DOMICILE SYNONYMOUS WITH RESIDENCE FOR ELECTION PURPOSES

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CIRILO ROY

MONTEJO.
G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995
KAPUNAN, J.:

DOCTRINE:
Even assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner gained a new "domicile" after her marriage and only
acquired a right to choose a new one after her husband died, petitioner's acts following her return to the country
clearly indicate that she not only impliedly but expressly chose her domicile of origin (assuming this was lost by
operation of law) as her domicile.

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 respondent’s 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 petitioner’s 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 husband’s 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.