Romualdez v. RTC

PHILIP G. ROMUALDEZ v.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN CITY, DONATO ADVINCULA, BOARD OF

ELECTION INSPECTORS, PRECINCT No. 9, MALBOG, TOLOSA, LEYTE, and the MUNICIPAL REGISTRAR COMELEC,
TOLOSA, LEYTE
G.R. No. 104960 September 14, 1993
Digest by Jenny Marie B. Alapan
Facts:
Philip Romualdez, is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. Sometime in the early part of 1980, the petitioner, in consonance with his
decision to establish his legal residence at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte, caused the construction of his residential house therein.
He soon thereafter also served as a Barangay Captain of the place. In the 1984 Batasan Election and 1986 “snap” Presidential
Election, Romualdez acted as the Campaign Manager of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan in Leyte where he voted.
When the People’s Power Revolution took place on 21-24 of February, 1986, some relatives and associates of the deposed President
Marcos, fearing for their personal safety, “fled” the country. Romualdez, for one, together with his immediate family, left the Philippines
and sought “asylum” in the United States. While abroad, he took special studies on the development of Leyte-Samar and international
business finance.
In the early part of 1987, Romualdez attempted to come back to the Philippines to run for a congressional seat in Leyte.
When Romualdez arrived in the Philippines, he did not delay his return to his residence at Malbog. During the registration of voters
conducted by COMELEC for the Synchronized National and Local Election scheduled for 11 May 1992, Romualdez registered himself
anew as a voter at Precinct No. 9 of Malbog. The Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors, who had known Romualdez to be a
resident of the place and, in fact, an elected Barangay Chairman of Malbog in 1982, allowed him to be registered.
Donato Advincula filed a petition for exclusion with the MTC of Tolosa, Leyte.
Advincula’s Contentions:
 He alleged that Romualdez was a resident of U.S.A.;
 that he had just recently arrived in the Philippines; and
 that he did not have the required one-year residence in the Philippines and the six-month residence in Tolosa to qualify him to
register as a voter in Barangay Malbog.
Romualdez’s Contentions:
 that he has been a resident of Tolosa since the early 1980’s, and
 that he has not abandoned his said residence by his physical absence therefrom during the period from 1986 up to 1991.
MTC dismissed the petition but on appeal to RTC, the same reversed the MTC.
Issue:
Whether or not Romualdez has voluntarily left the country and abandoned his residence in Tolosa, Leyte and,
therefore may not register as a voter. - NO
Held:
The term “residence” as used in the election law is synonymous with “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.
“Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to
return. That residence, in the case of the petitioner, was established during the early 1980’s to be at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.
Residence thus acquired, however, may be lost by adopting another choice of domicile.
In order, in turn, 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. 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.
In the case at bar, the political situation brought about by the “People’s Power Revolution” must have truly caused great apprehension
to the Romualdezes, as well as a serious concern over the safety and welfare of the members of their immediate families. Their going
into self-exile until conditions favorable to them would have somehow stabilized is understandable. Certainly, their sudden departure
from the country cannot be described as “voluntary”, or as “abandonment of residence” at least in the context that these terms are used
in applying the concept of “domicile by choice.”

No evidence on record that Romualdez voluntarily abandoned his residence and established his domicile to somewhere else.

Romualdez v. RTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Romualdez v. RTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Romualdez v. RTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIP G. ROMUALDEZ v.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN CITY, DONATO ADVINCULA, BOARD OF

You might also like