9/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

G.R. No. 191970. April 24, 2012.*

ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS, petitioner, vs. THE

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DAN ERASMO, SR.,
respondents.

Election Law; Local Government Code; Residence; Governors;

The Local Government Code requires a candidate seeking the
position of provincial governor to be a resident of the province for
at least one year before the election—for purposes of the election
laws, the requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile,
meaning that a person must not only intend to reside in a
particular place but must also have personal presence in such
place coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.—The
Local Government Code requires a candidate seeking the position
of provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at least
one year before the election. For purposes of the election laws, the
requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile, meaning
that a person must not only intend to reside in a particular place
but must also have personal presence in such place coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention. There is no hard and fast
rule to determine a candidate’s compliance with residency
requirement since the question of residence is a question of
intention. Still, 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.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that a candidate is not required to have a house in a community to

_______________

* EN BANC.

573

VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 573

Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4f15f9d93e682185003600fb002c009e/p/ASV934/?username=Guest 1/8
9/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

establish his residence or domicile in a particular place—it is

sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented house or
in the house of a friend or relative.—The COMELEC concluded
that Jalosjos has not come to settle his domicile in Ipil since he
has merely been staying at his brother’s house. But this
circumstance alone cannot support such conclusion. Indeed, the
Court has repeatedly held that a candidate is not required to have
a house in a community to establish his residence or domicile in a
particular place. It is sufficient 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.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Romulo B. Macalintal and Edgardo Carlo L. Vistan II
for petitioner.
  George Erwin M. Garcia and Quirino G. Esguerra, Jr.
for private respondent.

ABAD, J.:
This case is about the proof required to establish the
domicile of a reinstated Filipino citizen who seeks election
as governor of a province.

The Facts and the Case

Petitioner 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,
Romeo, Jr., in Barangay Veteran’s Village, Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay. Four days upon his return, he took 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
574

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections

Immigration.1 On September 1, 2009 he renounced his

Australian citizenship, executing a sworn renunciation of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4f15f9d93e682185003600fb002c009e/p/ASV934/?username=Guest 2/8
9/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

the same2 in compliance with Republic Act (R.A.) 9225.3

From the time of his return, Jalosjos acquired a
residential property in the same village where he lived and
a fishpond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay. He
applied for registration as a voter in the Municipality of
Ipil but respondent Dan Erasmo, Sr., the Barangay
Captain of Barangay Veteran’s Village, opposed the same.
Acting on the application, the Election Registration Board
approved it and included Jalosjos’ name in the Commission
on Elections’ (COMELEC’s) voters list for Precinct 0051F of
Barangay Veterans Village, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.4
Undaunted, Erasmo filed before the 1st Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ipil-Tungawan-R.T. Lim in
Ipil a petition for the exclusion of Jalosjos’ name from the
official voters list. After hearing, the MCTC rendered a
decision, denying the petition.5 On appeal,6 the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MCTC decision. The RTC
decision became final and executory.
On November 28, 2009 Jalosjos filed his Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay
Province for the May 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo promptly
filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel Jalosjos’
COC7 on the ground that the latter made material
misrepresentation in the same since he failed to comply
with (1) the requirements

_______________
1 Rollo, p. 110.
2 Id., at p. 112.
3 An Act making the Citizenship of the Philippines who acquire Foreign
Citizenship permanent, amending for the purpose Commonwealth Act 63,
as amended and for other purposes.
4 Rollo, p. 111.
5 Docketed as Election Case 589.
6 Docketed as RTC Election Case 0007-2K9.
7 Docketed as SPA 09-115 (DC).

575

VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 575

Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections

of R.A. 9225 and (2) the one-year residency requirement of

the Local Government Code.
After hearing, the Second Division of the COMELEC
ruled that, while Jalosjos had regained Philippine
citizenship by complying with the requirements of R.A.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4f15f9d93e682185003600fb002c009e/p/ASV934/?username=Guest 3/8
9/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

9225, he failed to prove the residency requirement for a

gubernatorial candidate. He failed to present ample proof
of a bona fide intention to establish his domicile in Ipil,
Zamboanga Sibugay. On motion for reconsideration, the
COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Second Division’s
decision, ruling that Jalosjos had been a mere guest or
transient visitor in his brother’s house and, for this reason,
he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile.
Acting on Jalosjos’ prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order, the Court resolved on May 7,
2010 to issue a status quo ante order, enjoining the
COMELEC from enforcing its February 11, 2010 decision
pending further orders. Meanwhile, Jolosjos won the
election and was proclaimed winner of the 2010
gubernatorial race in the Province of Zamboanga Sibugay.8

The Issue Presented

The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not

the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that
Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona fide
intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay.

The Court’s Ruling

The Local Government Code requires a candidate

seeking the position of provincial governor to be a resident
of the province for at least one year before the election.9 For
purposes of the election laws, the requirement of residence
is synonymous

_______________
8 Rollo, p. 445.
9 Republic Act 7160, Section 39.

576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections

with domicile,10 meaning that a person must not only

intend to reside in a particular place but must also have
personal presence in such place coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention.11
There is no hard and fast rule to determine a candidate’s
compliance with residency requirement since the question

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4f15f9d93e682185003600fb002c009e/p/ASV934/?username=Guest 4/8
9/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

of residence is a question of intention.12 Still, 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.13
It is inevitable under these guidelines and the
precedents applying them that Jalosjos has met the
residency requirement for provincial governor of
Zamboanga Sibugay.
One. The COMELEC appears hasty in concluding that
Jalosjos failed to prove that he successfully changed his
domicile to Zamboanga Sibugay. The COMELEC points out
that, since he was unable to discharge the burden of
proving Zamboanga Sibugay to be his rightful domicile, it
must be assumed that his domicile is either Quezon City or
Australia.
But it is clear from the facts that Quezon City was
Jalosjos’ domicile of origin, the place of his birth. It may be
taken for granted that he effectively changed his domicile
from Quezon City to Australia when he migrated there at
the age of eight,

_______________
10 Domicile is classified into: (a) domicile of origin, which is acquired by
every person at birth; (b) domicile of choice, which is acquired upon
abandonment of the domicile of origin; and (c) domicile by operation of
law, which attributes to a person independently of his residence or
intention (See Ugdoracion, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
179851, April 18, 2008, 552 SCRA 231, 240-241).
11  Limbona v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 181097, June 25,
2008, 555 SCRA 391, 401.
12 Id., at p. 402.
13  Pundaodaya v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179313,
September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 178, 184-185.

577

VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 577

Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections

acquired Australian citizenship, and lived in that country

for 26 years. Australia became his domicile by operation of
law and by choice.14
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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4f15f9d93e682185003600fb002c009e/p/ASV934/?username=Guest 5/8
9/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

Australian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to

that country. 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. And he has since lived nowhere else except
in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
To hold that Jalosjos has not establish 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.
Two. The COMELEC concluded that Jalosjos has not
come to settle his domicile in Ipil since he has merely been
staying at his brother’s house. But this circumstance alone
cannot support such conclusion. Indeed, the Court has
repeatedly held that a candidate is not required to have a
house in a community to establish his residence or domicile
in a particular place. It is sufficient that he should live
there even if it be in a rented house or in the house of a
friend or relative.15 To insist that the candidate own the
house where he lives would make property a qualification
for public office. What matters

_______________
14  See Caasi v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 88831 and 84508,
November 8, 1990, 191 SCRA 229, 235.
15 Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, G.R. Nos.
92191-92 and 92202-03, July 30, 1991, 199 SCRA 692, 715, citing De los
Reyes v. Solidum, 61 Phil. 893, 899 (1935).

578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections

is that Jalosjos has proved two things: actual physical

presence in Ipil and an intention of making it his domicile.
Jalosjos presented the affidavits of next-door neighbors,
attesting to his physical presence at his residence in Ipil.
These adjoining neighbors are no doubt more credible since
they have a better chance of noting his presence or absence
than his other neighbors, whose affidavits Erasmo
presented, who just sporadically passed by the subject

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4f15f9d93e682185003600fb002c009e/p/ASV934/?username=Guest 6/8
9/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

residence. Further, it is not disputed that Jalosjos bought a

residential lot in the same village where he lived and a fish
pond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay. He showed
correspondences with political leaders, including local and
national party-mates, from where he lived. Moreover,
Jalosjos is a registered voter of Ipil by final judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga Sibugay.
Three. While the Court ordinarily respects the factual
findings of administrative bodies like the COMELEC, this
does not prevent it from exercising its review powers to
correct palpable misappreciation of evidence or wrong or
irrelevant considerations.16 The evidence Jalosjos
presented is sufficient to establish Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay, as his domicile. The COMELEC gravely abused
its discretion in holding otherwise.
Four. Jalosjos won and was proclaimed winner in the
2010 gubernatorial race for Zamboanga Sibugay. The Court
will respect the decision of the people of that province and
resolve all doubts regarding his qualification in his favor to
breathe life to their manifest will.
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

_______________
16  Mitra v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 191938, July 2, 2010,
622 SCRA 744, 767.

579

VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 579

Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections

Rommel Jalosjos from seeking election as Governor of

Zamboanga Sibugay.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De

Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama,
Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Sereno, Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.,
concur.

Petition granted and resolution set aside.

Notes.—The residency requirement of a voter is at least

one (1) year residence in the Philippines and at least six (6)
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4f15f9d93e682185003600fb002c009e/p/ASV934/?username=Guest 7/8
9/20/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

months in the place where the person proposes or intends

to vote—the residency requirement of a voter is at least one
(1) year residence in the Philippines and at least six (6)
months in the place where the person proposes or intends
to vote. (Asistio vs. Aguirre, 619 SCRA 518 [2010])
The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice
must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of
residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place
chosen for the new domicile must be actual. (Id.)

——o0o—— 

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4f15f9d93e682185003600fb002c009e/p/ASV934/?username=Guest 8/8