Title: PAPANDAYAN, JR. V.

COMELEC

G.R. No. 147909 Date: April 16, 2002

Subject / Syllabus Topic: ADMIN- ELECTION LAW: Candidacy

Petitioner: Mauyag B. Papandayan, Jr. Respondent: COMELEC and Fahida P. Balt

Doctrine: The Court explained that in order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or
bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile.
There must 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.

Facts:

● In the May 14, 2001 elections, three candidates ran for the position of mayor of Tubaran, Lanao del Sur:
petitioner Papandayan, Jr., respondent Balt, and Bantuas.
● Respondent Balt sought the disqualification of petitioner, alleging that petitioner was not a resident of
Barangay Tangcal in Tubaran, Lanao del Sur but a permanent resident of Bayang, Lanao del Sur.
o respondent submitted the joint affidavit of Barangay Chairman Ayonga and two members of the
Sangguniang Barangay of Tangcal, Tubaran, Batawe and Buat, stating that petitioner never resided in
Barangay Tangcal, Tubaran as they personally knew all the registered voters of the said barangay;
● In his answer, petitioner claimed that he was a resident of No. 13 Barangay Tangcal in Tubaran
o that in 1990, he transferred his domicile from Bayang to Tangcal and stayed there with his wife
Dimaporo, whose family and relatives were residents and natives of Tangcal, Tubaran
o To support his allegations, petitioner presented several affidavits
● COMELEC (Second Division) declared petitioner to be disqualified and ordered his name to be stricken off the
list of candidates and all votes cast in his favor not to be counted but considered as stray votes.
o finding that petitioner never intended to relinquish his former domicile in Bayang
o took note that he was living in Marawi City where he was the private secretary of Mayor Ampatua.
● COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration On May 14, 2001, elections were held
● On May 17, 2001, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
● on May 19, 2001, petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC (First Division) seeking the issuance of an order
directing the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) of Tubaran to count and tally the ballots cast in his favor
o pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 4116: if the disqualification case has not become final and
executory on the day of the election, the BEI shall tally and count the votes of the candidate declared
disqualified
● respondent filed a pre-proclamation case in the COMELEC.
● On May 29, 2001, the First Division of the issued an order suspending the proclamation of petitioner as the
duly elected mayor of Tubaran pending the resolution of this present petition.
● However, despite said order the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Tubaran proceeded with the proclamation
of petitioner on June 3, 2001.
● Upon motion of respondent, the COMELEC (First Division), in an order, set aside the proclamation of petitioner
● COMELEC en banc issued a resolution, sustaining the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner
● The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion, recommending that this Court grant the present petition.
o joint affidavit of Ayonga, Batawe, and Buat, stating that petitioner had not at any time been a
resident of Tubaran constituted hearsay evidence as they were never presented during the
proceedings of the case
o petitioner’s testimony that he was "not residing" in Bayang but in Tubaran, Lanao del Sur although
"living" in Marawi City does not necessarily mean that he was not a resident of Tubaran as such
answer merely means that he was previously living in Marawi City.
Issue/s: Ruling:

Whether or not Papandayan should be disqualified NO.

Holding:

 The court agreed with the Solicitor General that the petitioner has duly proven that although he
was formerly a resident of the Municiplaity of Bayang, he later transferred to Tangcal in the
Municiplaity of Tubaran which proves that his actual and physical presence there for 10 years
prior to the May 14, 2001 elections

● In Romualdez v. RTC, the Court held that "domicile" and "residence" are synonymous.
o The term "residence," as used in the election law, 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
o "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for
like reasons, one intends to return.
o The record shows that when petitioner and his wife Dimaporo got married in 1990, they resided in
Tangcal, Tubaran. From then on, there was manifest intention on the part of petitioner to reside in
Tubaran, which he deemed to be the place of his conjugal abode with his wife.
o The fact that he and his wife transferred residence from Bayang to Tubaran shows that petitioner was
relinquishing his former place of residence in Bayang and that he intended Tubaran to be his place of
domicile.
o Although petitioner worked as a private secretary of the mayor of Bayang, he went home to Tubaran
everyday after work. This is proof of animus manendi.
o Further, the evidence shows that in the May 11, 1998 election, petitioner was registered as a voter in
Tubaran. In the May 8, 1999 registration of voters, he was again registered as a voter in Barangay
Tangcal in Tubaran.
o In addition, the following bolster petitioners' claim that since 1990 he has been a resident of Tubaran:
(a) the continuous verification of household members in Tubaran conducted by the election officer
showed that petitioner and his wife were members of household No. 13 in Barangay Tangcal,
Tubaran; (b) petitioner co-owned an agricultural land in Tubaran; and (c) Ayonga and Sarip retracted
their previous affidavits
● When the evidence of the alleged lack of residence qualification of a candidate for an elective position is weak
or inconclusive and it clearly appears that the purpose of the law would not be thwarted by upholding the
victor's right to the office, the will of the electorate should be respected.
o Respondent failed to substantiate her claim that petitioner is ineligible to be mayor of Tubaran.

Opinion/s:

Notes: