ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS vs.
COMELEC and Court took the concept of domicile to mean an
MONTEJO individual's "permanent home", "a place to which,
whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one
intends to return, and depends on facts and
FACTS: circumstances in the sense that they disclose
intent." Thus, domicile is composed of the two
Petitioner Imelda Marcos filed a Certificate of elements of:
Candidacy (COC) in the First district of Leyte in
order that she will be able to run for Congress of 1. The fact of residing/physical presence in a fixed
that district in the 1995 elections. Her COC stated place; and
that she was a resident of Leyte for seven
2. Animus manendi - the intention of returning
months. Private Respondent Montejo, a rival
permanently
candidate filed a petition to cancel the COC and to
disqualify Marcos on the ground that she did not Residence on the other hand merely refers to the
meet the one year residency requirement as factual relationship of an individual to a certain
provided for in the Constitution. In response, place. It is mere physical presence. Residence
Marcos amended her COC changing the entry involves the intent to leave when the purpose for
"seven" months to "since childhood". Marcos which the resident has taken up his abode ends. If
claimed that "she has always maintained Tacloban a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his
City as her domicile or residence." She further domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his
claimed that she is entitled to the correction of her purpose is established it is residence. Domicile is
COC on the ground that her original entry of "seven residence coupled with the intention to remain for
months" was the result of an "honest an unlimited time.
misinterpretation or honest mistake".
A person can have different residences in various
places, but he can only have a single domicile.
Note however, that a person may abandon a
The COMELEC granted the petition to cancel the
domicile in favor of another.
COC and to disqualify Marcos. It held that
the animus revertendi of Marcos was not Tacloban,
but San Juan, Manila, because that where she
Domicile of Petitioner is in Tacloban
chose to live after she went back to the Philippines
after her well-publicized exile in the US. It Petitioner Marcos' domicile is in Tacloban,
explained that while Petitioner grew up in Tacloban, Leyte. The fact that she has a residence in Manila
after her graduation, however, she moved to Manila does not mean that she has lost her domicile in that
where she became a registered voter, became a province. The absence from legal residence or
member of the Batasang Pambansa as a domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do
representative of Manila and eventually became other things of a temporary or semi-permanent
Governor of Manila. This, according to the nature does not constitute loss of
COMELEC debunks her claim that she was a residence. Applying this doctrine to the case of
resident of Leyte 1st District "since childhood". petitioner, the fact that she has registered to vote
ISSUE: and resided in Ilocos Norte and in San Juan do not
unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her
1. Whether or not Petitioner is a resident of Leyte domicile in Tacloban. Even while residing in
for election purposes. various places, petitioner kept close ties to her
domicile of origin by establishing residences in
2. Whether or not Petitioner lost her domicile after
Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other
she married and lived with her husband in Ilocos
important personal milestones in her home
Norte and in San Juan.
province, instituting well-publicized projects for the
benefit of her province and hometown, and
establishing a political power base where her
HELD: siblings and close relatives held positions of power
1. YES. The Supreme Court declared in this case either through the ballot or by appointment, always
that for purposes of election law, residence is with either her influence or consent. These well-
synonymous with domicile. The decision of the publicized ties to her domicile of origin are part of
COMELEC however, shows that they confused the the history and lore of the quarter century of
concept of "Domicile" with "actual residence". Marcos power in our country. Either they were
entirely ignored in the COMELEC'S Resolutions, or
Domicile versus Residence the majority of the COMELEC did not know what
the rest of the country always knew: the fact of
Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "[f]or the
petitioner's domicile in Tacloban, Leyte.
exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil
obligations, the domicile of natural persons is their
place of habitual residence." In a past case, the
2. NO underscores the difference between the intentions
of the Civil Code and the Family Code drafters, the
The domicile of origin
term residence has been supplanted by the term
Note further that when petitioner Imelda Marcos domicile in an entirely new provision (Art. 69)
was born, her domicile followed that of her distinctly different in meaning and spirit from that
parents. Hence, her domicile of origin was found in Article 110. The provision recognizes
Tacloban. Once acquired, domicile is retained until revolutionary changes in the concept of women's
a new one is gained. The domicile of origin is not rights in the intervening years by making the choice
easily lost. To effect a change of domicile, one of domicile a product of mutual agreement between
must demonstrate: the spouses.
1. An actual removal or an actual change of Even assuming that Petitioner's domicile was lost,
domicile; her acts unequivocally show an intent to reestablish
a domicile in Tacloban, Leyte because Petitioner,
2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former as early as in 1992, already obtained her residence
place of residence and establishing a new one; and certificate in Tacloban.
3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
In the absence of clear and positive proof based on WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner
these criteria, the residence of origin should be possesses the necessary residence qualifications
deemed to continue. to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in
the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC's
questioned Resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May
Effect of marriage as to the domicile of origin 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE.
Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to order
Article 110 of the New Civil Code provides:
the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim
Art. 110. — The husband shall fix the residence of petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the
the family. But the court may exempt the wife from First District of Leyte.
living with the husband if he should live abroad
unless in the service of the Republic.
**
MARCOS V COMELEC Held: Imelda Marcos‘
A survey of jurisprudence relating to this article or
adoption of husbands domicile ceased upon the
to the concepts of domicile or residence does not
latter‘s death. There is no need for positive
suggest that the female spouse automatically loses
declaration. Hence she can run for public office in
her domicile of origin in favor of the husband upon
Tacloban because it was her domicile of origin,
marriage. This article clearly refers to actual
which is not easily lost. Padilla, J. (dissenting):
residence and not domicile and merely establishes
Court must abandon Labo case which held that the
the default rule in fulfilling the obligation of the
second place not automatically winner when
spouses "to live together" in article immediately
winning candidate is disqualified. Padilla said
preceding Art. 110.
second placer must be automatic winner under the
circumstances. Regalado, J. (dissenting): In the
absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, the
When Petitioner was married to then Congressman presumption is that the domicile of wife follows that
Marcos, in 1954, petitioner was obliged—by virtue of her husband and will continue after his death.
of Article 110 of the Civil Code—to follow her Davide, J. (dissenting): Burden of proof is upon the
husband's actual place of residence fixed by him. wife that she exercised her right to acquire her own
Mr. Marcos had several places of residence at the domicile after husband‘s death.
time: San Juan and Ilocos Norte. Assuming that
Mr. Marcos had fixed any of these places as the
conjugal residence, what petitioner gained upon
marriage was actual residence. She did not lose
her domicile of origin.
This rule has changed with the advent of the Family
code with the introduction of the common law
concept of "matrimonial domicile". This
