Subject: Constitutional law

Topic: The House of Representatives: Qualifications

Tobias VS. Abalos
G.R. No. L-114783
December 8, 1994

Facts:
 Gallego is a native of Abuyog, Leyte. After studying in Catarman, Samar, he was employed as school teacher
in the same municipality as well as in the municipalities of Burawen, Dulag, and Abuyog, province of Leyte. In
1937, he ran as Mayor in Abuyog but lost.

 On June 1938, he worked in Malaybalay, Bukidnon in a plantation to make up for the financial drawback
caused by his loss. On July 30 of the same year, he returned to Abuyog because of an offer to teach in Sogod,
Leyte. He did not accept it and returned to Bukidnon on August 23 of the same year and resumed his
employment there until his resignation in September 1940.

 During his stay in Bukidnon, his wife and children remained in Abuyog, and visited them in the month of
August of the years 1938 and 1940.

 Nevertheless, on October 1, 1938, he registered himself as elector in Bukidnon and voted in the election for
assemblymen in December 1938. On January 1940, he obtained his residence certificate from the
Municipality of Malaybalay, in which certificate it was stated the he had resided in the said municipality for
one year and a half.

 Based upon the foregoing facts, CA declared that Gallego lost his domicile in Abuyog at the time he was
elected mayor and that therefore, his election was void.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Gallego had been resident of Abuyog for at least one year prior to December 10, 1940
(This issue may be approached from either of two angles:

(1) Did he lose his domicile in Abuyog by the mere fact that he worked in Malaybalay, registered himself as
a voter and secured his residence his certificate
there and

(2) Assuming that he did, had he reacquired his domicile of origin at least one year prior to his election
as mayor of Abuyog on December 10, 1940?)

RULING:
 YES. The term residence as used in the election law is synonymous with domicile which imports not only intention
to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place. In order to acquire a domicile by choice, there
must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) intention to remain there and (3) an intention
to abandon the old domicile. In other words, there must be an animus non reventendi and animus manendi. The
purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time. The acts of the person
must conform with his purpose. The change of residence must be voluntary; the residence at the place chosen for
the domicile must be actual and to the fact of residence there must be added the animus manendi.

 In the light of these principles, the petitioner did not lose his residence or domicile in Abuyog. He did not reside in
Malaybalay with the intention of remaining there indefinitely and of not returning Abuyog. He is a native of
Abuyog and despite his periodic absences from there prior to 1937, when he was employed as teacher in different
municipalities of Leyte, he always returned there. In the year 1937, he resigned as a school teacher and run for
mayor of said municipality. His departure therefrom after losing the election was temporary and only for purpose
of looking for employment to make up the financial drawback he had suffered as a result of his defeat. During the
short period of about two years he stayed in Malaybalay, he visited his home and his family no less than three
times despite the great distance between the two places.

 Applying the foregoing facts, we find sufficient ground for the revocation of the judgement appealed from.
Petitioner also contends that even assuming that he had lost his residence or domicile in Abuyog, he
 reacquired it more than one year prior to December 10, 1940. But such contention is deemed not necessary, in
view of the conclusion that the petitioner did not lose his domicile of origin.

 Wherefore, the judgement of the court of appeals is reversed, with costs of this instance against the
respondent. So ordered.