Title
Romualdez vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City
Case
G.R. No. 104960
Decision Date
Sep 14, 1993
Philip Romualdez, a Filipino citizen, sought voter registration in Leyte after returning from U.S. exile post-EDSA Revolution. A challenge alleged he abandoned residency, but the Supreme Court ruled he retained domicile, qualifying him to vote.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 104960)

Key Dates and Procedural Events

Relevant factual and procedural milestones: petitioner established residence in Malbog in early 1980s; left the Philippines in 1986 and studied abroad; attempted return in 1987; received a U.S. INS letter dated 25 September 1991 requiring departure by 23 August 1992; arrived in the Philippines on 23 December 1991 (without apparent U.S. travel document); re-registered to vote on 1 February 1992 at Precinct No. 9, Malbog; Advincula filed a petition for exclusion on 21 February 1992; Municipal Trial Court (MTC) decision in favor of petitioner issued 28 February 1992; respondent RTC reversed on 3 April 1992; this Court issued a temporary restraining order on 7 May 1992; Supreme Court decision reviewed in this summary was rendered in 1993 and applies the 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law and Legal Principles

Constitutional basis: the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs the exercise of political rights including suffrage. Statutory provisions and authorities invoked in the proceedings include Section 142 of the Omnibus Election Code (petition for exclusion of voters), Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, and RA 7166 as cited in the pleadings. Controlling legal principles on domicile and residence are drawn from Philippine jurisprudence and recognized doctrine: the terms “residence” and “domicile” are treated synonymously in election law (residence requires presence plus conduct indicative of intent to remain); to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there (animus manendi), and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile (animus non revertendi).

Factual Background

Petitioner established a residential house and served as Barangay Captain in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte in the early 1980s. After the 1986 People’s Power events, petitioner and family left for the United States and received asylum there; while abroad he pursued special studies. He later received an INS letter in September 1991 requiring that he depart the U.S. by a specified date; he returned to the Philippines on 23 December 1991. During the voter registration period for the 11 May 1992 elections, petitioner registered anew at Precinct No. 9, Malbog, Tolosa on 1 February 1992; the Board Chairman who knew petitioner permitted the registration.

Petition for Exclusion and Lower Court Decisions

On 21 February 1992 Donato Advincula filed a petition in the MTC seeking exclusion of Romualdez from the voter list, alleging that Romualdez resided and worked in Massachusetts and lacked the statutory residency (one-year in the Philippines, six months in the municipality) to register. Romualdez answered on 25 February 1992, asserting continuous residence in Tolosa since the early 1980s and non-abandonment despite his absence from 1986 to December 1991. The Municipal Court found Romualdez a resident and qualified voter (28 February 1992). On appeal the RTC reversed and held Romualdez disqualified (3 April 1992). A temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court was issued on 7 May 1992 pending review.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Solicitor General condensed the dispositive issues as: (1) whether the MTC and RTC had jurisdiction to entertain the exclusion petition given the petitioner did not allege to be a registered voter of the municipality as required by Section 142 of the Omnibus Election Code (i.e., the petitioner’s locus standi); and (2) whether the RTC erred in concluding that Romualdez voluntarily left the country and thereby abandoned his residence in Malbog, Tolosa.

Jurisdiction and Locus Standi Analysis

The Court analyzed the jurisdictional/locus standi contention and emphasized procedural posture: petitioner Romualdez participated actively in the proceedings and, crucially, in his appeal-memorandum to the RTC expressly prayed that the MTC decision be affirmed. The Court applied established estoppel principles: although lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage, active participation and invocation of the court’s remedial process by a party estop that party from later challenging jurisdiction. Consequently, Romualdez was precluded from contesting the jurisdiction of the courts below; the locus standi issue, in any event, is considered foreclosed by his conduct. The Court therefore treated the locus standi contention as no longer open to relief at this stage.

Domicile and Abandonment Analysis

The Court turned to the principal substantive question whether petitioner had voluntarily abandoned his domicile in Malbog. It reiterated the legal tests for domicile change: concurrence of bodily presence in the new place, intention to remain there, and intention to abandon the old domicile, requiring animus manendi and animus non revertendi, voluntariness of the change, and actual residence at the new domicile. Applying those criteria to the facts, the Court found the petitioner’s departure after the 1986 political events was prompted by apprehension for personal safety and thus did not constitute a voluntary change of domicile or an abandonment of his Philippine residen

...continue reading

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