Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 918 views

    Japzon Vs Comelec Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    1. The case involved a petition to disqualify a mayoral candidate, Ty, on the grounds that he did not meet the one year residency requirement. 2. The court denied the petition and ruled that Ty was eligible to run for public office. When he reacquired his Philippine citizenship, Ty effectively renounced his American citizenship and complied with the requirements to run for office as a reacquired citizen. 3. Ty demonstrated the intent to remain indefinitely in the municipality by paying taxes there, registering to vote, and returning after trips abroad, establishing it as his domicile for over one year prior to the election.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Japzon Vs Comelec Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    918 views2 pages
    1. The case involved a petition to disqualify a mayoral candidate, Ty, on the grounds that he did not meet the one year residency requirement. 2. The court denied the petition and ruled that Ty was eligible to run for public office. When he reacquired his Philippine citizenship, Ty effectively renounced his American citizenship and complied with the requirements to run for office as a reacquired citizen. 3. Ty demonstrated the intent to remain indefinitely in the municipality by paying taxes there, registering to vote, and returning after trips abroad, establishing it as his domicile for over one year prior to the election.

    Original Title

    Japzon-vs-Comelec-Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved a petition to disqualify a mayoral candidate, Ty, on the grounds that he did not meet the one year residency requirement. 2. The court denied the petition and ruled that Ty was eligible to run for public office. When he reacquired his Philippine citizenship, Ty effectively renounced his American citizenship and complied with the requirements to run for office as a reacquired citizen. 3. Ty demonstrated the intent to remain indefinitely in the municipality by paying taxes there, registering to vote, and returning after trips abroad, establishing it as his domicile for over one year prior to the election.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    918 views2 pages

    Japzon Vs Comelec Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    1. The case involved a petition to disqualify a mayoral candidate, Ty, on the grounds that he did not meet the one year residency requirement. 2. The court denied the petition and ruled that Ty was eligible to run for public office. When he reacquired his Philippine citizenship, Ty effectively renounced his American citizenship and complied with the requirements to run for office as a reacquired citizen. 3. Ty demonstrated the intent to remain indefinitely in the municipality by paying taxes there, registering to vote, and returning after trips abroad, establishing it as his domicile for over one year prior to the election.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Case Title: Japzon vs.

    COMELEC
    Docket Number: G.R. No. 180088
    Date: January 19, 2009
    Digest by: Paola

    Summary/Nature of the Case: ONE YEAR RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT UNDER RA No. 7160; In order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there
    must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile.
    There must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. 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.

    Facts of the Case General in Los Angeles, California, USA. At this


    1. Petitioner Japzon and private respondent Ty were candidates point, Ty still held dual citizenship. It was only on
    for the Office of Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, 19 March 2007 that Ty renounced his American
    Eastern Samar (Samar). citizenship before a notary public and, resultantly,
    2. Japzon filed a petition to disqualify Ty on ground of material became a pure Philippine citizen again.
    representation. He averred that, when Ty filed his Certificate of 2. By the time he filed his Certificate of Candidacy,
    Candidacy on 28 March 2007, he falsely represented that he he effectively renounced his American
    was a resident of Samar, for one year before 14 May 2007. citizenship. He complied with the two
    While Ty may have applied for the reacquisition of his Philippine requirements laid down by RA 9225 wrt persons
    citizenship, he never actually resided in the place for a period of who reacquired their Filipino citizenship and
    one year immediately preceding the date of election as required wanted to run for public office. (See below)
    under Section 39 of the Local Government Code of 1991. He 3. Ty’s intent to establish a new domicile of choice
    further averred that even after filing his application for in Samar became apparent when immediately
    reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship, Ty continued to make after reacquiring his Philippine citizenship, he
    trips to the USA. Moreover, although Ty already took his Oath of applied for a Philippine passport indicating in his
    Allegiance to the RP, he continued to comport himself as an application that his residence was at Samar. Ty
    American citizen as proven by his travel records. He had also voluntarily submitted himself to the local tax
    failed to renounce his foreign citizenship as required by jurisdiction of the Municipality by paying
    Republic Act No. 9225. community tax and securing CTCs. Ty applied for
    3. In his answer, Ty contended that prior to the filing of his COC, and was registered as a voter.
    he has already done the following acts: 4. In addition, Ty has also been bodily present since
    a. Filed an application for the reacquisition of his Philippine his arrival on 4 May 2006, inarguably, just a little
    citizenship over a year prior to the 14 May 2007 local
    b. executed an Oath of Allegiance to the RP elections. The fact that Ty did come back to the
    c. applied for a Philippine passport indicating in his place, after said trips, is a further manifestation of
    application that his residence was at Samar his animus manendi and animus revertendi.
    d. personally signed & secured a cedula (CTC) in Samar 5. Absence from residence to pursue studies or
    e. registered as a voter in said place practice a profession or registration as a voter
    f. executed on 19 March 2007 a duly notarized Renunciation other than in the place where one is elected,
    of Foreign Citizenship does not constitute loss of residence

    Issue/s Disposition: Petition DENIED


    1. W/N Ty may run for public office
    Additional Notes:
    Ruling 1. Under Section 5(2) of RA No. 9225, for a natural born Filipino,
    YES. Ty may run for public office because he effectively who reacquired or retained his Philippine citizenship under
    renounced his American citizenship. Republic Act No. 9225, to run for public office, he must: (1) meet
    1. When he left to work in the USA, he eventually the qualifications for holding such public office as required by
    became an American citizen. Ty reacquired his the Constitution and existing laws; and (2) make a personal and
    Philippine citizenship by taking his Oath of sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any
    Allegiance before the Philippine Consulate public officer authorized to administer an oath.
    2. The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common
    acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation," but rather
    to "domicile" or legal residence, that is, "the place where a party
    actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no
    matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually
    intends to return and remain (animus manendi)

    You might also like