SILVERIO TAGOLINO VS.

HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL & LUCY TORRES-GOMEZ, G.R.
No. 202202, March 19, 2013

Actor Richard Gomez (Richard) filed his Certificate of

Candidacy seeking the congressional office of the House of
Representatives for the 4th District of Leyte. He indicated his
residence as 910 Carlota Hills, Ormoc City. The same was
questioned before the COMELEC by Buenaventura Juntilla, one of
the candidates for the said position claiming that Richard is a
resident of Colgate St., East Greenhills, San Juan City, MM. The
COMELEC disqualified Richard based on Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code for lack of residence. On May 5, 2010, Lucy Torres-
Gomez (Lucy) filed her Certificate of Candidacy as SUBSTITUTE of
Richard. Despite the vigorous objection of Juntilla, the COMELEC
allowed the substitution and Lucy was elected as Representative of
the 4th District of Leyte in the May 10, 2010 elections.

A case was filed before the HRET questinoning the election of

Lucy on the ground that the substitution is not valid but the HRET
sustained the validity of the said substitution

Issue:

Was there a valid substitution? Was Lucy Torres Gomez validly

elected as representative of the 4 th District of Leyte?

Held:

A valid Certificate of Candidacy is a condition sine qua

non for a valid candidate substitution.Since Richards COC was not
valid for material representation as to his residence, then there was
no valid substitution. In short, since Richard is not considered a
candidate or there was no candidate to speak of, there would be
no candidate to be substituted.

Unlike disqualification under Section 68 where he can be

substituted because the candidate therein has all the qualifications
but disqualified because of prohibited acts like election offences or
because he is a permanent resident of a foreign country, a
candidate disqualified under Section 78 could not be validly
substituted.

ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS, vs

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

and DAN ERASMO, SR., Respondents.
G.R. No. 191970 April 24, 2012

FACTS:

Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City on October 26, 1973. He

migrated to Australia in 1981 when he was eight years old and there
acquired Australian citizenship. On November 22, 2008, at age 35,
he decided to return to the Philippines and lived with his brother in
Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. Four days upon his return, he took an oath
of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, hence, he was issued
a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau
of Immigration. On September 1, 2009 he renounced his Australian
citizenship, executing a sworn renunciation of the same in
compliance with Republic Act (R.A.) 9225. From the time of his
return, Jalosjos acquired a residential property in the same village
where he lived and maintained a fish pond.

He applied for registration as a voter in the Municipality of Ipil but

respondent Erasmo, the Barangay Captain, opposed the said act.
Election Registration Board approved it and included Jalosjos name
in the COMELEC voters list. Erasmo filed before the MTC a petition
for the exclusion of Jalosjos name from the official voters list. The
MTC denied Erasmos petition. He appealed to RTC but RTC upheld
the MTC decision. On November 28, 2009 Jalosjos filed his
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay
Province for the May 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a petition to
deny due course or to cancel Jalosjos COC on the ground that
Jalosjos made material misrepresentation in the same since he failed
to comply with (1) the requirements of R.A. 9225 and (2) the one-
year residency requirement of the Local Government Code.
COMELEC ruled against Jalosjos, because he failed to comply with
the 1-year residency ruequirement. Subsequently, Jalosjos won the
elections

ISSUE: Whether or not Jalosjos failed to comply with the 1-year

residency requirement

HELD:

Jalosjos complied with the 1-year requirement. It is true that his

domicial was Quezon City, his domicile of origin, the place of his
birth. However, his domicile was changed from Quezon City to
Australia when he migrated there at the age of eight, acquired
Australian citizenship, and lived in that country for 26 years.
Australia became his domicile by operation of law and by choice.
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. In addition, he reacquired his
old citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, resulting in his being issued a Certificate of
Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration.
By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in Australia,
clearly proving that he gave up his domicile there.He has since lived
nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

As to the issue that he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile as he was

living in his brothers house, the court said that a candidate need to
have a house in a community to establish residence. It is sufficient
that he rents a house or in the house of a friend or relative. Only 2
important things must be proved: actual physical presence and an
intention of making it his domicile. Jaloslos was able to prove the
two requirements. Hence, he is qualified.