Abella Vs Comelec

BENJAMIN P. ABELLA vs COMELEC and ADELINA Y. LARRAZABAL | G.R. No.
100710
ADELINA Y. LARRAZABAL vs COMELEC and SILVESTRE DE LA CRUZ | G.R.
No. 100739
3 September 1991 | Gutierrez, Jr.,J.
FACTS:
Benjamin P. Abella was the official candidate of the Liberal Party for provincial
governor of Leyte in the local election held on February 1, 1988.
Adelina Y. Larrazabal is the wife of Emeterio V. Larrazabal, the original
candidate of the Lakas ng Bansa-PDP-Laban who was disqualified by the
Commission on Elections for lack of residence (the day before the election,
she filed her own certificate of candidacy in substitution of her husband.)
Silvestre de la Cruz, a registered voter of Tacloban City, filed a petition with
the provincial election supervisor of Leyte to disqualify Adelina for alleged
false statements in her certificate of candidacy regarding her residence.
De la Cruz then came to the SC, which issued a TRO enjoining the provincial
board of canvassers of Leyte 'from proclaiming Adelina Larrazabal as the
winning candidate for the Office of the Governor in the province of Leyte.
In the meantime, Abella, seasonably elevated various objections to the
Commission on Elections in ten separate appeals. Pending resolution of these
cases, Abella intervened in the disqualification case, and filed a complaint
with the Law Department of the COMELEC charging the Adelina Y. Larrazabal
with falsification and misrepresentation of her residence in her certificate of
candidacy.
COMELEC, upon motion of Larrazabal, lifted its TRO against her proclamation
paving Larrazabal's proclamation and her assumption to the Office of
Governor of Leyte while the hearings in the disqualification case continued.
Eventually, COMELEC found that petitioner Larrazabal was neither a resident
of Kananga, Leyte nor a registered voter thereat. With these findings, the
COMELEC disqualified the petitioner as governor of the province of Leyte.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Larrazabal meets the residence requirement to run for Governor of the
Province of Leyte? NO. She does NOT meet the residence requirement.
2. W/N the prohibition against the 'city's registered voters' electing the
provincial officials necessarily mean, a prohibition of the registered voters to
be elected as provincial officials?
RATIO:
1. Adelina Larrazabal lacks the required residence on the evidence of record to
the effect that despite protestations to the contrary made by the petitioner,
she has established her residence at Ormoc City from 1975 to the present
and not at Kananga, Leyte. Her attempt to purportedly change her residence
one year before the election by registering at Kananga, Leyte to qualify her to
ran for the position of governor of the province of Leyte clearly shows that
she considers herself already a resident of Ormoc City. In the absence of any
evidence to prove otherwise, the reliance on the provisions of the Family
Code was proper and in consonance with human experience. The petitioner
did not present evidence to show that she and her husband maintain
separate residences, she at Kananga, Leyte and her husband at Ormoc City.
As for ANIMUS REVERTENDI: Mere absence from one's residence or origindomicile-to pursue studies, engage in business, or practice his avocation, is
not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence.' ... The
determination of a persons legal residence or domicile largely depends upon
intention which may be inferred from his acts, activities and utterances. The
party who claims that a person has abandoned or left his residence or origin
must show and prove pre-ponderantly such abandonment or loss. BUT there
is no evidence to prove that Larrazabal temporarily left her residence in
Kananga, Leyte in 1975 to pursue any calling, profession or business. What is
clear is that she established her residence in Ormoc City with her husband
and considers herself a resident therein. The intention of animus
revertendi not to abandon her residence in Kananga, Leyte therefore, is nor
present. The fact that she occasionally visits Kananga, Leyte through the
years does not signify an intention to continue her residence therein. It is
common among us Filipinos to often visit places where we formerly resided
specially so when we have left friends and relatives therein although for
intents and purposes we have already transferred our residence to other
places.
As for being a REGISTERED VOTER: The evidence shows that Adelina
Larrazabals supposed cancellation of registration in Ormoc City and transfer
of registration in Kananga, Leyte, is not supported by the records. She was
not in the list of voters.The certification of the Election Registrar of Kananga
that as of that date Mrs. Adelina Larrazabal was not a registered voter in any
of the' precincts in Kananga. It was only on February 15, 1988, or two weeks
after the election day that the same Registrar certified for the first time that
there were two voters lists, the first without the names of the Larrazabals and
the second, which appeared only after February 1, submitted by the
Chairman of the Board for Precinct 17 which contained the spouses
Larrazabals' names.
2. Larrazabals ALTERNATIVE POSITION is that her being a registered voter in
Ormoc City was no impediment to her candidacy for the position of governor
of the province of Leyte:
Section 12, Article X of the Constitution provides:
Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component
cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial
elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of
component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such

prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective
provincial officials.
Section 89 of Republic Act No. 179 creating the City of Ormoc provides:
Election of provincial governor and members of the Provincial Board of
the members of the Provincial Board of the Province of Leyte The
qualified voters of Ormoc City shall not be qualified and entitled to vote
in the election of the provincial governor and the members of the
provincial board of the Province of Leyte.
Relating therefore, section 89 of R.A. 179 to section 12, Article X of the Constitution
one comes up with the following conclusion: that Ormoc City when organized was
not yet a highly-urbanned city but is, nevertheless, considered independent of the
province of Leyte to which it is geographically attached because its charter prohibits
its voters from voting for the provincial elective officials.
Larrazabal submits that "while a Component City whose charter prohibits its voters
from participating in the elections for provincial office, is indeed independent of the
province, such independence cannot be equated with a highly urbanized city; rather
it is limited to the administrative supervision aspect, and nowhere should it lead to
the conclusion that said voters are likewise prohibited from running for the
provincial offices." THIS IS UNATTENABLE.
Section 12, Article X of the Constitution is explicit in that aside from highlyurbanized cities, component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting
for provincial elective officials are independent of the province. In the same
provision, it provides for other component cities within a province whose charters do
not provide a similar prohibition. Necessarily, component cities like Ormoc City
whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials are
treated like highly urbanized cities which are outside the supervisory power of the
province to which they are geographically attached. This independence from the
province carries with it the prohibition or mandate directed to their registered voters
not to vote and be voted for the provincial elective offices. The resolution in Peralta
vs The Commission on Elections, et al. dated December 10, 1987 applies to this
case. While the cited case involves Olongapo City which is classified as a highly
urbanized city, the same principle is applicable.
Moreover, Section 89 of Republic Act 179, independent of the constitutional
provision, prohibits registered voters of Ormoc City from voting and being voted for
elective offices in the province of Leyte. We agree with the COMELEC en banc that
"the phrase 'shall not be qualified and entitled to vote in the election of the
provincial governor and the members of the provincial board of the Province of
Leyte' connotes two prohibitions one, from running for and the second, from
voting for any provincial elective official."

Abella Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abella Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abella Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BENJAMIN P. ABELLA vs COMELEC and ADELINA Y. LARRAZABAL | G.R. No.

component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such

You might also like