Republic of the Philippines 2.

Annex "B" — Voter's Registration Record with SN 31326504

SUPREME COURT dated June 22, 1997 indicating respondent's registration at
Manila Precinct No. 4400-A, Old Balara, Quezon City;

EN BANC  3. Annex "C" — Respondent's Community Tax Certificate No.

11132214C dated January 15, 1997;
G.R. No. 134015 July 19, 1999
4. Annex "D" — Certified true copy of the letter of Herson D.
JUAN DOMINO, petitioner,  Dema-ala, Deputy Provincial & Municipal Treasurer of Alabel,
vs. Sarangani, dated February 26, 1998, addressed to Mr. Conrado
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NARCISO Ra. GRAFILO, JR., G. Butil, which reads:
EDDY B. JAVA, JUAN P. BAYONITO, JR., ROSARIO SAMSON and
DIONISIO P. LIM, SR., respondent, LUCILLE CHIONGBIAN- In connection with your letter of even date, we are furnishing
SOLON, intervenor. you herewith certified xerox copy of the triplicate copy of
COMMUNITY TAX CERTIFICATE NO. 11132214C in the name of
DAVIDE, JR., CJ.: Juan Domino.

Challenged in this case for certiorari with a prayer for Furthermore, Community Tax Certificate No. 11132212C of the
preliminary injunction are the Resolution of 6 May 1998 1 of the same stub was issued to Carlito Engcong on September 5, 1997,
Second Division of the Commission on Elections (hereafter while Certificate No. 11132213C was also issued to Mr. Juan
COMELEC), declaring petitioner Juan Domino (hereafter Domino but was cancelled and serial no. 11132215C was issued
DOMINO) disqualified as candidate for representative of the in the name of Marianita Letigio on September 8, 1997.
Lone Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani in the 11
May 1998 elections, and the Decision of 29 May 1998 2 of the 5. Annex "E" — The triplicate copy of the Community Tax
COMELEC en banc denying DOMINO's motion for Certificate No. 11132214C in the name of Juan Domino dated
reconsideration. September 5, 1997;

The antecedents are not disputed.1âwphi1.nêt 6. Annex "F" — Copy of the letter of Provincial Treasurer
Lourdes P. Riego dated March 2, 1998 addressed to Mr. Herson
On 25 March 1998, DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy D. Dema-ala, Deputy Provincial Treasurer and Municipal
for the position of Representative of the Lone Legislative Treasurer of Alabel, Sarangani, which states:
District of the Province of Sarangani indicating in item nine (9)
of his certificate that he had resided in the constituency where For easy reference, kindly turn-over to the undersigned for
he seeks to be elected for one (1) year and two (2) months safekeeping, the stub of Community Tax Certificate containing
immediately preceding the election.3 Nos. 11132201C-11132250C issued to you on June 13, 1997
and paid under Official Receipt No. 7854744.
On 30 March 1998, private respondents Narciso Ra. Grafilo, Jr.,
Eddy B. Java, Juan P. Bayonito, Jr., Rosario Samson and Dionisio Upon request of Congressman James L. Chiongbian.
P. Lim, Sr., fied with the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due
Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy, which was 7. Annex "G" — Certificate of Candidacy of respondent for the
docketed as SPA No. 98-022 and assigned to the Second position of Congressman in the 3rd District of Quezon City for
Division of the COMELEC. Private respondents alleged that the 1995 elections filed with the Office of the Regional Election
DOMINO, contrary to his declaration in the certificate of Director, National Capital Region, on March 17, 1995, where, in
candidacy, is not a resident, much less a registered voter, of the item 4 thereof, he wrote his birth date as December 22, 1953;
province of Sarangani where he seeks election. To substantiate in item 8 thereof his "residence in the constituency where I
their allegations, private respondents presented the following seek to be elected immediately preceding the election" as 3
evidence: years and 5 months; and, in item 9, that he is a registered voter
of Precinct No. 182, Barangay Balara, Quezon City;
1. Annex "A" — the Certificate of Candidacy of respondent for
the position of Congressman of the Lone District of the 8. Annex "H" — a copy of the APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF
Province of Sarangani filed with the Office of the Provincial REGISTRATION RECORDS DUE TO CHANGE OF RESIDENCE of
Election Supervisor of Sarangani on March 25, 1998, where in respondent dated August 30, 1997 addressed to and received
item 4 thereof he wrote his date of birth as December 5, 1953; by Election Officer Mantil Alim, Alabel, Sarangani, on
in item 9, he claims he have resided in the constituency where September 22, 1997, stating among others, that "[T]he
he seeks election for one (1) year and two (2) months; and, in undersigned's previous residence is at 24 Bonifacio Street,
item 10, that he is registered voter of Precinct No. 14A-1, Ayala Heights, Quezon City, III District, Quezon City; wherein he
Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani; is a registered voter" and "that for business and residence
purposes, the undersigned has transferred and conducts his 4. Ordering the respondents to immediately transfer and
business and reside at Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Province of forward all the election/voter's registration records of the
Sarangani prior to this application;" petitioners in Quezon City to the Election Officer, the Election
Registration Board and other Comelec Offices of Alabel,
9. Annex "I" — Copy of the SWORN APPLICATION FOR OF Sarangani where the petitioners are obviously qualified to
CANCELLATION OF THE VOTER'S [TRANSFER OF] PREVIOUS excercise their respective rights of suffrage.
REGISTRATION of respondent subscribed and sworn to on 22
October 1997 before Election Officer Mantil Allim at Alabel, 4. Annex "4" — Copy of the Application for Transfer of
Sarangani. 4 Registration Records due to Change of Residence addressed to
Mantil Alim, COMELEC Registrar, Alabel, Sarangani, dated
For his defense, DOMINO maintains that he had complied with August 30, 1997.
the one-year residence requirement and that he has been
residing in Sarangani since January 1997. In support of the said 5. Annex "5" — Certified True Copy of the Notice of Approval of
contention, DOMINO presented before the COMELEC the Application, the roster of applications for registration approved
following exhibits, to wit: by the Election Registration Board on October 20, 1997,
showing the spouses Juan and Zorayda Bailon Domino listed as
1. Annex "1" — Copy of the Contract of Lease between Nora numbers 111 and 112 both under Precinct No. 14A1, the last
Dacaldacal as Lessor and Administrator of the properties of two names in the slate indicated as transferees without VRR
deceased spouses Maximo and Remedios Dacaldacal and numbers and their application dated August 30, 1997 and
respondent as Lessee executed on January 15, 1997, subscribed September 30, 1997, respectively.
and sworn to before Notary Public Johnny P. Landero;
6. Annex "6" — same as Annex "5"
2. Annex "2" — Copy of the Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate
with Absolute Deed of sale executed by and between the heirs 7. Annex "6-a" — Copy of the Sworn Application for
of deceased spouses Maximo and Remedios Dacaldacal, Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration (Annex "I",
namely: Maria Lourdes, Jupiter and Beberlie and the Petition);
respondent on November 4, 1997, subscribed and sworn to
before Notary Public Jose A. Alegario; 8. Annex "7" — Copy of claim card in the name of respondent
showing his VRR No. 31326504 dated October 20, 1997 as a
3. Annex "3" — True Carbon Xerox copy of the Decision dated registered voter of Precinct No. 14A1, Barangay Poblacion,
January 19, 1998, of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro Alabel, Sarangani;
Manila, Branch 35, Quezon City, in Election Case NO. 725
captioned as "In the Matter of the Petition for the Exclusion 9. Annex "7-a" — Certification dated April 16, 1998, issued by
from the List of voters of Precinct No. 4400-A Brgy. Old Balara, Atty. Elmer M. Kayanan, Election Officer IV, District III, Quezon
Quezon City, Spouses Juan and Zorayda Domino, Petitioners, City, which reads:
-versus- Elmer M. Kayanan, Election Officer, Quezon City,
District III, and the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct No. This is to certify that the spouses JUAN and ZORAYDA DOMINO
4400-A, Old Balara, Quezon City, Respondents." The dispositive are no longer registered voters of District III, Quezon City. Their
portion of which reads: registration records (VRR) were transferred and are now in the
possession of the Election Officer of Alabel, Sarangani.
1. Declaring the registration of petitioners as voters of Precinct
No. 4400-A, Barangay Old Balara, in District III Quezon City as This certification is being issued upon the request of Mr. JUAN
completely erroneous as petitioners were no longer residents DOMINO.
of Quezon City but of Alabel, Sarangani where they have been
residing since December 1996;
10. Annex "8" — Affidavit of Nora Dacaldacal and Maria
Lourdes Dacaldacal stating the circumstances and incidents
2. Declaring this erroneous registration of petitioners in Quezon detailing their alleged acquaintance with respondent.
City as done in good faith due to an honest mistake caused by
circumstances beyond their control and without any fault of
11. Annexes "8-a", "8-b", "8-c" and "8-d" — Copies of the
petitioners;
uniform affidavits of witness Myrna Dalaguit, Hilario Fuentes,
Coraminda Lomibao and Elena V. Piodos subscribed and sworn
3. Approving the transfer of registration of voters of petitioners to before Notary Public Bonifacio F. Doria, Jr., on April 18, 1998,
from Precint No. 4400-A of Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City to embodying their alleged personal knowledge of respondent's
Precinct No. 14A1 of Barangay Poblacion of Alabel, Sarangani; residency in Alabel, Sarangani;
and
12. Annex "8-e" — A certification dated April 20, 1998,
subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Bonifacio,
containing a listing of the names of fifty-five (55) residents of disqualifying him as candidate had not yet become final and
Alabel, Sarangani, declaring and certifying under oath that they executory.7
personally know the respondent as a permanent resident of
Alabel, Sarangani since January 1997 up to present; The result of the election, per Statement of Votes certified by
the Chairman of the Provincial Board of Canvassers, 8shows that
13. Annexes "9", "9-a" and "9-b" — Copies of Individual Income DOMINO garnered the highest number of votes over his
Tax Return for the year 1997, BIR form 2316 and W-2, opponents for the position of Congressman of the Province of
respectively, of respondent; and, Sarangani.

14. Annex "10" — The affidavit of respondent reciting the On 15 May 1998, DOMINO filed a motion for reconsideration of
chronology of events and circumstances leading to his the Resolution dated 6 May 1998, which was denied by the
relocation to the Municipality of Alabel, Sarangani, appending COMELEC en banc in its decision dated 29 May 1998. Hence,
Annexes "A", "B", "C", "D", "D-1", "E", "F", "G" with sub- the present Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Preliminary
markings "G-1" and "G-2" and "H" his CTC No. 111`32214C Mandatory Injunction alleging, in the main, that the COMELEC
dated September 5, 1997, which are the same as Annexes "1", committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or
"2", "4", "5", "6-a", "3", "7", "9" with sub-markings "9-a" and lack of jurisdiction when it ruled that he did not meet the one-
"9-b" except Annex "H".5 year residence requirement.

On 6 May 1998, the COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated a On 14 July 1998, acting on DOMINO's Motion for Issuance of
resolution declaring DOMINO disqualified as candidate for the Temporary Restraining Order, the Court directed the parties to
position of representative of the lone district of Sarangani for maintain the status quo prevailing at the time of the filing of
lack of the one-year residence requirement and likewise the instant petition.9
ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy, on the
basis of the following findings: On 15 September 1998, Lucille L. Chiongbian-Solon, (hereafter
INTERVENOR), the candidate receiving the second highest
What militates against respondent's claim that he has met the number of votes, was allowed by the Court to
residency requirement for the position sought is his own Intervene.10 INTERVENOR in her Motion for Leave to Intervene
Voter's Registration Record No. 31326504 dated June 22, 1997 and in her Comment in Intervention 11 is asking the Court to
[Annex "B", Petition] and his address indicated as 24 Bonifacio uphold the disqualification of petitioner Juan Domino and to
St., Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon City. This evidence, proclaim her as the duly elected representative of Sarangani in
standing alone, negates all his protestations that he established the 11 May 1998 elections.
residence at Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani, as early as
January 1997. It is highly improbable, nay incredible, for Before us DOMINO raised the following issues for resolution, to
respondent who previously ran for the same position in the 3rd wit:
Legislative District of Quezon City during the elections of 1995
to unwittingly forget the residency requirement for the office a. Whether or not the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court
sought. of Quezon City declaring petitioner as resident of Sarangani and
not of Quezon City is final, conclusive and binding upon the
Counting, therefore, from the day after June 22, 1997 when whole world, including the Commission on Elections.
respondent registered at Precinct No. 4400-A, up to and until
the day of the elections on May 11, 1998, respondent clearly b. Whether or not petitioner herein has resided in the subject
lacks the one (1) year residency requirement provided for congressional district for at least one (1) year immediately
candidates for Member of the House of Representatives under preceding the May 11, 1998 elections; and
Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution.
c. Whether or not respondent COMELEC has jurisdiction over
All told, petitioner's evidence conspire to attest to respondent's the petition a quo for the disqualification of petitioner.12
lack of residence in the constituency where he seeks election
and while it may be conceded that he is a registered voter as
The first issue.
contemplated under Section 12 of R.A. 8189, he lacks the
qualification to run for the position of Congressman for the
The contention of DOMINO that the decision of the
Lone District of the Province of Sarangani.6
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City in the exclusion
proceedings declaring him a resident of the Province of
On 11 May 1998, the day of the election, the COMELEC issued
Sarangani and not of Quezon City is final and conclusive upon
Supplemental Omnibus Resolution No. 3046, ordering that the
the COMELEC cannot be sustained.
votes cast for DOMINO be counted but to suspend the
proclamation if winning, considering that the Resolution
The COMELEC has jurisdiction as provided in Sec. 78, Art. IX of
the Omnibus Election Code, over a petition to deny due course
to or cancel certificate of candidacy. In the exercise of the said 14A1 of Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani. It is not within
jurisdiction, it is within the competence of the COMELEC to the competence of the trial court, in an exclusion proceedings,
determine whether false representation as to material facts to declare the challenged voter a resident of another
was made in the certificate of candidacy, that will include, municipality. The jurisdiction of the lower court over exclusion
among others, the residence of the candidate. cases is limited only to determining the right of voter to remain
in the list of voters or to declare that the challenged voter is
The determination of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon not qualified to vote in the precint in which he is registered,
City in the exclusion proceedings as to the right of DOMINO to specifying the ground of the voter's disqualification. The trial
be included or excluded from the list of voters in the precinct court has no power to order the change or transfer of
within its territorial jurisdicton, does not preclude the registration from one place of residence to another for it is the
COMELEC, in the determination of DOMINO's qualification as a function of the election Registration Board as provided under
candidate, to pass upon the issue of compliance with the Section 12 of R.A. No. 8189. 17 The only effect of the decision of
residency requirement. the lower court excluding the challenged voter from the list of
voters, is for the Election Registration Board, upon receipt of
The proceedings for the exclusion or inclusion of voters in the the final decision, to remove the voter's registration record
list of voters are summary in character. Thus, the factual from the corresponding book of voters, enter the order of
findings of the trial court and its resultant conclusions in the exclusion therein, and thereafter place the record in the
exclusion proceedings on matters other than the right to vote inactive file.18
in the precinct within its territorial jurisdiction are not
conclusive upon the COMELEC. Although the court in inclusion Finally, the application of the rule on res judicata is unavailing.
or exclusion proceedings may pass upon any question Identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action are
necessary to decide the issue raised including the questions of indispensable requirements for the application of said doctrine.
citizenship and residence of the challenged voter, the authority Neither herein Private Respondents nor INTERVENOR, is a party
to order the inclusion in or exclusion from the list of voters in the exclusion proceedings. The Petition for Exclusion was
necessarily caries with it the power to inquire into and settle all filed by DOMINDO himself and his wife, praying that he and his
matters essential to the exercise of said authority. However, wife be excluded from the Voter's List on the ground of
except for the right to remain in the list of voters or for being erroneous registration while the Petition to Deny Due Course to
excluded therefrom for the particular election in relation to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy was filed by private
which the proceedings had been held, a decision in an respondents against DOMINO for alleged false representation
exclusion or inclusion proceeding, even if final and in his certificate of candidacy. For the decision to be a basis for
unappealable, does not acquire the nature of res judicata.13 In the dismissal by reason of res judicata, it is essential that there
this sense, it does not operate as a bar to any future action that must be between the first and the second action identity of
a party may take concerning the subject passed upon in the parties, identity of subject matter and identity of causes of
proceeding.14Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding would action.19 In the present case, the aforesaid essential requisites
neither be conclusive on the voter's political status, nor bar are not present. In the case of Nuval v. Guray,  et al., 20 the
subsequent proceedings on his right to be registered as a voter Supreme Court in resolving a similar issue ruled that:
in any other election.15
The question to be solved under the first assignment of error is
Thus, in Tan Cohon v.  Election Registrar16 we ruled that: whether or not the judgment rendered in the case of the
petition for the exclusion of Norberto Guray's name from the
. . . It is made clear that even as it is here held that the order of election list of Luna, is res judicata, so as to prevent the
the City Court in question has become final, the same does not institution and prosecution of an action in quo warranto, which
constitute res adjudicata as to any of the matters therein is now before us.
contained. It is ridiculous to suppose that such an important
and intricate matter of citizenship may be passed upon and The procedure prescribed by section 437 of the Administrative
determined with finality in such a summary and peremptory Code, as amended by Act No. 3387, is of a summary character
proceeding as that of inclusion and exclusion of persons in the and the judgment rendered therein is not appealable except
registry list of voters. Even if the City Court had granted when the petition is tried before the justice of the peace of the
appellant's petition for inclusion in the permanent list of voters capital or the circuit judge, in which case it may be appealed to
on the allegation that she is a Filipino citizen qualified to vote, the judge of first instance, with whom said two lower judges
her alleged Filipino citizenship would still have been left open have concurrent jurisdiction.
to question.
The petition for exclusion was presented by Gregorio Nuval in
Moreover, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City in its 18 his dual capacity as qualified voter of the municipality of Luna,
January decision exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared and as a duly registered candidate for the office of president of
DOMINO a resident of the Province of Sarangani, approved and said municipality, against Norberto Guray as a registered voter
ordered the transfer of his voter's registration from Precinct in the election list of said municipality. The present proceeding
No. 4400-A of Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City to precinct of quo warranto was interposed by Gregorio Nuval in his
capacity as a registered candidate voted for the office of Records show that petitioner's domicile of origin was Candon,
municipal president of Luna, against Norberto Guray, as an Ilocos
elected candidate for the same office. Therefore, there is no Sur 24 and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile
identity of parties in the two cases, since it is not enough that of choice at 24 Bonifacio St. Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon
there be an identity of persons, but there must be an identity City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy for the position of
of capacities in which said persons litigate. (Art. 1259 of the representative of the 3rd District of Quezon City in the May
Civil Code; Bowler vs. Estate of Alvarez, 23 Phil., 561; 34 Corpus 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he had effectively
Juris, p. 756, par. 1165) abandoned his "residence" in Quezon City and has established
a new "domicile" of choice at the Province of Sarangani.
In said case of the petition for the exclusion, the object of the
litigation, or the litigious matter was the exclusion of Norberto A person's "domicile" once established is considered to
Guray as a voter from the election list of the municipality of continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is
Luna, while in the present que warranto proceeding, the object established. 25 To successfully effect a change of domicile one
of the litigation, or the litigious matter is his exclusion or must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of
expulsion from the office to which he has been elected. Neither domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place
does there exist, then, any identity in the object of the of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which
litigation, or the litigious matter. correspond with the
purpose. 26 In other words, there must basically
In said case of the petition for exclusion, the cause of action be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The
was that Norberto Guray had not the six months' legal purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for
residence in the municipality of Luna to be a qualified voter an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be
thereof, while in the present proceeding of quo warranto, the voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new
cause of action is that Norberto Guray has not the one year's domicile must be actual.27
legal residence required for eligibility to the office of municipal
president of Luna. Neither does there exist therefore, identity It is the contention of petitioner that his actual physical
of causes of action. presence in Alabel, Sarangani since December 1996 was
sufficiently established by the lease of a house and lot located
In order that res judicata may exist the following are necessary: therein in January 1997 and by the affidavits and certifications
(a) identity of parties; (b) identity of things; and (c) identity of under oath of the residents of that place that they have seen
issues (Aquino v. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 850). And as in the petitioner and his family residing in their locality.
case of the petition for excluision and in the
present quo warranto proceeding, as there is no identity of While this may be so, actual and physical is not in itself
parties, or of things or litigious matter, or of issues or causes of sufficient to show that from said date he had transferred his
action, there is no res judicata. residence in that place. To establish a new domicile of choice,
personal presence in the place must be coupled with conduct
The Second Issue. indicative of that intention. While "residence" simply requires
bodily presence in a given place, "domicile" requires not only
Was DOMINO a resident of the Province of Sarangani for at such bodily presence in that place but also a declared and
least one year immediately preceding the 11 May 1998 election probable intent to make it one's fixed and permanent place of
as stated in his certificate of candidacy? abode, one's home.28

We hold in the negative. 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
It is doctrinally settled that the term "residence," as used in the
change of domicile will result if either of these elements is
law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective
absent. Intention to acquire a domicile without actual
office, means the same thing as "domicile," which imports not
residence in the locality does not result in acquisition of
only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
domicile, nor does the fact of physical presence without
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention.29
intention.21 "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to
which, whenever absent for business, pleasure, or some other
reasons, one intends to return.22 "Domicile" is a question of The lease contract entered into sometime in January 1997,
intention and circumstances. In the consideration of does not adequately support a change of domicile. The lease
circumstances, three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) contract may be indicative of DOMINO's intention to reside in
that a man must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) Sarangani but it does not engender the kind of permanency
when once established it remains until a new one is acquired; required to prove abandonment of one's original domicile. The
and (3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at a mere absence of individual from his permanent residence, no
time.23 matter how long, without the intention to abandon it does not
result in loss or change of
domicile. 30 Thus the date of the contract of lease of a house and qualifications of members of Congress as provided under
and lot located in the province of Sarangani, i.e., 15 January Section 17 of Article VI of the Constitution begins only after a
1997, cannot be used, in the absence of other circumstances, candidate has become a member of the House of
as the reckoning period of the one-year residence requirement. Representatives. 40

Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his residence in The fact of obtaining the highest number of votes in an election
Quezon City is further strengthened by his act of registering as does not automatically vest the position in the winning
voter in one of the precincts in Quezon City. While voting is not candidate.41 A candidate must be proclaimed and must have
conclusive of residence, it does give rise to a strong taken his oath of office before he can be considered a member
presumption of residence especially in this case where of the House of Representatives.
DOMINO registered in his former barangay. Exercising the right
of election franchise is a deliberate public assertion of the fact In the instant case, DOMINO was not proclaimed as
of residence, and is said to have decided preponderance in a Congressman-elect of the Lone Congressional District of the
doubtful case upon the place the elector claims as, or believes Province of Sarangani by reason of a Supplemental Omnibus
to be, his residence.31The fact that a party continously voted in Resolution issued by the COMELEC on the day of the election
a particular locality is a strong factor in assisting to determine ordering the suspension of DOMINO's proclamation should he
the status of his domicile.32 obtain the winning number of votes. This resolution was issued
by the COMELEC in view of the non-finality of its 6 May 1998
His claim that his registration in Quezon City was erroneous resolution disqualifying DOMINO as candidate for the position.
and was caused by events over which he had no control cannot
be sustained. The general registration of voters for purposes of Cosidering that DOMINO has not been proclaimed as
the May 1998 elections was scheduled for two (2) consecutive Congressman-elect in the Lone Congressional District of the
weekends, viz.: June 14, 15, 21, and 22.33 Province of Sarangani he cannot be deemed a member of the
House of Representatives. Hence, it is the COMELEC and not
While, Domino's intention to establish residence in Sarangani the Electoral Tribunal which has jurisdiction over the issue of
can be gleaned from the fact that be bought the house he was his ineligibility as a candidate.42
renting on November 4, 1997, that he sought cancellation of his
previous registration in Qezon City on 22 October 1997, 34 and Issue raised by INTERVENOR.
that he applied for transfer of registration from Quezon City to
Sarangani by reason of change of residence on 30 August After finding that DOMINO is disqualified as candidate for the
1997,35 DOMINO still falls short of the one year residency position of representative of the province of Sarangani, may
requirement under the Constitution. INTERVENOR, as the candidate who received the next highest
number of votes, be proclaimed as the winning candidate?
In showing compliance with the residency requirement, both
intent and actual presence in the district one intends to It is now settled doctrine that the candidate who obtains the
represent must satisfy the length of time prescribed by the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner
fundamental law.36 Domino's failure to do so rendered him in case the winning candidate is disqualified. 43 In every election,
ineligible and his election to office null and void.37 the people's choice is the paramount consideration and their
expressed will must, at all times, be given effect. When the
The Third Issue. majority speaks and elects into office a candidate by giving the
highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, no
DOMINO's contention that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction in one can be declared elected in his place. 44
the present petition is bereft of merit.
It would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the
As previously mentioned, the COMELEC, under Sec. 78, Art. IX constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who
of the Omnibus Election Code, has jurisdiction over a petition has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed
to deny due course to or cancel certificate of candidacy. Such a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency,
jurisdiction continues even after election, if for any reason no the majority of which have positively declared through their
final judgment of disqualification is rendered before the ballots that they do not choose him.45 To simplistically assume
election, and the candidate facing disqualification is voted for that the second placer would have received the other votes
and receives the highest number of votes 38 and provided would be to substitute our judgment for the mind of the voters.
further that the winning candidate has not been proclaimed or He could not be considered the first among qualified
has taken his oath of office.39 candidates because in a field which excludes the qualified
candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed. 46
It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases, that the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's sole and exclusive Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by
jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns those who have received the highest number of votes cast in
the election for that office, and it is fundamental idea in all Panganiban J., In the result; please see separate opinion.
republican forms of government that no one can be declared
elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it Quisumbing, J., In the result, only insofar or Petitioner Domino
receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the is adjudged disqualified.
election.47
Purisima and Pardo JJ., took no part.
The effect of a decision declaring a person ineligible to hold an
office is only that the election fails entirely, that the wreath of Separate Opinions
victory cannot be transferred48 from the disqualified winner to
the repudiated loser because the law then as now only
PANGANIBAN, J.,  separate opinion;
authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who
has obtained a plurality of votes 49 and does not entitle the
I concur "in the result": the petitioner failed to fulfill the one-
candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be
year residence requirement in order to qualify as a candidate
declared elected. In such case, the electors have failed to make
for congressman of the lone district of Sarangani. With all due
a choice and the election is a nullity. 50 To allow the defeated
respect, I disagree however with the majority view that
and repudiated candidate to take over the elective position
residence as a qualification for candidacy for an elective public
despite his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the
office imports the same meaning as domicile.
electorate without any fault on their part and to undermine the
importance and meaning of democracy and the people's right
to elect officials of their choice.51 That a member of the House of Representative must be a
resident of the district which he or she seeks to represent "for a
period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day
INTERVENOR's plea that the votes cast in favor of DOMINO be
of the election" 1 is a constitutional requirement that should be
considered stray votes cannot be sustained. INTERVENOR's
interpreted in the sense in which ordinary lay persons
reliance on the opinion made in the Labo, Jr. case 52 to wit: if the
understand it. The common people who ratified the
electorate, fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate's
Constitution and were thereafter expected to abide by it would
disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm
normally refer to the journals of the Constitutional Commission
of notoriety, would nevertheless cast their votes in favor of the
in order to understand the words and phrases contained
ineligible candidate, the electorate may be said to have waived
therein. Rather, they would usually refer to the common source
the validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously
being used when they look up for the meaning of words — the
misapplying their franchise or throwing away their votes, in
dictionary.2In this sense, Webster's definition of
which case, the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher
residence3 should be controlling.
number of votes may be deemed elected, is misplaced.

When the Constitution speaks of residence, the word should be

Contrary to the claim of INTERVENOR, petitioner was not
understood, consistent with Webster, to mean actual, physical
notoriously known by the public as an ineligible candidate.
and personal presence in the district that a candidate seeks to
Although the resolution declaring him ineligible as candidate
represent. In other words, the candidate's presence should be
was rendered before the election, however, the same is not yet
substantial enough to show by overts acts his intention to fulfill
final and executory. In fact, it was no less than the COMELEC in
the duties of the position he seeks.
its Supplemental Omnibus Resolution No. 3046 that allowed
DOMINO to be voted for the office and ordered that the votes
cast for him be counted as the Resolution declaring him If the framers of our basic law intended our people to
ineligible has not yet attained finality. Thus the votes cast for understand residence as legal domicile, they should have said
DOMINO are presumed to have been cast in the sincere belief so. Then our people would have looked up the meaning of
that he was a qualified candidate, without any intention to domicile and would have understood the constitutional
misapply their franchise. Thus, said votes can not be treated as provision in that context. However, the framers of our
stray, void, or meaningless.53 Constitution did not. I therefore submit that residence must be
understood in its common dictionary meaning as understood
by ordinary lay persons.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The resolution
dated 6 May 1998 of the COMELEC 2nd Division and the
decision dated 29 May 1998 of the COMELEC En Banc, are At any rate, the original concept of domicile, which arose from
hereby AFFIRMED.1âwphi1.nêt American jurisprudence, was not intended to govern political
rights. Rather, it was designed to resolve the conflict of laws
between or among states where a decedent may have lived for
SO ORDERED.
various reasons, for the purpose of determining which law was
applicable as regards his estate. Allow me to quote this short
Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
disquisition:4
Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and Santiago, JJ., concur.
. . . This question first came before the courts at an early day, ascertaining its import, lawyers are not meant to quibble over
long before our present easy and extensive means of it, to define its legal niceties, or to articulate its nuances. Its
transportation, and at a time before the present ready contents and words should be interpreted in the sense
movement from one country to another. At that time, men left understood by the ordinary men and women who place their
for Europe for the Western Continent or elsewhere largely for lives on the line in its defense and who pin their hopes for a
purposes of adventure or in search of an opportunity for the better life on its fulfillment.
promotion of commerce. It was at the time before the
invention of the steamboat and before the era of the oceanic The call for simplicity in understanding and interpreting our
cable. Men left their native land knowing that they would be Constitution has been made a number of times. About three
gone for long periods of time, and that means of decades ago, this Court declared: 5
communication with their home land were infrequent, difficult,
and slow. The traditions of their native country were strong It is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional
with these men. In the event of death, while absent, they provisions are couched express the objective sought to be
desired that their property should descend in accordance with attained. They are to be given their ordinary meaning except
the laws of the land of their birth. Many such men where where technical terms are employed in which case the
adventurers who had the purpose and intent to eventually significance thus attached to them prevails. As the Constitution
return to the land of their nativity. There was a large degree of is not primarily a lawyer's document, it being essential for the
sentiment connected with the first announcement of the rules rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the
of law in the matter of the estates of such men. . . . people's consciousness, its language as much as possible should
be understood in the sense they have in common use. What it
xxx xxx xxx says according to the text of the provision to be construed
compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to
These reasons, which were, to an extent at least, historical and alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people
patriotic, found early expression in the decisions of the courts mean what they say. Thus there are cases where the need for
on the question of domicile. . . . construction is reduced to a minimum.

Subsequently, domicile was used in other "conflicts cases Having said this, I still believe that Petitioner Juan Domino
involving taxation, divorce and other civil matters. To use it to failed to adduce sufficient convincing evidence to prove his
determine qualifications for political office is to enlarge its actual, physical and personal presence in the district of
meaning beyond what was intended, resulting in strained and Sarangani for at least one year prior to the 1998 elections.
contortive interpretations of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petition at bar.
Specifically, I submit that applying the concept of domicile in
determining residence as a qualification for an elective office Separate Opinions
would negate the objective behind the residence requirement
of one year (or six months, in the case of local positions). This PANGANIBAN, J.,  separate opinion;
required period of residence preceding the day of the election,
I believe, is rooted in the desire that officials of districts or
I concur "in the result": the petitioner failed to fulfill the one-
localities be acquainted not only with the metes and bounds of
year residence requirement in order to qualify as a candidate
their constituencies but, more important, with the constituents
for congressman of the lone district of Sarangani. With all due
themselves — their needs, difficulties, potentials for growth
respect, I disagree however with the majority view that
and development and all matters vital to their common
residence as a qualification for candidacy for an elective public
welfare. Such requisite period would precisely give candidates
office imports the same meaning as domicile.
the opportunity to be familiar with their desired constituencies,
and likewise for the electorate to evaluate their fitness for the
That a member of the House of Representative must be a
offices they seek.
resident of the district which he or she seeks to represent "for a
period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day
If all that is required of elective officials is legal domicile, then
of the election" 1 is a constitutional requirement that should be
they would qualify even if, for several years prior to the
interpreted in the sense in which ordinary lay persons
election, they have never set foot in their districts (or in the
understand it. The common people who ratified the
country, for that matter), since it is possible to maintain legal
Constitution and were thereafter expected to abide by it would
domicile even without actual presence, provided one retains
normally refer to the journals of the Constitutional Commission
the animus revertendi or the intention to return.
in order to understand the words and phrases contained
therein. Rather, they would usually refer to the common source
The Constitution is the most basic law of the land. It enshrines being used when they look up for the meaning of words — the
the most cherished aspirations and ideals of the population at dictionary.2In this sense, Webster's definition of
large. It is not a document reserved only for sholarly residence3 should be controlling.
disquisition by the most eminent legal minds of the land. In
When the Constitution speaks of residence, the word should be Specifically, I submit that applying the concept of domicile in
understood, consistent with Webster, to mean actual, physical determining residence as a qualification for an elective office
and personal presence in the district that a candidate seeks to would negate the objective behind the residence requirement
represent. In other words, the candidate's presence should be of one year (or six months, in the case of local positions). This
substantial enough to show by overts acts his intention to fulfill required period of residence preceding the day of the election,
the duties of the position he seeks. I believe, is rooted in the desire that officials of districts or
localities be acquainted not only with the metes and bounds of
If the framers of our basic law intended our people to their constituencies but, more important, with the constituents
understand residence as legal domicile, they should have said themselves — their needs, difficulties, potentials for growth
so. Then our people would have looked up the meaning of and development and all matters vital to their common
domicile and would have understood the constitutional welfare. Such requisite period would precisely give candidates
provision in that context. However, the framers of our the opportunity to be familiar with their desired constituencies,
Constitution did not. I therefore submit that residence must be and likewise for the electorate to evaluate their fitness for the
understood in its common dictionary meaning as understood offices they seek.
by ordinary lay persons.
If all that is required of elective officials is legal domicile, then
At any rate, the original concept of domicile, which arose from they would qualify even if, for several years prior to the
American jurisprudence, was not intended to govern political election, they have never set foot in their districts (or in the
rights. Rather, it was designed to resolve the conflict of laws country, for that matter), since it is possible to maintain legal
between or among states where a decedent may have lived for domicile even without actual presence, provided one retains
various reasons, for the purpose of determining which law was the animus revertendi or the intention to return.
applicable as regards his estate. Allow me to quote this short
disquisition:4 The Constitution is the most basic law of the land. It enshrines
the most cherished aspirations and ideals of the population at
. . . This question first came before the courts at an early day, large. It is not a document reserved only for sholarly
long before our present easy and extensive means of disquisition by the most eminent legal minds of the land. In
transportation, and at a time before the present ready ascertaining its import, lawyers are not meant to quibble over
movement from one country to another. At that time, men left it, to define its legal niceties, or to articulate its nuances. Its
for Europe for the Western Continent or elsewhere largely for contents and words should be interpreted in the sense
purposes of adventure or in search of an opportunity for the understood by the ordinary men and women who place their
promotion of commerce. It was at the time before the lives on the line in its defense and who pin their hopes for a
invention of the steamboat and before the era of the oceanic better life on its fulfillment.
cable. Men left their native land knowing that they would be
gone for long periods of time, and that means of The call for simplicity in understanding and interpreting our
communication with their home land were infrequent, difficult, Constitution has been made a number of times. About three
and slow. The traditions of their native country were strong decades ago, this Court declared: 5
with these men. In the event of death, while absent, they
desired that their property should descend in accordance with It is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional
the laws of the land of their birth. Many such men where provisions are couched express the objective sought to be
adventurers who had the purpose and intent to eventually attained. They are to be given their ordinary meaning except
return to the land of their nativity. There was a large degree of where technical terms are employed in which case the
sentiment connected with the first announcement of the rules significance thus attached to them prevails. As the Constitution
of law in the matter of the estates of such men. . . . is not primarily a lawyer's document, it being essential for the
rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the
xxx xxx xxx people's consciousness, its language as much as possible should
be understood in the sense they have in common use. What it
These reasons, which were, to an extent at least, historical and says according to the text of the provision to be construed
patriotic, found early expression in the decisions of the courts compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to
on the question of domicile. . . . alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people
mean what they say. Thus there are cases where the need for
Subsequently, domicile was used in other "conflicts cases construction is reduced to a minimum.
involving taxation, divorce and other civil matters. To use it to
determine qualifications for political office is to enlarge its Having said this, I still believe that Petitioner Juan Domino
meaning beyond what was intended, resulting in strained and failed to adduce sufficient convincing evidence to prove his
contortive interpretations of the Constitution. actual, physical and personal presence in the district of
Sarangani for at least one year prior to the 1998 elections.

WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petition at bar.