G.R. No. L-7068 December 22, 1954
Perfecto Faypon, petitioner, vs. Eliseo Quirino, respondent.

FACTS

A petition for quo warranto was filed by Perfecto Faypon against Eliseo Quirino, challenging Quirino’s eligibility for the office of Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur to which he was proclaimed elected in the November 13, 1951 elections. The ground alleged was that Quirino lacked the required one-year bona fide residence in the province as mandated by Section 2071 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Faypon then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court for review. The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, established that Quirino was born in Caoayan, Ilocos Sur, in June 1895; he left for studies and work in the United States and, upon return, worked as a professor, newspaper owner/editor in Manila and Iloilo, and as an executive secretary in Manila until December 31, 1951. He registered as a voter in Pasay City in 1946-1947 and owned a house in Quezon City. Faypon argued that this registration in Pasay City constituted an abandonment of his Ilocos Sur residence.

ISSUE

Whether Eliseo Quirino’s registration as a voter in Pasay City in 1946 and 1947 constituted an abandonment or loss of his residence of origin in Ilocos Sur, thereby rendering him ineligible for the office of Provincial Governor due to failure to meet the one-year bona fide residence requirement prior to the election.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that Eliseo Quirino did not lose his residence of origin in Ilocos Sur. The Court ruled that mere absence from one’s residence of origin to pursue studies, engage in business, or practice an avocation, including registration as a voter in another locality, is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such domicile. The determination of legal residence depends largely upon intention, and the party claiming abandonment must prove it preponderantly. Citing previous cases (Yra vs. Abano, Vivero vs. Murillo, Laurena vs. Teves, and Gallego vs. Verra), the Court established the rule that registration as a voter in a place other than the residence of origin is not a ground for disqualification due to alleged loss of that residence. The Court found no material difference between the residence requirement for municipal and provincial officials and rejected the argument that the rule from cited cases was inapplicable. The case of Tanseco vs. Arteche was distinguished because there, the protestee admitted abandoning his residence of origin, which Quirino did not. Therefore, on the evidence, Quirino remained eligible for the office.