DOMICILE

Conflict of Laws

SOLOMON, MARELLA
BEATRIZ Q.
 WHAT IS DOMICILE?
a relation created by law between an individual and a particular
locality or country

ELEMENTS:
1.Physical presence in a
fixed place
2.Animus Revertendi
3.Animus Manendi
 WHY IS IT
SIGNIFICANT?
It is a source of rights and obligations.

Article 50 of the Civil Code provides:

For the exercise of civil rights and the
fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of
natural persons is the place of their habitual
residence.
THREE KINDS OF DOMICILE

1.Domicile of Origin
2.Domicile of Choice
3.Domicile by Operation
of Law
 DOMICILE VS.
• Requires both physical
presence and intent to return
and remain
• Creates a disputable
presumption of citizenship
• Easier achieved than
citizenship
CITIZENSHIP
• Requires membership or
allegiance to a sovereign
state
• May be presumed from
one’s domicile
• More restrictive status
than domicile
ACTS INDICATIVE OF
DOMICILE
• Residence
• Membership in church
• Voting
• Holding Office
• Paying Taxes
• Ownership of property
 LOSS OF DOMICILE
Domicile may be lost through the
performance of certain acts indicative
of an intent to abandon domicile,
such as:
• choosing a new domicile;
• actually residing therein; and
• intending that place to be his
permanent residence.
SCHILL V. CINCINNATI INS.
CO.
141 Ohio St.3d 382 (2014)
Robert Schill hit Miles Cobrun with his vehicle in Ohio, causing the
latter’s death. During the suit, Schill sought additional insurance
coverage with the respondent CIC under the personal umbrella
liability of his parents, James and Jean Schill.

Under said policy, an insured includes “resident relatives” whose

domicile is the same as theirs. CIC denied coverage citing difference
in domicile since James is domiciled in Florida while Robert is in
Ohio.

The TC ruled in favor of CIC but the CA reversed the said judgment in holding that:
“James’ clear intent was to work part-time in Ohio and be domiciled in Florida. He has
meticulously ordered his life to make that so.”
SCHILL V. CINCINNATI INS.
CO.
141 Ohio St.3d 382 (2014)

• James’ motive for being domiciled in Florida: lack of

income tax on individuals therein.
• He planned his time spent in Ohio for less than 150 days
per year because “that used to be the statutory period for
residency.”
• There is no evidence that he had been challenged by Ohio in regard to his
domicile; but that he would be prepared to rebut a statutory presumption
against his Florida domicile.
• His time in Ohio was devoted to work; he always returns to Florida which
he considers his home.
SCHILL V. CINCINNATI INS.
CO.
141 Ohio St.3d 382 (2014)

• His deposition testimony demonstrated his own

belief about being domiciled in Florida and
established his intent to remain there, couple with
objective facts:
⚬ His wife is domiciled in Florida;
⚬ He voted therein;
⚬ Registered automobiles;
⚬ Paid taxes;
⚬ Attended church there;
⚬ Consulted with a Florida doctor and dentist
⚬ He maintains checking and savings accounts there;
⚬ He uses a post-office box in Florida as his address;
⚬ His business records are kept there;
⚬ He receives a per diem for the time he spends in Ohio
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V.
COMELEC
248 SCRA 300 (1995)
During the 1995 elections, incumbent representative of Leyte, Cirilo Montejo, sought the
disqualification of Imelda Marcos’ candidacy for the same position on the ground of the
latter’s lack of residency requirement.
She stated in her Certificate of Candidacy her residence in Leyte to be
“_ Years and Seven Months” but later filed an Amended/Corrected
COC changing the same to “since childhood.”
Marcos won the elections but the COMELEC suspended her
proclamation pending the resolution of the issue at hand.
This case resolves the issue on whether Leyte is the domicile of
Marcos, thus qualifying her to possess the residency requirement.
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V.
COMELEC
248 SCRA 300 (1995)

• The Court provided a distinction between domicile and residence:

⚬ Residence - indicates a place of abode, whether permanent or
temporary
⚬ Domicile - denotes a fixed permanent residence to which,
when absent, one has the intention of returning

• When the 1987 Constitution speaks of “residence” in election

law it actually means only “domicile.”
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V.
COMELEC
248 SCRA 300 (1995)
• Petitioner’s places of actual residences over the years:
6. HONOLULU,
3. ILOCOS HAWAII
NORTE 5. SAN MIGUEL, fall of the Marcos
1. TACLOBAN married F. MANILA regime
childhood to F. Marcos became
adulthood Marcos; president; lived in
registered as Malacanang Palace
voter 7. MANILA
returned in
1991
2. MANILA 4. SAN JUAN, RIZAL
worked at F. Marcos became a 8. SAN JUAN, METRO
House of Rep. senator; MANILA
registered as voter ran for president in 1992
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V.
COMELEC
248 SCRA 300 (1995)

• Acts of petitioner indicative of her intention to retain

her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte:
⚬ She kept her close ties to her domicile by
establishing residences in Tacloban;
⚬ Celebrating milestones in her home province;
⚬ Instituting projects for the benefit of the same;
⚬ Establishing a political power therein with her
influence.
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V.
COMELEC
248 SCRA 300 (1995)

• Domicile of Origin enjoys a presumption of continuity.

• To effect the loss of the same, the following must concur:

⚬ a. Actual removal or change of domicile;
⚬ b. A bona fide intention to abandon a former domicile and establish
a new one; and
⚬ c. Acts which correspond to the purpose.
• Abandonment requires the voluntary act of relinquishing
one’s domicile of origin with an intent to supplant the
same with their domicile of choice (domicilium
voluntarium).
JALOSJOS V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 191970, April 24, 2012

Rommel Jalosjos was a Filipino national who migrated to Australia and obtained
citizenship therein. Upon his return to the Philippines in 2008, he stayed with his
brother in Quezon City, and subsequently took the oath of allegiance to the
Philippines and renounced his Australian citizenship.

He then bought properties in Quezon City and Zamboanga, Sibugay.

In 2010, he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Governor of Zamboanga, Sibugay but the
COMELEC held him lacking of the residency requirement for having no proof of a “bona
fide intention to establish domicile” in the same.

The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this decision in ruling that “Jalosjos had been a mere
guest or transient visitor in his brother’s house.”
JALOSJOS V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 191970, April 24, 2012

• The Court held that the COMELEC had erred in its decision because it is
evident from Jalosjos’ acts that he came to the Philippines with the intent to
change his domicile for good:
⚬ He renounced his allegiance to Australia and gave up his citizenship
therein;
⚬ He reacquired his Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines;
⚬ He was issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship
by the Bureau of Immigration.
JALOSJOS V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 191970, April 24, 2012

• The Court has also repeatedly held that a candidate is not required
to have a house in a community in order to establish his residence
or domicile in a particular place.

• Jalosjos proved the following:

⚬ His actual physical presence in Ipil, Zamboanga; and
⚬ An intention of making it his domicile.
1. Non-immigrant Visa
2. Immigrant Visa
3. Permanent Visa (Green
Card)
CONDITIONS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCY
OVERSEAS
1.One should make the US as their own home.
2.They should not leave the US for more than one
year.
3.They must demonstrate concrete ties to the US.

A permanent resident status in the US necessarily

implies abandonment of the foreign domicile of
the green card holder.
THE PROCESS OF FOREIGN
NATURALIZATION
1. Compliance with the conditions for
permanent residency;
2. Continued stay in the United States;
3. Granting of permanent resident status;
4. Allowed to apply for US citizenship.
CABALLERO V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 209835, September 22, 2015
Petitioner Rogelio Caballero was a Canadian citizen who had reacquired his Philippine
citizenship. He took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
renounced his Canadian citizenship in October 2012.

During the May 2013 elections, he ran for the mayoral position of Uyugan, Batanes
together with respondent Jonathan Nanud. The latter questioned the petitioner’s residency
requirement and the COMELEC ruled in his favor.

The issue in this case resolves to answer the question on the

petitioner’s contention that he did not abandon his domicile in
Uyugan, Batanes because he had left only to work overseas
and regularly returned to his hometown.
CABALLERO V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 209835, September 22, 2015
• The Court affirmed the COMELEC’s decision in ruling that the petition had
abandoned his domicile in Uyugan, Batanes in favor of Canadian citizenship.

• Here, the Court cited its ruling in Coquilla vs. COMELEC that, “naturalization in
a foreign country may result in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.”

• Petitioner’s retention of his Philippine citizenship under

RA 9225 did not result to the automatic recovery of his
domicile in Uguyan, Batanes.
CABALLERO V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 209835, September 22, 2015

• In order to regain his domicile, petitioner must prove that he had

reestablished Uyugan, Batanes as his new domicile of choice upon his
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship:
⚬ Physical presence
⚬ Actual intent

• Here, the COMELEC correctly held that petitioner lacked

the one-year residency requirement for candidacy:
⚬ September 2012 - reacquisition
⚬ May 2013 - elections
CAASI V. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 88831, November 8, 1990

The case was consolidated from two separate petitions filed by

Mateo Caasi and Anecito Cascante, both seeking the
disqualification of Merito Miguel, a green card holder and
permanent resident of the United States, from running for
municipal mayor in Bolinao, Pangasinan.

The issues to be resolved in this case are the following:

⚬ Whether or not Miguel abandoned his domicile in the Philippines; and
⚬ Whether or not his return to the country and presentation as a candidate
consists as a waiver of his status as a permanent resident of the US
CAASI V. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 88831, November 8, 1990

• First Issue: Miguel’s immigration to the US constituted an

abandonment of his Philippine domicile.
⚬ Immigration - entering into a country with the intention
of residing in it.

• Second Issue: Miguel’s act of filing a certificate of candidacy did not itself
constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident of the US.
⚬ Waiver - manifested by some act independent of and done prior to filing his
certificate candidacy
CAASI V. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 88831, November 8, 1990
• The Omnibus Election Code has laid down a clear policy of
excluding from public office those Philippine citizens who
possess dual loyalties and allegiance:

“...without mental reservations or purpose of evasion.”

• Conclusive proof of Miguel’s permanent residency in the US:

⚬ his application for immigrant status;
⚬ his permanent residence in the US; and
⚬ his possession of a green card
• Therefore, absent the clear evidence of his irrevocable waiver, Miguel is
disqualified to run for public office.
COQUILLA V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002
Teodulo Coquilla was a member of the US Navy and a naturalized US citizen. Upon his
return to the Philippines in 1998, he applied for repatriation and he took his oath of
allegiance to the Republic in November 2000.

When his voter’s registration was approved on January 2001, he

subsequently filed a Certification for Candidacy as mayor in Oras,
Easter Samar, where he claimed to have been a resident for two years.

Neil Alvarez, incumbent mayor of Oras, Easter Samar

questioned Coquilla’s candidacy contending that the
latter had been a resident for only six months, counted
from the day he took his oath os a citizen.
COQUILLA V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002

• The Court affirmed the COMELEC’s decision in ruling that Coquilla

lacked the requisite residency requirement.
• By having been naturalized abroad, the
petitioner lost his Philippine citizenship and
with it his domicile of origin in Oras, Eastern
Samar.
⚬ Until his reacquisition on November 2000,
he did not acquire domicile in the country.
COQUILLA V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002

• Waiver of alien and/or non-resident status:

⚬ Immigrant visa
⚬ Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR)
• Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship by
naturalization:
⚬ C.A. No. 473, as amended
• For former Philippine nationals, by
repatriation or by an act of Congress:
⚬ waives one’s status as an alien and as a
non-resident alien
COQUILLA V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002

• Section 2 of R.A. No. 6768 defines the term “balikbayan” as a former

Filipino citizen who had been naturalized in a foreign country, and returns
to the Philippines, where he is entitled to a visa-free entry for a period of
one year.
• Petitioner entered the country in 1998 as a
visa-free balikbayan.
• He is considered to have waived his status as
an alien and as a non-resident only on
November 2000 when he took his oath as a
Philippine citizen.