NORLANIE MITMUG LIMBONA V.

COMMISSION OF ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 186006, October 16, 2009

FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent are mayoralty candidates. After filing their Certificate of Candidacy, Respondent filed a petition to
disqualify the petitioner for non-compliance with the one-year residence requirement. Petitioner withdraw her candidacy and
her husband was disqualified. Petitioner then filed a new COC as a substitute for her husband which was approved by
COMELEC. Respondent yet again sought for Petitioners disqualification. Petitioner claimed that she has been staying, sleeping,
and doing business in her house for more than 20 months.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner satisfied the residency requirement.

HELD:
No. Petitioner failed to satisfy the one-year residency requirement. In order to acquire a domicile by choice, there must be
residence or bodily presence in the new locality, an intention to remain there, and an intention to abandon the old domicile. A
person’s domicile once established is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is established.
The manifest of intent of the law in fixing a residence qualification is to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted with the
conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter from assuming an elective office to serve that
community.
Petitioner’s claim that she has been physically present and actually residing in Pantar for almost 20 months prior to the election
is self-serving and unsubstantiated. The Court finds no other act that would indicate petitioner’s intention to stay in Pantar for
an indefinite period of time. The filing of COC in Pantar is not sufficient to hold that she has chosen Pantar as her new
residence. She is not even a registered voter in the said municipality warranting her disqualification as a candidate.