Romualdez-Marcos vs.

COMELEC
248 SCRA 300

Facts:
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of
Leyte First District. On March 23, 1995, private respondent Cirilio Montejo, also a candidate for the same
position, filed a petition for disqualification of the petitioner with COMELEC on the ground that petitioner
did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed an
amended certificate of candidacy, changing the entry of seven months to since childhood in item no. 8
in said certificate. However, the amended certificate was not received since it was already past deadline.
She claimed that she always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile and residence. The Second
Division of the COMELEC with a vote of 2 to 1 came up with a resolution finding private respondents
petition for disqualification meritorious.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her
marriage to the late President Marcos.

Held:
For election purposes, residence is used synonymously with domicile. The Court upheld the
qualification of petitioner, despite her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided
in the district for only 7 months, because of the following: (a) a minor follows the domicile of her
parents; Tacloban became petitioners domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought the
family to Leyte; (b) domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a
bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which
correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and positive proof of the concurrence of all these,
the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue; (c) the wife does not automatically gain the
husbands domicile because the term residence in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political
Law; when petitioner married President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely
gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium; (d) even assuming that she gained a new domicile
after her marriage and acquired the right to choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts
following her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her
domicile of choice.