28. ROMMEL JALOSJOS vs COMELEC and DAN ERASMO SR.

GR. No. 191970, April 24, 2012

FACTS:

Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City in 1973. He migrated to Australia when he was 8 years old and there acquired
Australian citizenship. In 2008, at the age of 35, he decided to return to the Philippines and lived with his brother in Barangay
Veterans Village, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. He took an oath of allegiance resulting in his being an issued a Certificate of
Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship. In 2009, he renounced a his Australian citizenship.

Jalosjos then acquired a residential property in the same village and a fishpond in Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay. He applied for
registration as a voter in the Municipality of Ipil. Dan Erasmo, the barangay captain of Barangay Veterans Village opposed the
same and filed a petition for the exclusion of Jalosjos name from the voters list. The petition was denied by the MTC and this
was affirmed by the RTC, and the decision became final and executory.

In 2009, Jalosjos filed a Certificate of Candidacy for Governor. Erasmo filed a petition to deny or cancel the COC, alleging that
Jalosjos failed to comply with the requirements of RA 9225 and the one year residency requirement.

The COMELEC Division ruled that while Jalosjos had regained Philippine citizenship, he failed to comply wih the one-year
residency requirement. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed, ruling that Jalosjos had been a mere guest in his brothers house and
the same cannot be his domicile.

ISSUE:

W/N Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish Ipil as his domicile

HELD/RATIO:

NO. For purposes of the election laws, the requirement of residence in the Local Government Code is synonymous with
domicile. There is no hard and fast rule on compliance with residency since the question of residence is a question of intention.
However, jurisprudence has laid down the following guidelines: (a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere; (b)
the domicile established remains as such until he acquires a new one; and (c) a person can have but one domicile at a time.

It is clear from the facts that Quezon City was Jalosjos domicile of origin, the place of his birth. He effectively changed his
domicile from Quezon City to Australia when he migrated there, acquired Australian citizenship and lived there for 26 years.

When he came to the Philippines in 2008, it is evident that he did so with intent to change his domicile for good. He left
Australia and renounced his citizenship and allegiance to that country. He reacquired his old citizenship, and has lived nowhere
else except Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

To hold that he has not established domicile in Ipil despite the loss of his domicile of origin (QC) and his domicile of choice
(Australia) would violate the maxim that a man must have a domicile or residence somewhere.

A candidate is not required to have a house in a community to establish his residence or domicile in a particular place. It is
sufficient that he should live there even in a rented house or in the house of a friend or a relative. To insist otherwise would
make property a qualification for public office.

Furthermore, Jalosjos won and was proclaimed winner in the 2010 gubernatorial race for Zamboanga Sibugay. The Court will
respect the decision of the people of that province and will resolve doubts regarding his qualifications in his favor.