Nuval V. Guray

NUVAL v.
GURAY
29 Dec 1928 (MR: 1 Feb 1929) | Villa-real, J. | Quo Warranto
Petitioner: Gregorio Nuval

Respondents: Norberto Guray, et al.
Summary: Nuval, in a quo warranto proceeding, challenges the election of rival Guray as
president of the municipality of Luna, saying that Guray did not satisfy the one year
residence requirement. Guray mounts the defense of res judicata, as he was already
adjudged as resident of Luna for more than 1 year in a previous case seeking to expel
him from the voters’ list. SC rules that there was no RJ, and that Guray did not meet the
residency requirement. However, Nuval cannot assume the position either, because the
Election Law providing the remedy in case a person not eligible should be elected to
municipal office, does not authorize that it be declared who has been legally elected.
Doctrines
 A change of residence requires an actual and deliberate abandonment of the
former.
 In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by election, what is to be
determined is the eligibility of the candidate elect, while in quo warranto
proceedings referring to offices filled by appointment, what is determined is the
legality of the appointment. Thus, in the first case, the court cannot declare that
the candidate occupying the second place has been elected, since the law only
authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a
plurality of votes and has presented his certificate of candidacy. In the second
case, the court determines who has been legally appointed and hence can declare
who is entitled to occupy the office.
Facts
 Guray had resided in the municipality of Luna, his birthplace. In 1922 he was
appointed municipal treasurer of municipality of Balaoan. In order to qualify,
Norberto Guray asked for the cancellation of his name in the election list of Luna.
 In 1926, his wife and children who had lived in Balaoan, went back to live in the
Luna in the house of his wife's parents. Guray used to go home to Luna in the
afternoons after office hours, and there he passed the nights with his family. His
children studied in the public school of Luna. In January 1927, he commenced the
construction of a house in Luna, which has not yet been completed nor inhabited.
 On April 14, 1928, to be able to participate in the elections in Luna, he applied for
registration as a voter therein, alleging that he had been residing in said
municipality for thirty years.
 On May 11, Nuval filed in CFI La Union a petition against Guray asking for the
exclusion of his name from the election list of Luna, not being a qualified voter
there since he had not resided therein for six months as required by law. The judge
dismissed it, ruling that Guray was a bona fide resident of Luna from 1927.
 On June 5, Nuval and Guray competed for the position of municipal president.
Guray was elected; Nuval placed second.
 On June 18, Nuval filed an action of quo warranto, asking that Guray be declared
ineligible for not having a legal residence of one year previous to the election as
required by law. Nuval averred res judicata from the prior case. CFI La Union
dismissed the quo warranto. Hence, this appeal by Nuval.
Issues, Held
WON the judgment rendered upon Nuval's petition for the cancellation of Guray's name
on the election list constitutes res judicata in the present case – NO
 No identity of parties: The petition for exclusion was presented by Nuval in his
capacity as qualified voter of Luna, and as a duly registered candidate for the office
of the president of said municipality, against Guray as a registered voter in the
election list of said municipality. The present proceedings of quo warranto was
interposed by Nuval in his capacity as a registered candidate voted for the office
of municipal president of Luna, against Guray, as an elected candidate for the
same office. It is not enough that there be an identity of persons; there must be an
identity of capacities in which said persons litigate.
 No identity in the object of litigation: In the exclusion case, the object was the
inclusion of Guray as a voter from the election list of the municipality of Luna, while
in the quo warranto, the object is his expulsion from the office.
 No identity of cause of action: In the exclusion case, the cause of action was that
Guray did not have the six months' legal residence to be a qualified voter, while in
the quo warranto, the cause of action is that Guray did not have the one year's
legal residence requirement for the eligibility to the office of municipal president.
WON Guray was eligible for the office – NO

 When Guray assumed the office of municipal treasurer of Balaoan, La Union, he
transferred his residence from Luna to that of Balaoan. The only question to
determine refers to the date when he once more established his residence in Luna.
 The term 'residence' as so used is synonymous with 'domicile,' which imports not
only intention to reside in a fixed place, but also personal presence in that place,
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.
 By reason of his office as municipal treasurer of Balaoan, Guray had to reside and
in fact resided in said municipality until the February 1928 when he filed his
resignation from his office.
 His cedula certificates for the years 1927 and 1928 issued by himself in his favor
as municipal treasurer of Balaoan, show that until the date of his resignation he
did not consider himself as a resident of the municipality of Luna.
 The fact that his wife and children lived in Luna, not in his own house but in that of
his wife's father since 1926, cannot be looked upon as a change of residence,
since a change of residence requires an actual and deliberate abandonment of the
former and one cannot have two legal residences at the same time.
WON Nuval was entitled to hold the office in question – NO

 Originally, Court held that Nuval should hold the office, having finished second.
 But on MR, Court realized that elective offices are by nature different from the
appointive offices. The occupation of the first depends on the will of the elector,
while that of the second depends on the will of the authority providing for it. In quo
warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by election, what is to be determined
is the eligibility of the candidate elect, while in quo warranto proceedings referring
to offices filled by appointment, what is determined is the legality of the
appointment.
 In the first case when the person elected is ineligible, the court cannot declare that
the candidate occupying the second place has been elected, since the law only
authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a
plurality of votes, and has presented his certificate of candidacy. In the second
case, the court determines who has been legally appointed and can and ought to
declare who is entitled to occupy the office.
PARTIALLY GRANTED.
Villamor, J., dissenting:

 Setting aside technicalities, there was res judicata.
 Residence is purely a matter of intention, manifested by the acts, conduct and
circumstances of the person choosing a place as his permanent dwelling place
and home. The mere change of dwelling place does not involve a change of
residence if it be not accompanied by intention.
 Guray and his family’s acts show his intention to establish his legal residence in
the municipality of Luna.
 The fact of having paid his cedula in Balaoan is of trivial importance in showing
legal residence, for hundreds of persons have taken out their cedulas outside of
their residential province without having lost their legal residence.

Nuval V. Guray

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuval V. Guray

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

Nuval V. Guray

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NUVAL v.

Petitioner: Gregorio Nuval

WON Guray was eligible for the office – NO

WON Nuval was entitled to hold the office in question – NO

Villamor, J., dissenting:

You might also like