PART III

CONFLICTS OF LAW: Choice of Law

I. PERSONAL LAW, CITIZENSHIP, DOMICILE

A. Personal Law - law that applies to a particular person or class of persons
only wherever situated — distinguished from territorial law.

1. Personal Status
Birth, marriage death, legal separation, annulment of marriage, judgment
declaring the nullity of marriage, legitimation, adoption, acknowledgment of
natural children, naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship, civil
interdiction, judicial determination of filiation, voluntary emancipation of a
minor and change of name.

2. Capacity

Article 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is
inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is
the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost. (n)

Article 38. Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and
civil interdiction are mere restrictions on capacity to act, and do not exempt the
incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or
from property relations, such as easements. (32a)

Article 39. The following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity to act:
age, insanity, imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty, prodigality, family
relations, alienage, absence, insolvency and trusteeship. The consequences of these
circumstances are governed in this Code, other codes, the Rules of Court, and in special
laws. Capacity to act is not limited on account of religious belief or political opinion.

A married woman, twenty-one years of age or over, is qualified for all acts of civil life,
except in cases specified by law.

Government of the Philippine Islands v. Frank, G.R. No. L-2935, 23 March 1909

It is not disputed—upon the contrary the fact is admitted—that

at the time and place of the making of the contract in question
the defendant had full capacity to make the same. No rule is
better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the
execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are
 determined by the law of the place where the contract is made.
Matters connected with its performance are regulated by the
law prevailing at the place of performance. Matters respecting
a remedy, such as the bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence,
and statutes of limitations, depend upon the law of the place
where the suit is brought.

3. Theories on Personal Law

a. Nationality/Citizenship Theory - refers to a jurisdictional
principle that citizens are subject to the laws of their country, no matter where
the citizens are. This theory permits a country to apply its statutes to
extraterritorial acts of its own nationals.

Recto vs. Harden, 100 Phil. 427 (1956)

Contract of services is not contrary to law, morals, good customs,

public order, or public policy.

1. the contract has a lawful object: it is to protect the interests of

Mrs. harden in the conjugal partnership during the pendency of a
divorce suit
-not
…to secure divorce
…to facilitate or promote procurement of divorce
2. divorce can be granted to the Sps harden, they being nationals of
country whose laws allow divorce (following the nationality
principle in determining the status and dissolution of the
marriage).

b. Domiciliary Theory - is the view that the status, condition,

capacity, rights and obligations of a person shall be governed by the law of
his domicile.

4. Beginning and End of Personality

Geluz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-16439, 20 July 1961

In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the

unborn child, the same was extinguished by its pre-natal death,
since no transmission to anyone can take place from one that
lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity, as
distinguished from capacity to act). It is no answer to invoke
the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro
nato habetur) under Article 40 of the Civil Code, because that
 same article expressly limits such provisional personality by
imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently
born alive: “provided it be born later with the condition specified
in the following article”. In the present case, there is no dispute
that the child was dead when separated from its mother’s
womb.

NCC

Article 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born
for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions
specified in the following article. (29a)

Article 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is
completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the foetus had an intra-uterine
life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours
after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.

5. Absence
Art. 390, CC After the absence of 7 years, it being unknown whether or not
the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for
those of succession.
The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his
succession till after the absence of 10 years. If he disappeared after the age
of 75 years, an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient in order that his
succession may be opened.
6. Name - A person‘s name is determined by law and cannot be
changed without judicial intervention.

Art. 376, CC shows that courts have allowed petitions on grounds

that the name
1. is ridiculous or tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to
pronounce
2. when the change is necessary to avoid confusion
3. when the right to a new name is a consequence of change in
status
4. a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a
former alien nationality which unduly hamper social and business life.

7. Age of Majority - Section 1. Article 234 of Executive Order No. 209,

the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows:
 "Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority.
Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of eighteen
years." By virtue of Republic Act No. 6809, December 13, 1989, an act
lowering the age of majority from twenty-one to eighteen years,
amending for the purpose executive order numbered two hundred nine,
and for other purposes.

B. Citizenship

ARTICLE IV
CITIZENSHIP

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in the accordance with law.

Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

1. Definition – is a person’s membership in a particular state. It

brings with it duties of loyalty and allegiance.

2. Importance of Citizenship – it is a source of rights and benefits only

available to the citizens of a country.
3. Citizenship under the 1987 Constitution
a. Natural-Born Citizens - Section 2. Natural-born citizens are
those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any
act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens.

Jus Sanguinis vs. Jus Soli

Jus Sanguinis - (right of blood) which is the legal

principle that, at birth, an individual acquires the nationality
of his/her natural parent/s.
Jus Soli - is a rule that the citizenship of a child is
determined by the place of its birth.

Talaroc v. Uy, G.R. No. L-5397, 26 September 1952

The Roa decision, promulgated on October 30, 1912 (23 Phil,

315) set a precedent that was uniformly followed in numerous
cases. This long line of decisions applied the principle of jus
soli up to September 16, 1947, when that principle was
renounced in the cases of Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor (79
Phil, 249) and Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration
(80 Phil., 541.)

In abrogating the doctrine laid down in the Roa case and

making jus sanguinis the predominating principle in the
determination of Philippine citizenship, the Constitution did not
intend to exclude those who were citizens of the Philippines by
judicial declaration at the time of its adoption. If on the strength
of the Roa decision a person was considered a full-pledged
Philippine citizen (Art. IV, sec. 1 No. 1) on the date of the
adoption of the Constitution when jus soli had been the
prevailing doctrine, he cannot be divested of his Filipino
citizenship.

Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, G.R. Nos. 92191-92,

30 July 1991

The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in

election exercises constitute a positive act of election of
Philippine citizenship.

Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004

 The concept of citizenship had undergone changes over the
centuries. In the 18th century, the concept was limited, by and
large, to civil citizenship, which established the rights necessary
for individual freedom, such as rights to property, personal
liberty and justice. Its meaning expanded during the 19th
century to include political citizenship, which encompassed the
right to participate in the exercise of political power. The 20th
century saw the next stage of the development of social
citizenship, which laid emphasis on the right of the citizen to
economic well-being and social security. The idea of citizenship
has gained expression in the modern welfare state as it so
developed in Western Europe. An ongoing and final stage of
development, in keeping with the rapidly shrinking global
village, might well be the internationalization of citizenship.

b. Naturalized Citizens - Filipino by naturalization which is the

judicial act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a
native-born citizen. It implies the renunciation of a former nationality and the
fact of entrance into a similar relation towards a new body politic.

Procedure for Naturalization

1. Administrative naturalization.
RA 9139, The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000. SEC.
2. Declaration of Policy. — The State shall control and regulate the
admission and integration of aliens into its territory and body politic including
the grant of citizenship to aliens. Towards this end, aliens born and residing
in the Philippines may be granted Philippine citizenship by administrative
proceedings subject to certain requirements dictated by national security and
interest.
2. Judicial naturalization – Commonwealth act 473.

Section 2. Qualifications. – Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following
qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:

First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the
petition;

Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten
years;
 Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living.

Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos,
Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful
occupation;

Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal
Philippine languages; and

Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or
private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education 1 of the Philippines, where the
Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school
curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to
the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen.

Section 3. Special qualifications. The ten years of continuous residence required under the second
condition of the last preceding section shall be understood as reduced to five years for any petitioner
having any of the following qualifications:

1. Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that of any of
the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof;
2. Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;
3. Being married to a Filipino woman;
4. Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized private school
not established for the exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality or
race, in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than two years;
5. Having been born in the Philippines.

Section 4. Who are disqualified. - The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:

a. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of

persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
b. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or
assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas;
c. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
d. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
e. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
f. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially
with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
g. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States 2and the Philippines are at war,
during the period of such war;
h. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States 3whose laws do not grant
Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

3. Legislative naturalization - the pathway to Filipino citizenship is commenced

by filing a bill by any member of the House of the Representatives or the
Senate of the Philippines.
 Yu Kian Chie v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-20169, 26 February
1965

In considering whether an applicant for naturalization has a

lucrative income, allowances and bonuses which may or may
not be given to him as where they spring from purely voluntary
actuations of his employer conditioned to the circumstance that
the employer was making profits, should not be added to his
basic salary.

Vivo v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-25441, 26 October 1968

As to the wife, Chua Pic Luan, she does not, under Section 15 of the Revised
Naturalization Law, automatically become a Filipino citizen on account of her
marriage to a naturalized Filipino citizen, since she must first prove that she
possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for
naturalization.3

By having misrepresented before Philippine consular and administrative

authorities that she came to the country for only a temporary visit when, in
fact, her intention was to stay permanently; and for having intentionally
delayed court processes the better to prolong her stay, respondent Chua Pic
Luan demonstrated her incapacity to satisfy the qualifications exacted by the
third paragraph of Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law, that she must
be of good moral character and must have conducted herself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of her residence in the
Philippines in her relation with the constituted government.

And, having lawfully resided in the Philippines only from her arrival on 16
October 1960 to 16 June 1962, she (Chua Pick Luan) also failed to meet the
required qualification of continuous residence in the Philippines for ten (10)
years, her stay beyond 16 June 1962 being illegal. As to the foreign born
minors, Uy Koc Siong and Uy Tian Siong, our pronouncement in Vivo vs.
Cloribel, L-23239, 23 November 1966, 18 SCRA 713, applies to them:

As to foreign born minor children, they are extended citizenship "if

dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalzation of the parent."
"Dwelling" means lawful residence. Since prior to the time the father of
respondents visitors was supposed to have taken his oath of citizenship
... their lawful period of stay had already expired and they had already
been required to leave, they were no longer lawfully residing here (Kua
 Suy et al. v. The Commissioner of Immigration, L-13790, Oct. 31,
1963).

Nor can these temporary visitors claim any right to a stay coterminous with
the result of the naturalization proceeding of their husband and father, Uy Pick
Tuy, because their authorized stay was for a definite period, up to a fixed day,
a circumstance incompatible with the termination of the naturalization
proceeding, which is uncertain and can not be set at a definite date.

An alien's obligation to send his children of school age to Philippine public

schools or private schools where Philippine history, government and civics are
taught, must be complied with "during the entire period of the residence in
the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
naturalization as Philippine citizen." (Sec. 2, Com. Act 473).

Burca v. Republic, G.R. No. L-24252, 30 January 1967

By constitutional and legal precepts, an alien woman who

marries a Filipino citizen, does not—by the mere fact of
marriage—automatically become a Filipino citizen.
Jurisprudence has since stabilized the import of the
constitutional and statutory precepts with a uniform
pronouncement that an alien wife of a Filipino citizen may not
acquire the status of a citizen of the Philippines, unless there is
proof that she herself may be lawfully naturalized. This means
that, in line with the national policy of selective admission to
Philippine citizenship. the wife must possess the qualifications
under Section 2, and must not be laboring under any of the
disqualifications enumerated in Section 4 of the Revised
Naturalization Law. Same; Reason for rule.—Reflection will
reveal why this must be so. The qualifications prescribed under
section 2 of the Naturalization Act, and the disqualifications
enumerated in its section 4, are not mutually exclusive; and if
all that were to be required is that the wife of a Filipino be not
disqualified under Section 4, the result might well be that
citizenship would be conf erred upon persons in violation of the
policy of the statute (Ly Giok Ha vs. Galang, L-21332, March
18, 1966).

c. Dual or Multiple Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance

 Dual or multiple citizenship – Multiple citizenship may be
acquired by the simultaneous application of the doctrines of jus soli and
jus sanguinis. For example, if a person is born in the US and his parents
are Filipinos, the person not only becomes a US citizen but also a Filipino
citizen as well. This results in the person having dual citizenships.

WHO MAY POSSESS DUAL CITIZENSHIP:

1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign
countries which follow the principle of jus soli.
2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien
fathers if by the laws of their father’s country such children are citizens
of that country.
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the
former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are
deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
4. Those who retained or reacquired their Philippine citizenship
under RA 9225 after having been naturalized in a foreign country

GENERAL RULE: Dual citizenship is retained.

EXCEPTION: The person expressly renounces his other citizenship

by filing a certificate of candidacy or by accepting an appointive position
in government.

Dual Allegiance - Dual allegiance refers to a situation in which a

person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or
more states. Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent
application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is
simultaneously considered a national by the said states.

Article IV, Section 5 of the Constitution. Dual allegiance of citizens is

inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. This dual
allegiance only applies to a single specific instance, which is that where a
naturalized Filipino citizen continues his allegiance to his mother country.

d. Statelessness

Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General, G.R. No. L-1812, 27 August 1948

Appellee’s testimony, besides being uncontradicted, is

supported by the well-known fact that the ruthlessness of
 modern dictatorships has scattered throughout the world a
large number of stateless refugees or displaced persons,
without country and without flag. The tyrannical intolerance of
said dictatorships toward all opposition induced them to resort
to beastly oppression, concentration camps and blood purges,
and it is only natural that the not-so-fortunate ones who were
able to escape to foreign countries should feel the loss of all
bonds of attachment to the hells which were formerly their
fatherland’s. Petitioner belongs to that group of stateless
refugees.

5. Status of Foundlings

Poe-Llamanzares v COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 221697-221700, 6 March 2016

Foundlings; Presumptions; That a person with typical Filipino

features is abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality
where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly
Filipinos such that there would be more than a ninety-nine
percent (99%) chance that a child born in the province would
be a Filipino, would indicate more than ample probability if not
statistical certainty, that petitioner’s parents are Filipinos.

As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born

citizens.

6. Expatriation - ARTICLE IV, CITIZENSHIP Section 3. Philippine

citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

It is the commission of a n act that results in the loss of citizenship.

Go Julian v. Government of the Philippine Islands. G.R. No. 20809, 22 October

1923

The right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all

people (Act of Congress, July 27, 1868.) Expatriation is the
voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and
allegiance.

HOW PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IS LOST:

1. By naturalization in a foreign country (prior to RA 9225).
 2. By express renunciation of citizenship.
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution or laws of a foreign country.
4. By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service
of a foreign country.
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization.
6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter
of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless
subsequently a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted.

7. Repatriation and Citizenship Retention

a. Distinction

REPATRIATION - Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality.

This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored
to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen.

CITIZEN RETENTION - On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born

citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former
status as a natural-born Filipino.

b. Procedure

HOW PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IS REACQUIRED:

1. By direct act of Congress.
2. By naturalization – take the oath of allegiance to the Republic (RA 9225)
3. By administrative repatriation – take the oath of allegiance to the Republic
and register the same in the local civil registry of the place where person
resides or last resided; original citizenship is recovered.

8. Citizenship and Conflict of Laws

a. Practice of Profession – the practice of profession is a privilege
and is therefore restricted to Philippine citizens. This is because Filipinos are
preferred in the practice of profession in the country such that foreigners
should not displace them if there is sufficient number if Filipinos who can fill
the vacancy. In a petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice law in
the Philippines by petitioner Muneses, SC held that the right to resume
the practice of law is not automatic. RA 9225 provides that a person
who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply
with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such
practice.

b. General Principles in Dealing with Conflict of Nationality

CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT

OF NATIONALITY LAWS THE HAGUE - 12 APRIL 1930

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 1
It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This
law shall be recognized by other States in so far as it is consistent with
international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law
generally recognized with regard to nationality.

Article 2
Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular
State shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State.
Article 3
Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, a person having two or
more nationalities may be regarded as its national by each of the States whose
nationality he possesses.
Article 4
A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a
State whose nationality such person also possesses.
Article 5
Within a third State, a person having more than one nationality shall be
treated as if he had only one. Without prejudice to the application of its law in
matters of personal status and of any conventions in force, a third State shall,
of the nationalities which any such person possesses, recognize exclusively in
its territory either the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and
principally resident, or the nationality of the country with which in the
circumstances he appears to be in fact most closely connected.
Article 6
Without prejudice to the liberty of a State to accord wider rights to renounce
its nationality, a person possessing two nationalities acquired without any
voluntary act on his part may renounce one of them with the authorization of
the State whose nationality he desires to surrender.
This authorization may not be refused in the case of a person who has his
habitual and principal residence abroad, if the conditions laid down in the law
of the State whose nationality he desires to surrender are satisfied.
C. Domicile
1. Definition - Domicile refers to someone's true, principal, and
permanent home. In other words, the place where a person has physically
lived, regards as home, and intends to return even if currently residing
elsewhere.

2. Kinds of Domicile

3 KINDS:
1. Domicile of origin or by birth.
2. Domicile of choice.
3. Domicile by operation of law.

3. General Rules on Domicile

3 RULES:
• A man has a domicile somewhere.
• A domicile once established remains until a new one is acquired.
• A man can have but only one domicile at a time.

HOW A NEW DOMICILE IS ACQUIRED:

1. Actual removal or actual change of domicile
2. Bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one
3. Acts which correspond with such purpose

**All the foregoing elements must be proved in order to rebut the

presumption of Continuity of Domicile.

4. Loss or Retention of Domicile, Change of Domicile

Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976, 18 September

1995
Domicile and Residence, Distinguished. — Residence, in its
ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a
person in a given area, community or country. The essential
distinction between residence and domicile in law is that
residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for
which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek
a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a
person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his
intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is
residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual to
have different residences in various places. However, a person
can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he
successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile
of choice.

An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and
maintained residences in different places.

Domicile of Origin; A minor follows the domicile of his parents.

To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must

demonstrate:
1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one; and
3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.

To effect an abandonment requires the voluntary act of

relinquishing former domicile with an intent to supplant the
former domicile with one of her own choosing (domicilium
voluntarium).

Marriages; Husband and Wife; The presumption that the wife

automatically gains the husband’s domicile by operation of law
upon marriage cannot be inferred from the use of the term
“residence” in Article 110 of the Civil Code because the Civil
Code is one area where the two concepts are well delineated.

Saludo v. American Express International, G.R. No. 159507, 19 April 2006

The term “residence” as employed in the rule on venue on
personal actions filed with the courts of first instance means the
place of abode whether permanent or temporary, of the plaintiff
or the defendant, as distinguished from “domicile” which
denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent,
one has the intention of returning.

When parsed, the term “residence” requires two elements — (1)

intention to reside in the particular place, and (2) personal or
physical presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative
of such intention. When parsed, the term “residence” requires
two elements—(1) intention to reside in the particular place,
and (2) personal or physical presence in that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention.

For purposes of venue, the less technical definition of

“residence” is adopted; Residence simply requires bodily
presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile
requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to
make it one’s domicile; Since a congressman, or the lone
representative of a particular district, has his residence (or
domicile) therein as the term is construed in relation to election
laws, necessarily, he is also deemed to have had his residence
therein for purposes of venue for filing personal actions.

Limbona v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 186006, 16 October 2009

In order to acquire a domicile by choice, there must concur
(1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality,
(2) an intention to remain there, and
(3) 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.
To successfully effect a change of domicile one must
demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one, and definite acts which
correspond with the purpose. In other words, there must
basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice
must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence
 must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for
the new domicile must be actual.
Animus manendi is a Latin term which means 'the intention of
remaining.
Animus non revertendi With no intention of returning.

5. Permanent Residency Overseas and Foreign Naturalization

Caasi vs. Court of Appeals

Miguel’s immigration to the United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment
of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. For he did not go to the United
States merely to visit his children or his doctor there; he entered the United
States with the intention to live there permanently as evidenced by his
application for an immigrant’s (not a visitor’s or tourist’s) visa. Based on that
application of his, he was issued by the U.S. Government the requisite green
card or authority to reside there permanently.

Caballero vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioner was a natural-born Filipino who was born and raised in Uyugan,
Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he had his domicile of origin in Uyugan,
Batanes. However, he later worked in Canada and became a Canadian
citizen. In Coquilla v. COMELEC, 385 SCRA 607 (2002), we ruled that
naturalization in a foreign country may result in an abandonment of domicile
in the Philippines. This holds true in petitioner’s case as permanent resident
status in Canada is required for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. Hence,
petitioner had effectively abandoned his domicile in the Philippines and
transferred his domicile of choice in Canada. His frequent visits to Uyugan,
Batanes during his vacation from work in Canada cannot be considered as
waiver of such abandonment.

Coquilla vs. Commission on Elections

In Caasi v. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled that immigration to the United
States by virtue of a “greencard,” which entitles one to reside permanently in
that country, constitutes abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. With
more reason then does naturalization in a foreign country result in an
abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.

In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a
U.S. citizen after enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1965.

Poe-Llamanzares vs. Commission on Elections

The evidence of petitioner is overwhelming and taken together leads to no
other conclusion that she decided to permanently abandon her U.S. residence
(selling the house, taking the children from U.S. schools, getting quotes from
the freight company, notifying the U.S. Post Office of the abandonment of
their address in the U.S., donating excess items to the Salvation Army, her
husband resigning from U.S. employment right after selling the U.S. house)
and permanently relocate to the Philippines and actually reestablished her
residence here on 24 May 2005 (securing T.I.N., enrolling her children in
Philippine schools, buying property here, constructing a residence here,
returning to the Philippines after all trips abroad, her husband getting
employed here). Indeed, coupled with her eventual application to reacquire
Philippine citizenship and her family’s actual continuous stay in the Philippines
over the years, it is clear that when petitioner returned on 24 May 2005 it was
for good.

6. Requirement of Domicile and Absentee Voting

Article V - Suffrage
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by
law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least
one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding
the election.

In this section, there is a residency requirement which should conform with

the doctrine of domicile so he may be allowed to vote despite being absent
thereat.

Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot
as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.

In this section, prescribes absentee voting for Filipinos abroad even if they are
lacking actual residency in the Philippines. However, they must demonstrate
that the Philippines as their domicile.

Subsequent legislation, on the other hand, like RA 9225 or Citizenship

Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, allowed dual citizens to vote though
they lack domicile and residency required. RA 10590 or The Overseas Voting
Act of 2013, further reinforced this right and removed the affidavit
requirement in RA 9189 or The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. The
state of the law now is that all Filipinos overseas may vote without
demonstrating actual residency or domicile in the Philippines.

7. Venue in Estate Proceedings

The Rules of Court refers to residence at the time of death, not the permanent
residence or domicile. The residence of a person is significant in determining
the venue of estate proceedings and ordinary civil actions. Residence, for
venue purposes, usually refers only to actual residence or place of abode, and
not a persons domicile.

Ujano v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-22041, 19 May 1966

Notes in the Present case.

VENUE; ESTATE OF DECEASED WHERE SETTLED; RESIDENCE

AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH; DOMICILE OF ORIGIN.—Where it
is apparent, from the facts duly established, that the domicile
of origin of the decedent was San Fernando, Pampanga, where
he resided for over seventy (70) years, the presumption is that
he retained such domicile, and, hence, residence, in the
absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, for it is well settled
that “a domicile once acquired is retained until a new domicile
is gained.”

Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 10 July 2003

Whether or not Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 violates

Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution.
No. Contrary to Macalintal’s claim that Section 5(d) circumvents
the Constitution, Congress enacted the law prescribing a system
of overseas absentee voting in compliance with the
constitutional mandate. Such mandate expressly requires that
Congress provide a system of absentee voting that necessarily
presupposes that the “qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad”
is not physically present in the country.
The provisions of Sections 5(d) and 11 are components of the
system of overseas absentee voting established by R.A. No.
9189. The qualified Filipino abroad who executed the affidavit is
deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines.
He is presumed not to have lost his domicile by his physical
absence from this country. His having become an immigrant or
permanent resident of his host country does not necessarily
imply an abandonment of his intention to return to his domicile
of origin, the Philippines.
Therefore, under the law, he must be given the opportunity to
express that he has not actually abandoned his domicile in the
Philippines by executing the affidavit required by Sections 5(d)
and 8(c) of the law.
x x x x Ordinarily, an absentee is not a resident and vice versa;
a person cannot be at the same time, both a resident and an
absentee. However, under our election laws and the countless
pronouncements of the Court pertaining to elections, an
absentee remains attached to his residence in the Philippines as
residence is considered synonymous with domicile. x x x x For
political purposes the concepts of residence and domicile are
dictated by the peculiar criteria of political laws. As these
concepts have evolved in our election law, what has clearly and
unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence for election
purposes is used synonymously with domicile. x x x x
To repeat, the affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent
residents abroad because by their status in their host countries,
they are presumed to have relinquished their intent to return to
this country; thus, without the affidavit, the presumption of
abandonment of Philippine domicile shall remain.