History
After Puerto Princesa City became a highly urbanized city, its residents lost the right to vote for provincial officials. Mitra applied to transfer his voter registration to Aborlan, Palawan, and filed his COC as a resident of that municipality. Gonzales and Balbon petitioned to deny due course or cancel the COC, alleging that Mitra remained domiciled in Puerto Princesa and had not established bona fide residence in Aborlan.
Parties’ Evidence
Respondents presented:\
• Deed of sale and building‐permit application listing Puerto Princesa residence
• Community Tax Certificate showing Puerto Princesa address
• Affidavits from Aborlan residents and former feedmill employees denying Mitra’s presence in Aborlan or describing the feedmill as uninhabitable
Petitioner countered with:\
• Lease contract for the residential portion of Maligaya Feedmill in Aborlan
• Sinumpaang Salaysay and certificates from Barangay Isaub officials attesting to his residence there
• Photographs of the feedmill living quarters and of his pineapple plantation and farm
• Community Tax Certificate and House of Representatives ID listing Aborlan residence
COMELEC First Division Ruling
Applying domicile law (bodily presence + intent to remain + intent to abandon former domicile), the Division found Mitra’s claimed feedmill quarters “cold,” “unlived in,” and “devoid of personal effects,” and noted the lease’s expiry in February 2010. It held that sporadic visits and business interests did not sufficiently prove abandonment of Puerto Princesa domicile and establishment of Aborlan residence, and cancelled Mitra’s COC.
COMELEC En Banc Ruling
By a 4–2 vote, the En Banc affirmed the First Division. It held that voter registration in Aborlan was not conclusive, that physical presence requires actual, factual and bona fide residence, and that summary proceedings properly weighed the evidence. It distinguished a later 2009 HRET quo warranto case.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Mitra’s COC
- Whether the summary nature of COC cancellation proceedings violated due process or unjustly shifted burden of proof
- Whether Mitra deliberately misrepresented a material fact in his COC
Standard of Review and Jurisdiction
Review under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 is limited to questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. COMELEC findings of fact supported by substantial evidence are final and non‐reviewable unless their evaluation is so capricious or whimsical as to amount to lack of jurisdiction.
Residency Requirement and Domicile Law
Residency for elective local office under the Constitution and Local Government Code is rooted in preventing outsiders from running and ensuring familiarity with constituency needs. Domicile by choice requires bodily presence, intent to remain indefinitely, and intent to abandon former domicile (animus manendi and animus non revertendi).
Supreme Court Analysis
• Evidence Balance – The conflicting affidavits of some Aborlan residents who never saw Mitra were outweighed by credible affidavits from Barangay Isaub officials and the lessor of the feedmill, lease contract, and Mitra’s own voter registration, tax certificate, and ID listing Aborlan as his residence.
• Documentary Evidence – Declarations of Puerto Princesa residence in the vendor’s deed, building permit and earlier tax certificate carried limited weight: the deed was a unilateral representation by the seller concerning all vendees; the building permit form was prepared by Mitra’s representative; and the earlier tax certificate lacked Mitra’s signature and
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191938)
Facts and Antecedents
- Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra was serving his third term as Representative of Palawan’s Second District, which included the Municipality of Aborlan and Puerto Princesa City.
- On March 26, 2007, Puerto Princesa City was reclassified as a highly urbanized city; its residents could no longer vote for provincial officials.
- On March 20, 2009, Mitra applied to transfer his voter registration from Barangay Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City, to Sitio Maligaya, Barangay Isaub, Aborlan.
- Mitra filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Palawan as a resident of Aborlan.
- Respondents Gonzales and Balbon petitioned before the COMELEC to deny due course to or cancel Mitra’s COC, alleging he remained a Puerto Princesa resident.
- Mitra countered that he abandoned Puerto Princesa in 2008, established a new domicile in Aborlan by leasing the residential portion of the Maligaya Feedmill and Farm, buying farmland, starting an experimental pineapple plantation and cock farm, and updating his voter registration, community tax certificate, and House of Representatives ID to Aborlan.
Proceedings Before the COMELEC
- Under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, Gonzales and Balbon filed a verified petition within twenty‐five days from Mitra’s COC filing, alleging material misrepresentation of residence.
- Parties submitted affidavits, photographs, land sale documents, building permits, community tax certificates, lease contracts, and identification records.
- The COMELEC First Division (Feb 10, 2010) granted the petition, finding Mitra’s claimed residence an “unlived‐in,” hastily set‐up room in an industrial structure, devoid of personal effects, and noting expired lease and doubts about domicile abandonment.
- Mitra moved for reconsideration; the COMELEC En Banc (May 4, 2010) denied it in a 4–2 decision, affirming that voter registration alone did not prove domicile transfer and that physical presence in Aborlan was insufficiently shown.