Ponente: Abad

Doctrine: Proof required to establish domicile of a reinstated Filipino citizen

running for governor of a province

FACTS:
Petitioner Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City. He migrated to Australia when
he was eight years old and acquired Australian citizenship. In 2008, he returned
to the Philippines and lived in Zamboanga, he took an oath of allegiance to the
Philippines and was issued a certificate of reacquisition of citizenship by the
Bureau of Immigration and he renounced his Australian citizenship.

Jalosjos applied for registration as a voter in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, but

Private Respondent Erasmo, the barangay captain, opposed the registration. COMELEC
approved the application and included Jalosjos in the voter's list. This decision
was affirmed at the MCTC and at the RTC.

Jalosjos then filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga

Sibugay for the 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a petition to cancel the COC on the
ground of failure to comply with the one year residency requirement of the Local
Government Code (LGC).

COMELEC held that Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona fide intention
to establish a domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. It held that when he first
moved back to the Philippines, he was merely a guest or transient at his brother's
house in Ipil, and for this reason, he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile.
Meanwhile, Jalosjos won the elections.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC is correct in holding that petitioner did not present
ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish domicile at Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay.

HELD:
NO. The COMELEC is incorrect. Jalosjos has successfully proven by his acts of
renouncing his Australian citizenship and by living in Ipil, that he has changed
his domicile to Zamboanga Sibugay.

The LGC requires that a gubernatorial candidate be a resident of the province for
at least one year before the elections. For the purposes of election laws, the
requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile: i.e. he must have an
intention to reside in a particulaar place, but must also have personal presence
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.

The question of residence is a question of intention. To determine compliance with

the residency/domicile requirement, jurisprudence has laid down the following
guidelines:

(a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere;

(b) where once established, that domicile remains until he acquires a

new one; and
(c) a person can have but one domicile at a time.

The facts show that Jalosjos' domicile of origin was Quezon city. When he acquired
Australian citizenship, Australia became his domicile by operation of law and by
choice. On the other hand, when he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to
live with his brother in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with
intent to change his domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up his Australian
citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to that country and reacquired his old
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Philippines. By his acts,
Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he
gave up his domicile there. And he has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil,
Zamboanga Sibugay.

To hold that Jalosjos has not established a new domicile in Zamboanga Sibugay
despite the loss of his domicile of origin (Quezon City) and his domicile of choice
and by operation of law (Australia) would violate the settled maxim that a man must
have a domicile or residence somewhere.

Neither can COMELEC conclude that Jalosjos did not come to settle his domicile in
Ipil since he has merely been staying at his brother's house. A candidate is not
required to have a house in order to establish his residence or domicile in that
place. It is enough that he should live there even if it be in a rented house or
in the house of a friend or relative. To insist that the candidate own the house
where he lives would make property a qualification for public office. What matters
is that Jalosjos has proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an
intention of making it his domicile.
As evidence, Jalosjos presented his next-door neighbors who testified that he was
physically present in Ipil, he presented correspondence with political leaders and
local and national party mates, furthermore, he is a registered voter by final
judgement of the RTC. The court also noted that Jalosjos has since acquired a lot
in Ipil and a fish pond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay. This, without a
doubt is sufficient to establish his intent to set his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay.
DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the Resolution of the
COMELEC Second Division dated February 11, 2010 and the Resolution of the COMELEC
En Banc dated May 4, 2010 that disqualified petitioner Rommel Jalosjos from seeking
election as Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay.