Yra vs Albano FACTS: Maximo Abao is a native of the municipality of Meycauayan,Bulacan.

At the proper age, he transferred to Manila to complete hiseducation. While temporarily residing in Manila, Abao registered as avoter there. Shortly after qualifying as a member of the bar and afterthe death of is father, Abao returned to Meycauayan to live. FromMay 10, 1927, until the present, Abao has considered himself aresident of Meycauayan. When the 1928 elections were approaching,he made an application for cancellation of registration in Manila whichwas dated April 3, 1928, but the application was rejected by the cityofficials for the reason that it was not deposited in the mails on orbefore April 4, 1928. Nevertheless, Abao presented himself as acandidate for municipal president of Meycauayan in the 1928 electionsand was elected by popular vote to the office.Marcos Yra assigns and argues that Abao is ineligible to holdthe position to which he was elected for the reason that he had notbeen a resident of Meycauayan for at least one year before theelection. ISSUE: Is the non-eligibility of the respondent to hold a municipal officefor the reason that he was not a qualified voter in his municipality,connoting that he was not a qualified elector therein, sufficient tonullify his election? RULING: One of the qualifications required by law of a person whoannounces his candidacy is that he must be a duly qualified elector.The words qualified elector meant a person who had all of thequalifications provided by law to be a voter and not a personregistered in the electoral list. The Executive Bureau has held that theterm qualified when applied to a voter does n ot necessarily mean thata person must be a registered voter. To become a qualified candidate,a person does not need to register as an elector. Registering does notconfer the right; it is a condition precedent to exercise the right. Thefact that a candidate failed to register as an elector in the municipalitydoes not deprive him of the right to become a candidate and to bevoted for

Romualdez vs RTC Facts: Philip G. Romualdez is a natural born citizen of the Philippines and a son of a former governor of Leyte Benjamin Kokoy and sole nephew of First lady Imelda Marcos. He served as a barangay captain of the said place during snap election in 1986. He fled the country and went to U.S. and sought asylum, took special studies in the development of Leyte-Samar with International business studies as well. When Romualdez came back in the Philippines and run in National Congress the Commission on Election allowed him to vote and have him registered on precinct 9 of Tolosa, Malbog Leyte where he had resided. However, Advincula filed a petition questioning the registration of Romualdez to the said Municipality in MTC. The former allege that Romualdez was not a resident of the said municipality because he leave the country and resided in U.S. Massachussets. He just recently arrive here and didnt acquired 1 year residency here yet. The MTC denied the petition of Advincula in the Registration of Romuladez on the said precinct and the right to suffrage. But the RTC reverse the discretion and disqualified the voter registration of Romualdez favoring the petitioner. The respondent prayed that the MTCs discretion over questioning his right to suffrage will be affirmed. ISSUE: 1. WON MTC and RTC will find jurisdiction over respective petitions. 2. WON respondents court will not stray the investigation regarding his sudden leave in the country, abandoning his residency in Tolosa. RULING: The petition was impressed merit, although the said respondent had leave the country. He Is still a sovereign here in the Philippines and not to question his right to suffrage. The self-exile of the respondent was for the purpose of safety and security to his family from the rage of Marcos regime. The respondent was a domicile in U.S. but it doesnt mean that there would an estopped to exercise his privilege as a Filipino citizen in registering his name from the said precinct in Leyte: questioning right to suffrage. The petition was GRANTED WITH DUE COURSE, RTCs discretion was reverse and the TRO issued is in permanent to question the decision of the trial court, initiating a no cost promulgation, and MTCs decision is hereby REINSTATED.