Mitra v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 191938. July 2, 2010
Ponente: Brion, J:

FACTS:

Petitioner Abraham Khalil Mitra (MITRA), is the incumbent Representative of the Second District
of Palawan. The aforementioned district included the Municipality of Aborlan and Puerto
Princesa City. Petitioner, a domiciliary of Puerto Princesa City, and represented the legislative
district for three (3) terms immediately before the elections of 2010. On March 26, 2007 (or
before the end of Mitra's second term as Representative), Puerto Princesa City was reclassified
as a "highly urbanized city" and thus ceased to be a component city of the Province of Palawan.
The direct legal consequence of this new status was the ineligibility of Puerto Princesa City
residents from voting for candidates for elective provincial officials. On March 20, 2009, with the
intention of running for the position of Governor, Mitra applied for the transfer of his Voter's
Registration Record from the City of Puerto Princesa to the Municipality of Aborlan. He
subsequently filed his COC for the position of Governor of Palawan as a resident of Aborlan.
Soon thereafter, private respondents Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr. (the
respondents) filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel Mitra's COC . They essentially
argued that Mitra remains a resident of Puerto Princesa City who has not yet established
residence in Aborlan, and is therefore not qualified to run for Governor of Palawan. Mitra
insisted in his Answer that he has successfully abandoned Puerto Princesa City as his domicile
of origin, and has established a new domicile in Aborlan since 2008. The COMELEC ruled in
favor of the private respondents as they stated that Domicile imports not only intend to reside in
a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of this
intention.To acquire a new domicile — a domicile by choice – the following must concur: (1)
residence or bodily presence in a new locality; (2) an intention to remain there; and
(3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words, there must be an animus non
revertendi with respect to the old domicile, and an animus manendi at the domicile of choice.
The intent to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time and
the acts of the person must be consistent with this intent. The COMELEC based its decision on
the submitted evidence by both parties, and by citing jurisprudence.

ISSUE:

WON, COMELEC erred in its decision to disqualify the petitioner’s COC because of the said
misrepresentation of residency?

RULING:
YES. The court ruled that COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in its appreciation of the
evidence, leading it to conclude that Mitra is not a resident of Aborlan, Palawan. While it is true
that Mitra’s domicile of origin is undisputedly in the City of Puerto Princesa, he had to abandon
his domicile of origin and acquire a new one within the local government unit where he intended
to run; this would be his ​domicile of choice.​ To acquire a domicile of choice, jurisprudence,
which the COMELEC correctly invoked, requires the following:

(1) residence or bodily presence in a new locality;

(2) an intention to remain there; and

(3) an intention to abandon the old domicile.

Mitra was able to comply with the requisites to acquire a domicile of choice even though his
residence or bodily presence was being questioned, since residents were claiming that they do
not usually see Mitra in his residence in Aborlan. It is true that Mitra have not stayed in Aborlan
nor in Palawan for most of 2008 and 2009, but this is only because of the fact that his office and
activities as a Representative were in Manila, it is hardly credible that he would not be seen in
Aborlan. Furthermore, from the start, Mitra never hid his intention to transfer his residence from
Puerto Princesa City to Aborlan to comply with the residence requirement of a candidate for an
elective provincial office . ​Republic Act No. 7160​, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code, does not abhor this intended transfer of residence, as its Section 39 merely requires an
elective local official to be a resident of the local government unit where he intends to run for at
least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election . In other words, the law itself
recognizes implicitly that there can be a change of domicile or residence, but imposes only the
condition that residence at the new place should at least be for a year.

NOTES:
To clarify some things, 1 year lang yung required period of residence if you want to run for a
local position na nacomply naman ni Mitra cause 2008 pa lang lumipat na siya sa isang farm sa
Aborlan. Di lang siya nakikita ng mga tao cause Representative siya ng second district and he
had to stay in Manila most of the time for the sessions ng congress. Ang dami ring naging error
ng COMELEC sa pag acknowledge ng evidence na prinovide ni Mitra cause they mostly relied
sa statements nung residents ng Aborlan na nagsasabing hindi nga raw nila nakikita si Mitra
roon.