Article 6, Section 6

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC and Montejo

G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995

Kapunan, J.:

Point of the case:

There is a difference between domicile and residence. "Residence" is used to indicate a place of abode,
whether permanent or temporary; "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent,
one has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another.
Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited
time. A man can have but one domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous
places of residence. His place of residence is generally his place of domicile, but it is not by any means
necessarily so since no length of residence without intention of remaining will constitute domicile.

Facts:

Montejo filed a petition for cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC alleging that Imelda-
Romualdez Marcos did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. March 29, 1995, Marcos
filed a corrected certificate of candidacy changing the entry “seven” months to “since childhood”. The
COMELEC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration declaring her not qualified to run for the position
of the member of the House of Representatives for the First District of Leyte. In a supplemental petition,
Marcos averred that she was the overwhelming winner of the election.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte for a period of
one year at the time of the May 9, 1995 elections?

Ruling:

Residence is synonymous with domicile which reveals a tendency or mistake the concept of domicile for
actual residence, a conception not intended for the purpose of determining a candidate’s qualifications for
the election to the House of Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution. An individual does not
lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residences in different places. In the case at bench,
the evidence adduced by Motejo lacks the degree of persuasiveness as required to convince the court
that an abandonment of domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed incurred. It cannot be
correctly argued that Marcos lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to
the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Having determined that Marcos possess the necessary
residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the
COMELEC’s questioned resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May11, and May 25 are set aside. Provincial
Board of Canvassers is directed to proclaim Marcos as the duly elected Representative of the First
District of Leyte.