Romualdez-Marcos vs.

comelec
Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC
G.R. No.119976
September 18, 1995
Facts:
Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
Representative of the First District of Leyte. Private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, a candidate
for the same position, filed a petition for cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC
alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. Private
respondent contended that petitioner lacked the Constitution's one-year residency requirement for
candidates for the House of Representatives.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has satisfied the residency requirement as mandated by Art. VI, Sec. 6
of the Constitution
Decision:
WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary residence
qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the
COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May 11, and May 25, 1995 are
hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of
Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the First District of
Leyte.
Ratio Decidendi:
Yes. 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