Assignment: Imelda Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300, 64 SCAD 358, 18 September 1995

Facts:
In 23 March 1995, Cirilo Roy Montejo filed a petition of cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC charged that Imelda Romualdez-Marcos did not meet the 1-residency requirement under the Constitution. In 29 March 1995, she filed belatedly a corrected certificate of candidacy changing the entry “seven months” to “since childhood”.

COMELEC decided en banc she is denied the belated amendment to her COC, thereby ruling that she is not qualified to run as congressman for the 1st district of Leyte.

Issue:
Is Imelda Romualdez-Marcos a resident of the area for one year prior to running as congresswoman?

Held:
Yes, she is qualified to run as congresswoman. An individual does not loose his domicile even if he is maintaining several residences in several areas. The concepts of residence and domicile is somewhat interchangeable but is not. Residence refers to a place of dwelling, whether permanent or temporary. Domicile refers to a place of a person's habitual residence, if absent, has intention to return to.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest for Article 91 of the Family Code: Munoz v. Ramirez and Carlos

FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, JR., Petitioner, v. ERLINDA RAMIREZ and ELISEO CARLOS, Respondents G.R. No. 156125, 25 August 2010 FACTS: The residential lot in the subject property was registered in the name of Erlinda Ramirez, married to Eliseo Carlos (respondents). On 6 April 1989, Eliseo, a Bureau of Internal Revenue employee, mortgaged said lot, with Erlinda’s consent, to the GSIS to secure a P136,500.00 housing loan, payable within twenty (20) years, through monthly salary deductions of P1,687.66. The respondents then constructed a thirty-six (36)-square meter, two-story residential house on the lot. On 14 July 1993, the title to the subject property was transferred to the petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 30 April 1992, executed by Erlinda, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of Eliseo, for a stated consideration of P602,000.00. On 24 September 1993, the respondents filed a complaint with the RTC for the nullification of the deed of absolute sa...
Read more

Case Digest: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion | A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978 Facts:     The respondent is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Supreme Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rules of Court 139-A and the provisions of Paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of the IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.     Edilion contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues and that as a consequence of this, compelled financial support of the said org...
Read more

Case Digest: Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent | A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012

Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012 Facts:     Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.     It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of ...
Read more