9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

Note.Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false

statement in any material fact or practicing or attempting to practice
any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration,
appointment. (Alabastro vs. Moncada, Sr., 447 SCRA 42 [2004])

o0o

G.R. No. 179851.April 18, 2008.*

MAYOR JOSE UGDORACION, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION

ON ELECTIONS and EPHRAIM M. TUNGOL, respondents.

Election Law; Omnibus Election Code; Certificates of Candidacy;

Misrepresentation; The code requires that the facts stated in the Certificate
of Candidacy (COC) must be true and any false representation therein of a
material fact shall be a ground for cancellation thereof.Section 74, in
relation to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, in unmistakable terms,
requires that the facts stated in the COC must be true, and any false
representation therein of a material fact shall be a ground for cancellation
thereof.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The false representation contemplated by
Section 78 of the Code pertains to material fact, and is not simply an
innocuous mistake.The false representation contemplated by Section 78
of the Code pertains to material fact, and is not simply an innocuous
mistake. A material fact refers to a candidates qualification for elective
office such as ones citizenship and residence. Our holding in Salcedo II v.
COMELEC, 312 SCRA 447 (1999), reiterated in Lluz v. COMELEC, 523
SCRA 456 (2007), is instructive, thus: In case there is a material
misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy, the Comelec is authorized
to deny due course to or cancel such certificate upon the filing of a petition
by any person pursuant to Section 78. x x xx x x x As stated in the

_______________

* EN BANC.

232

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

law, in order to justify the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy under

Section 78, it is essential that the false representation mentioned therein
pertain[s] to a material matter for the sanction imposed by this provision
would affect the substantive rights of a candidatethe right to run for the
elective post for which he filed the certificate of candidacy. Although the
law does not specify what would be considered as a material
representation, the court has interpreted this phrase in a line of decisions
applying Section 78 of [B.P. 881].
Same; Same; Same; Same; A Filipino citizens acquisition of a
permanent resident status abroad constitutes an abandonment of his
domicile and residence in the Philippines; The green card status in the
USA is a renunciation of ones status as a resident of the Philippines.
Ugdoracions assertions miss the mark completely. The dust had long settled
over the implications of a green card holder status on an elective officials
qualification for public office. We ruled in Caasi v. Court of Appeals, 191
SCRA 229 (1990), that a Filipino citizens acquisition of a permanent
resident status abroad constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and
residence in the Philippines. In short, the green card status in the USA is a
renunciation of ones status as a resident of the Philippines.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Domicile; Residence in contemplation of
election laws is synonymous to domicile; Domicile is classified into (1)
domicile of origin, (2) domicile of choice, and (3) domicile by operation of
law.We agree with Ugdoracion that residence, in contemplation of
election laws, is synonymous to domicile. Domicile is the place where one
actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter
where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return
(animus revertendi) and remain (animus manendi). It consists not only in the
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place,
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile is classified
into (1) domicile of origin, which is acquired by every person at birth; (2)
domicile of choice, which is acquired upon abandonment of the domicile of
origin; and (3) domicile by operation of law, which the law attributes to a
person independently of his residence or intention.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Three Basic Rules Governing Domicile.
In a controversy such as the one at bench, given the parties naturally
conflicting perspectives on domicile, we are guided

233

VOL. 552, APRIL 18, 2008 233

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

by three basic rules, namely: (1) a man must have a residence or domicile
somewhere; (2) domicile, once established, remains until a new one is
validly acquired; and (3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at
any given time.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Domicile of origin is not easily lost,
it is lost only when there is an actual removal or change of domicile, a bona
fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new
one and acts which correspond with such purpose.The general rule is that
the domicile of origin is not easily lost; it is lost only when there is an actual
removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the
former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond
with such purpose. In the instant case, however, Ugdoracions acquisition of
a lawful permanent resident status in the United States amounted to an
abandonment and renunciation of his status as a resident of the Philippines;
it constituted a change from his domicile of origin, which was Albuquerque,
Bohol, to a new domicile of choice, which is the USA.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The candidates misrepresentation in his
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) must not only refer to a material fact
(eligibility and qualifications for elective office) but should evince a
deliberate intent to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible.A candidates disqualification to run for
public office does not necessarily constitute material misrepresentation
which is the sole ground for denying due course to, and for the cancellation
of, a COC. Further, as already discussed, the candidates misrepresentation
in his COC must not only refer to a material fact (eligibility and
qualifications for elective office), but should evince a deliberate intent to
mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate
ineligible. It must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to
ones qualifications to run for public office.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Winning the election does not substitute for the
specific requirements of law on a persons eligibility for public office which
he lacked, and does not cure his material misrepresentation which is a valid
ground for the cancellation of his Certificate of Candidacy (COC).We are
not unmindful of the fact that Ugdoracion appears to have won the election
as Mayor of Albuquerque, Bohol. Sadly, winning the election does not
substitute for the

234

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

specific requirements of law on a persons eligibility for public office which

he lacked, and does not cure his material misrepresentation which is a valid
ground for the cancellation of his COC.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and

Prohibition.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
George Erwin M. Garcia for petitioner.
Alberto Y. Bautista for private respondent.

NACHURA,J.:
At bar is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 64
of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Jose Ugdoracion, Jr.,
pursuant to Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution, challenging
the May 8, 2007 and September 28, 2007 Resolutions1 of the public
respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division
and En Banc, respectively.
The facts:
Ugdoracion and private respondent, Ephraim Tungol, were rival
mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Albuquerque, Province
of Bohol in the May 14, 2007 elections. Both filed their respective
Certificates of Candidacy (COC).
On April 11, 2007, Tungol filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or
Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Jose Ugdoracion, Jr.,
contending that Ugdoracions declaration of eligibility for Mayor
constituted material misrepresentation because Ugdoracion is
actually a green card holder or a permanent resident of the United
States of America (USA). Specifically, Ugdoracion stated in his
COC that he had resided in Albuquerque, Bohol, Philippines for
forty-one years before May 14, 2007 and he is not a permanent
resident or an immigrant to a foreign country.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 46-50; 42-45.

235

VOL. 552, APRIL 18, 2008 235

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

It appears that Ugdoracion became a permanent resident of the

USA on September 26, 2001. Accordingly, the United States
Immigration and Naturalization Services2 (USINS) issued him Alien
Number 047-894-254.3
For his part, Ugdoracion argued that, in our jurisdiction, domicile
is equivalent to residence, and he retained his domicile of origin
(Albuquerque, Bohol) notwithstanding his ostensible acquisition of
permanent residency in the USA. Ugdoracion then pointed to the
following documents as proof of his substantial compliance with the
residency requirement: (1) a residence certificate dated May 5, 2006;
(2) an application for a new voters registration dated October 12,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

2006; and (3) a photocopy of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent

Resident Status dated October 18, 2006.
On May 8, 2007, the COMELEC First Division promulgated one
of the herein questioned resolutions canceling Ugdoracions COC
and removing his name from the certified list of candidates for the
position of Mayor of Albuquerque, Bohol. Posthaste, on May 11,
2007, Ugdoracion filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid
resolution arguing in the main that his status as a green card
holder was not of his own making but a mere offshoot of a petition
filed by his sister. He admitted his intermittent travels to the USA,
but only to visit his siblings, and short working stint thereat to cover
his subsistence for the duration of his stay.
In yet another setback, the COMELEC En Banc issued the other
questioned resolution denying Ugdoracions motion for
reconsideration and affirming the First Divisions finding of material
misrepresentation in Ugdoracions COC.
Hence, this petition imputing grave abuse of discretion to the
COMELEC. Subsequently, Tungol and the COMELEC

_______________

2 Now called the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

3 Rollo, p. 73.

236

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

filed their respective Comments4 on the petition. On March 7, 2008,

Ugdoracion filed an Extremely Urgent Motion to Reiterate Issuance
of an Injunctive Writ.5 On March 11, 2008, we issued a Status Quo
Order. The next day, March 12, 2008, Ugdoracion filed a
Consolidated Reply to respondents Comments.
Ugdoracions argument focuses on his supposed involuntary
acquisition of a permanent resident status in the USA which, as he
insists, did not result in the loss of his domicile of origin. He bolsters
this contention with the following facts:

1.He was born in Albuquerque, Bohol, on October 15, 1940 and as

such, is a natural-born Filipino citizen;
2.He was baptized in the Catholic Church of Sta. Monica Paris in
Albuquerque, Bohol on February 2, 1941;
3.He was raised in said municipality;
4.He grew up in said municipality;
5.He raised his own family and established a family home thereat;
6.He served his community for twelve (12) years and had been the
former Mayor for three (3) terms;

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

7.From 1986 to 1988, he was appointed as Officer-in-Charge;

8.He ran for the same position in 1988 and won;
9.He continued his public service as Mayor until his last term in the
year 1998;
10.After his term as Mayor, he served his people again as Councilor;
11.He built his house at the very place where his ancestral home was
situated;
12.He still acquired several real properties at the same place;
13.He never lost contact with the people of his town; and

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 67-80; 82-98.

5 Id., at pp. 114-121.

237

VOL. 552, APRIL 18, 2008 237

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

14. He secured a residence certificate on May 5, 2006 at Western

Poblacion, Albuquerque, Bohol and faithfully paid real property taxes.6

The sole issue for our resolution is whether the COMELEC

committed grave abuse of discretion in canceling Ugdoracions COC
for material misrepresentation. Essentially, the issue hinges on
whether the representations contained in Ugdoracions COC,
specifically, that he complied with the residency requirement and
that he does not have green card holder status, are false.
We find no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELECs
cancellation of Ugdoracions COC for material misrepresentation.
Accordingly, the petition must fail.
Section 74, in relation to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code, in unmistakable terms, requires that the facts stated in the
COC must be true, and any false representation therein of a material
fact shall be a ground for cancellation thereof, thus:

SEC.74.Contents of certificate of candidacy.The certificate of

candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for
the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member
of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities,
highly urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the
political party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence;
his post office address for all election purposes; his profession or
occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution of the
Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will
obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign
country; that the obligation assumed by his oath is assumed voluntarily,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated
in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 30-31.

238

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

xxxx
SEC.78.Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy.A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a
certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the
ground that any material representation contained therein as required under
Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later
than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing not later than
fifteen days before the election.

The false representation contemplated by Section 78 of the Code

pertains to material fact, and is not simply an innocuous mistake. A
material fact refers to a candidates qualification for elective office
such as ones citizenship and residence.7 Our holding in Salcedo II v.
COMELEC8 reiterated in Lluz v. COMELEC9 is instructive, thus:

In case there is a material misrepresentation in the certificate of

candidacy, the Comelec is authorized to deny due course to or cancel such
certificate upon the filing of a petition by any person pursuant to Section 78.
xxx
xxxx
As stated in the law, in order to justify the cancellation of the certificate
of candidacy under Section 78, it is essential that the false representation
mentioned therein pertain[s] to a material matter for the sanction imposed
by this provision would affect the substantive rights of a candidatethe
right to run for the elective post for which he filed the certificate of
candidacy. Although the law does not specify what would be considered as a
material representation, the court has interpreted this phrase in a line of
decisions applying Section 78 of [B.P. 881].
xxxx

_______________

7 See Lluz v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 172840, June 7, 2007, 523 SCRA 456;
Salcedo II v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 135886, August 16, 1999, 312 SCRA 447.
8 Supra.
9 Supra.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

239

VOL. 552, APRIL 18, 2008 239

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Therefore, it may be concluded that the material misrepresentation

contemplated by Section 78 of the Code refer[s] to qualifications for
elective office. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the
consequences imposed upon a candidate guilty of having made a false
representation in [the] certificate of candidacy are graveto prevent the
candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for
violation of the election laws. It could not have been the intention of the law
to deprive a person of such a basic and substantive political right to be voted
for a public office upon just any innocuous mistake.
xxxx
Aside from the requirement of materiality, a false representation under
Section 78 must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or
hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. In other
words, it must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to
ones qualifications for public office.

Viewed in this light, the question posed by Ugdoracion is hardly a

novel one.
Ugdoracion urges us, however, that he did not lose his domicile
of origin because his acquisition of a green card was brought
about merely by his sisters petition. He maintains that, except for
this unfortunate detail, all other facts demonstrate his retention of
residence in Albuquerque, Bohol. Believing in the truth of these
circumstances, he simply echoed in his COC a truthful statement
that he is a resident of Albuquerque, Bohol, and, therefore, eligible
and qualified to run for Mayor thereof.
We are not convinced. Ugdoracions assertions miss the mark
completely. The dust had long settled over the implications of a
green card holder status on an elective officials qualification for
public office. We ruled in Caasi v. Court of Appeals10 that a Filipino
citizens acquisition of a permanent resident status abroad
constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the
Philippines. In short, the green

_______________

10 G.R. Nos. 88831 and 84508, November 8, 1990, 191 SCRA 229.

240

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

card status in the USA is a renunciation of ones status as a resident

of the Philippines.11
We agree with Ugdoracion that residence, in contemplation of
election laws, is synonymous to domicile. Domicile is the place
where one actually or constructively has his permanent home, where
he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually
intends to return (animus revertendi) and remain (animus
manendi).12 It consists not only in the intention to reside in a fixed
place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention.13
Domicile is classified into (1) domicile of origin, which is
acquired by every person at birth; (2) domicile of choice, which is
acquired upon abandonment of the domicile of origin; and (3)
domicile by operation of law, which the law attributes to a person
independently of his residence or intention.
In a controversy such as the one at bench, given the parties
naturally conflicting perspectives on domicile, we are guided by
three basic rules, namely: (1) a man must have a residence or
domicile somewhere; (2) domicile, once established, remains until a
new one is validly acquired; and (3) a man can have but one
residence or domicile at any given time.14
The general rule is that the domicile of origin is not easily lost; it
is lost only when there is an actual removal or change of domicile, a
bona fide intention of abandoning the former

_______________

11 Gayo v. Verceles, G.R. No. 150477, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 504, 515.
12 Coquilla v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002, 385
SCRA 607, citing Aquino v. Commission on Elections, 248 SCRA 400 (1995).
13 Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, G.R. No. 104960, September 14,
1993, 226 SCRA 408, 415, citing Nuval v. Guray, 52 Phil. 645 (1928).
14 Domino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999, 310
SCRA 546, 568.

241

VOL. 552, APRIL 18, 2008 241

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond

with such purpose.15 In the instant case, however, Ugdoracions
acquisition of a lawful permanent resident status in the United States
amounted to an abandonment and renunciation of his status as a
resident of the Philippines; it constituted a change from his domicile
of origin, which was Albuquerque, Bohol, to a new domicile of
choice, which is the USA.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

The contention that Ugdoracions USA resident status was

acquired involuntarily, as it was simply the result of his sisters
beneficence, does not persuade. Although immigration to the USA
through a petition filed by a family member (sponsor) is allowed by
USA immigration laws,16 the petitioned party is very much free to
accept or reject the grant of resident status. Permanent residency in
the USA is not conferred upon the unwilling; unlike citizenship, it is
not bestowed by operation of law.17 And to reiterate, a person can
have only one residence or domicile at any given time.
Moreover, Ugdoracions contention is decimated by Section 6818
of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 40(f)19 of the

_______________

15 Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976, September

18, 1995, 248 SCRA 300.
16 See: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb
95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/? vgnextoid=0775667706f 7d010Vgn
VCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010Vgn
VCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD.
17 See Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999, 307 SCRA 630.
18 Section 68 reads in part: Any person who is a permanent resident of or an
immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office
under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as a permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.
19 Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right
to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this
Code.

242

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Local Government Code, which disqualifies a permanent resident of,

or an immigrant to, a foreign country, unless said person waives his
status. Corollary thereto, we are in complete accord with the
COMELECs ruling on the validity and effect of the waiver of
permanent resident status supposedly executed by Ugdoracion, to
wit:

Following the Caasi case, in order to reacquire residency in the

Philippines, there must be a waiver of status as a greencard holder as
manifested by some acts or acts independent of and prior to the filing of the
certificate of candidacy. In the case at bar, [Ugdoracion] presented a
photocopy of a document entitled Abandonment of Lawful Permanent
Resident Status dated October 18, 2006. A close scrutiny of this document

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

however discloses that it is a mere application for abandonment of his status

as lawful permanent resident of the USA. It does not bear any note of
approval by the concerned US official. Thus, [w]e cannot consider the same
as sufficient waiver of [Ugdoracions] status of permanent residency in the
USA. Besides, it is a mere photocopy, unauthenticated and uncertified by
the legal custodian of such document.
Assuming arguendo that said application was duly approved,
[Ugdoracion] is still disqualified for he failed to meet the one-year residency
requirement. [Ugdoracion] has applied for abandonment of residence only
on 18 October 2006 or for just about seven (7) months prior to the May 14,
2007 elections, which clearly fall short of the required period.
The Permanent Resident Card or the so-called greencard issued by the
US government to respondent does not merely signify transitory stay in the
USA for purpose of work, pleasure, business or study but to live there
permanently. This is the reason why the law considers immigrants to have
lost their residency in the Philippines.20

Concededly, a candidates disqualification to run for public office

does not necessarily constitute material misrepresentation which is
the sole ground for denying due course to, and for the cancellation
of, a COC. Further, as already discussed,

_______________

20 Rollo, p. 44.

243

VOL. 552, APRIL 18, 2008 243

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

the candidates misrepresentation in his COC must not only refer to

a material fact (eligibility and qualifications for elective office), but
should evince a deliberate intent to mislead, misinform or hide a fact
which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It must be
made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to ones
qualifications to run for public office.21
Ugdoracion claims that he did not misrepresent his eligibility for
the public office of Mayor. He categorically declares that he merely
stated in his COC that he is a resident of the Philippines and in
possession of all the qualifications and suffers from none of the
disqualifications prescribed by law. Unfortunately for Ugdoracion,
Section 74 specifically requires a statement in the COC that the
candidate is not a permanent resident or an immigrant to a foreign
country. Ugdoracions cause is further lost because of the explicit
pronouncement in his COC that he had resided in Albuquerque,
Bohol, Philippines before the May 14, 2007 elections for forty-one
(41) years.22 Ineluctably, even if Ugdoracion might have been of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
9/23/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 552

mistaken belief that he remained a resident of the Philippines, he hid

the fact of his immigration to the USA and his status as a green
card holder.
Finally, we are not unmindful of the fact that Ugdoracion appears
to have won the election as Mayor of Albuquerque, Bohol. Sadly,
winning the election does not substitute for the specific requirements
of law on a persons eligibility for public office which he lacked, and
does not cure his material misrepresentation which is a valid ground
for the cancellation of his COC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
DENIED. The COMELEC Resolutions dated May 8, 2007 and
September 28, 2007 are AFFIRMED. The STATUS QUO Order
issued on March 11, 2008 is hereby LIFTED.

_______________

21 Salcedo II v. Comelec, supra note 7.

22 Rollo, p. 83.

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eae42ec77bf464a97003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12