Domino vs. COMELEC

Domino vs.
COMELEC
310 SCRA 546, July 19, 1999
Ponente: Davide, Jr.,CJ
FACTS:
Petitioner (Juan Domino) wanted to run for a position in the Congress (Representative of
the lone legislative district of the province of Sarangani). In item 9 of his COC, it indicated that
he had resided in the constituency of the district where he seeks to be elected for 1 year and 2
months immediately preceding the election.
Private Respondent however filed before the COMELEC a petition to deny due course to
or Cancel COC alleging that petitioner is not a resident much less a registered voter of the
province of Sarangani.
Petitioner maintains that he had complied with the said requirement and that he had been
living in Sarangani since January 1997 together with the pieces of evidence to strengthen his
claim. Among the pieces of evidence presented was the Xerox copy of the decision by the MTC
declaring his being a registered voter in QC as erroneous as petitioner was no longer a resident of
QC and ordering to transfer such registration to Sarangani and Notarized attestation of 55
residents in Sarangani, certifying that petitioner was indeed a resident there.
COMELEC thereafter disqualified him and on the day of election ordered that the votes
cast for DOMINO be counted but to suspend the proclamation of winning considering that the
resolution disqualifying him has not been final and executory. Petitioner garnered the highest
number of votes and eventually filed an MR which was denied by COMELEC.
On 15 September 1998, Lucille L. Chiongbian-Solon, (hereafter INTERVENOR), the
candidate receiving the second highest number of votes, was allowed by the Court to Intervene.
INTERVENOR in her Motion for Leave to Intervene and in her Comment in Intervention is
asking the Court to uphold the disqualification of petitioner Juan Domino and to proclaim her as
the duly elected representative of Sarangani in the 11 May 1998 elections.
ISSUE:
1. Whether petitioner was able to comply with the 1 year requirement under the Article
VI of the Constitution.
2. May INTERVENOR, as the candidate who received the next highest number of
votes, be proclaimed as the winning candidate?
RULING:
ISSUE NO. 1
NO. While, Domino's intention to establish residence in Sarangani can be gleaned from
the fact that be bought the house he was renting on November 4, 1997, that he sought
cancellation of his previous registration in Quezon City on 22 October 1997, 34 and that he
applied for transfer of registration from Quezon City to Sarangani by reason of change of
residence on 30 August 1997,35 DOMINO still falls short of the one year residency requirement
under the Constitution.
It is doctrinally settled that the term "residence," as used in the law prescribing the
qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing as "domicile," which
imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place,
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Records show that petitioner's domicile of
origin was Candon, Ilocos Sur and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice
at 24 Bonifacio St. Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon City, as shown by his certificate of
candidacy for the position of representative of the 3rd District of Quezon City in the May 1995
election. Petitioner is now claiming that he had effectively abandoned his "residence" in Quezon
City and has established a new "domicile" of choice at the Province of Sarangani.
A person's "domicile" once established is considered to continue and will not be deemed
lost until a new one is established. 25 To successfully effect a change of domicile one must
demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which
correspond with the purpose. In other words, there must basically be animus manendi coupled
with animus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an
indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the
place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
As a general rule, the principal elements of domicile, physical presence in the locality
involved and intention to adopt it as a domicile, must concur in order to establish a new
domicile. No change of domicile will result if either of these elements is absent. Intention to
acquire a domicile without actual residence in the locality does not result in acquisition of
domicile, nor does the fact of physical presence without intention. The lease contract entered into
sometime in January 1997, does not adequately support a change of domicile. The lease contract
may be indicative of DOMINO's intention to reside in Sarangani but it does not engender the
kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of one's original domicile.
ISSUE NO. 2
NO. It is now settled doctrine that the candidate who obtains the second highest number
of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified. 43 In every
election, the people's choice is the paramount consideration and their expressed will must, at all
times, be given effect. When the majority speaks and elects into office a candidate by giving the
highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, no one can be declared elected in his
place.
It would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed
right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is
proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which
have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him. 45 To simplistically
assume that the second placer would have received the other votes would be to substitute our
judgment for the mind of the voters. He could not be considered the first among qualified
candidates because in a field which excludes the qualified candidate, the conditions would have
substantially changed.

Domino vs. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domino vs. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Domino vs. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domino vs.

You might also like