Case Summary (G.R. No. 136592-93)
Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification by Montejo
On March 23, private respondent Montejo filed SPA 95-009 with the COMELEC, alleging petitioner did not meet the one-year residency requirement under the 1987 Constitution, based on her Voter Registration Record and her original COC, and prayed for her disqualification and cancellation of her certificate.
Amended Certificate of Candidacy and Timeliness Issue
On March 29, petitioner filed an amended COC, changing “seven months” to “since childhood” in Item 8, but the Leyte Provincial Election Supervisor rejected it as late. Petitioner then filed it at COMELEC central office on March 31, along with her answer, asserting an “honest misinterpretation” of Item 8 and confirming Tacloban City as her domicile.
COMELEC Second Division’s Resolution Striking and Cancelling COCs
On April 24, 1995, the COMELEC Second Division (2–1) found Montejo’s petition meritorious, struck off the amended COC, and cancelled the original COC. It held that (a) an amendment made after the filing deadline could not be admitted; (b) the change from “seven months” to “since childhood” was a substantial matter affecting her qualification; and (c) she failed to prove the honest-mistake defense.
En Banc Denial of Motion for Reconsideration
On May 7, 1995, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, finding no new substantial matters warranting re-examination of the Second Division’s April 24 resolution.
Conflicting May 11 Proclamations and Election Results
On May 11, the COMELEC first resolved that petitioner could be proclaimed should she win, then reversed itself and directed that her proclamation be suspended even if she obtained the highest vote. The Provincial Board of Canvassers had certified her victory by a large margin.
Issues on Qualifications and Jurisdiction
Petitioner framed two main issues:
I. Qualifications – Whether she satisfied the one-year residency requirement in the First District of Leyte.
II. Jurisdiction – (a) Whether COMELEC lost jurisdiction by deciding outside timelines of B.P. 881; (b) Whether HRET had exclusive post-election jurisdiction over her qualification.
Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Residence as Domicile
The Court held that for election purposes “residence” is synonymous with “domicile,” which combines physical presence in a fixed place with the intention to remain ( animus manendi ). Residence alone, without intent, does not constitute domicile, and one may have multiple residences but only one domicile at a time.
Distinction Between Residence and Domicile Explained
Drawing on Civil Code Art. 50 and jurisprudence (Ong vs. Republic, Uytengsu vs. Republic, Romualdez v. RTC, Nuval vs. Guray, Larena vs. Teves), the Court explained: residence involves factual presence for a purpose; domicile adds the intention of permanence. In election law, “residence” equals “domicile.”
Application to Petitioner’s Domicile of Origin
Petitioner’s 1938 onward factual ties to Tacloban City—schooling, work, familial projects, voter registration, maintaining her ancestral house, letters to PCGG, purchase of a residence certificate in 1992—established Tacloban as her domicile of origin and choice. Absence for education or employment does not dissolve domicile.
No Automatic Change of Domicile upon Marriage or Death
The Court rejected respondent’s view that under Civil Code Art. 110 petitioner lost her Tacloban domicile upon marrying Ferdinand E. Marcos and that his death automatically restored it. Art. 110 deals with actual residence for cohabitation, not legal domicile. The Family Code’s Art. 69 granting joint domicile-fixing power to spouses did not affect petitioner’s enduring domicile of origin.
Meeting the One-Year Residency Requirement
Because petitioner reestablished her domicile in the First District from at least 1992 (Tacloban) and August 1994 (Tolosa), she more than satisfied the constitutional one-year residency requirement. Her Voter Registration Reco
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 136592-93)
Facts and Procedural Antecedents
• Under Art. VI, Sec. 6, Const., House candidates must be registered voters and residents of their district for at least one year before election.
• Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy on March 8, 1995, for Representative of Leyte’s First District, stating “seven months” residency.
• On March 23, 1995, Montejo filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with the COMELEC, alleging petitioner lacked the one-year residency.
• Petitioner filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate on March 29, 1995, changing “seven months” to “since childhood,” but was told by Leyte’s Provincial Election Supervisor to refile with COMELEC’s national office.
• Petitioner refiled on March 31, 1995, and answered Montejo’s petition, asserting honest misinterpretation and domicile in Tacloban City since childhood.
• On April 24, 1995, COMELEC’s Second Division, by 2–1 vote, found petitioner non-compliant with the residency requirement, struck her amended certificate and canceled the original.
• On May 7, 1995, COMELEC en banc denied her Motion for Reconsideration; no new substantial matters warranted re-examination.
• On May 11, 1995, COMELEC first allowed her proclamation if she obtained the highest votes, then in a second resolution directed that her proclamation be suspended.
• The May 14, 1995 canvass showed petitioner won with 70,471 votes against Montejo’s 36,833; she filed her Supplemental Petition on May 25, 1995, seeking relief from COMELEC’s resolutions and from proclamation suspension.
Issues Presented
• Whether petitioner satisfied the Constitution’s one-year residency requirement for House candidates.
• Whether COMELEC had jurisdiction and acted within the timelines mandated by the Omnibus Election Code.
• Whether the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has exclusive jurisdiction over members’ qualifications after election.
COMELEC Second Division Resolution (April 24, 1995)
• Treated “seven months” in original certificate as substantive proof of actual residence in Tolosa, not domicile of origin.
• Rejected “honest mistake” defense; found “residence” clearly meant d