FAYPON VS QUIRINO 96 phil 294 December 22, 1954

FACTS:

Respondent was born in Cagayan, Ilocos Sur; came to Manila to pursue his studies;
went to United States for the same purpose; returned to the Philippines; and
engaged in the newspaper work in Manila, and Iloilo. When he ran for the office of
Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur, he was proclaimed by the provincial board of
canvassers as the governor. A petition for quo warranto was filed by the petitioner
on the ground of respondent's ineligibility for the said office because of alleged lack
of residence. The petitioner relies on the fact that the respondent registered as
voter in Pasay City in 1946 and 1947.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent's acts, activities, and utterances constitute

abandonment or loss of his residence of origin.

DECISION:

NO. The Court ruled out that mere absence from one's residence or origin - domicile
- to pursue studies, engage in business, or practice his avocation, is not sufficient to
constitute abandonment or loss of such residence.

A citizen may leave the place of his birth to look for "greener pastures" to improve
his lot. When election is to be held, the citizen who left his birthplace to improve his
lot may desire to return to his native town to cast his ballot but for professional or
business reason, he may not be absent himself from the place of his activities; so
there he registers as voter. Despite such registration, the animus revertendi to his
home, to his domicile or residence of origin, he has not forsaken him. Thus,
registration of a voter in another place has not been deemed sufficient to constitute
abandonment or loss of such residence.

Perez v Comelec 317 scra 641, October 28, 1999

Facts:

On March 26, 1998, private respondent filed his certificate of candidacy

for Representative of the Third District of Cagayan in the May 11, 1998 elections.
Four days later, on March 30, 1998, petitioner, as a voter and citizen, filed in the
COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of private respondent as a candidate on
the ground that he had not been a resident of the district for at least one (1) year
immediately before the day of the elections as required by Art. VI, Section 6 of the
Constitution. On May 10, 1998, the First Division of the COMELEC, in a unanimous
resolution, dismissed the petition for disqualification, finding private respondent
Aguinaldo qualified to run as representative for the Third District of Cagayan.

Issue:

Whether residency in the respondents certificate of candidacy for governor

actually connotes domicile to warrant his disqualification from the position in the
electoral district.

Ruling:

No. As this Court said in Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC: It is the fact of residence,

not a statement in a certificate of candidacy, which ought to be decisive in
determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitutions residency
qualification requirement. The said statement becomes material only when there is
or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which
would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. There is substantial evidence
supporting the finding that private respondent had been a resident of the Third
District of Cagayan and there is nothing in the record to detract from the merit of
this factual finding. The private respondent was actually a resident of the Third
District not just for one (1) year prior to the May 11, 1998 elections but for more
than seven (7) years since July 1990.

JAO VS. REPUBLIC

121 SCRA 358

FACTS:

Petitioner, allegedly an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother,

filed a petition for repatriation claiming that she is a Philippine citizen due to the
invalid marriage of her parents. Trial court issued an Order declaring the petitioner
as judicially repatriated.

ISSUE:

Whether or not repatriation through judicial proceeding is valid.

HELD:

No, because there is no law requiring or authorizing such judicial repatriation. All
that is required for a female citizen of the Philippines who lost her citizenship to an
alien to reacquire her Philippine citizenship, is for her to take necessary oath in the
proper civil registrar, upon the termination of her marital status. Decision revoked
and set aside.