G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CIRILO ROY MONTEJO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for Representative of the First District of Leyte on March 8, 1995, stating her residency in the constituency as “seven months.” Private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent Representative and a rival candidate, filed a petition for her disqualification, contending she failed to meet the constitutional one-year residency requirement. On March 29, 1995, after the March 20 filing deadline, Marcos filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, altering the entry to “since childhood.” The Provincial Election Supervisor refused to accept it as filed out of time, so she filed it with the COMELEC head office on March 31, 1995.
In her defense, Marcos averred that the “seven months” entry was an “honest misinterpretation,” referring only to her physical presence in Tolosa, Leyte, while her domicile had always been Tacloban City, also within the First District. She argued she maintained Tacloban as her domicile of origin. The COMELEC Second Division granted Montejo’s petition, canceling her certificates of candidacy. It ruled the amendment was invalid for being filed past the deadline and found her claim of honest mistake not credible, as her actions, including initially attempting to register in Tacloban but then registering in Tolosa, contradicted her assertion of lifelong Tacloban residency.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos possessed the required one-year residency in the First District of Leyte immediately preceding the May 1995 elections.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the COMELEC and reinstating Marcos’s candidacy. The constitutional residency requirement refers to domicile, meaning a permanent home to which one intends to return. Domicile is a question of intention. The Court found that Tacloban City was Marcos’s domicile of origin. While she lived in various places due to her husband’s political career, she never abandoned this domicile, as evidenced by her consistent acts of returning and investing there. Her registration in Tolosa for seven months was to satisfy voting requirements but did not establish a new domicile, as there was no clear intention to abandon Tacloban permanently.
The Court held that the one-year residency is counted from the domicile, not from any temporary physical location. Since her domicile remained Tacloban City within the First District, she complied with the requirement. The “seven months” entry in her original certificate was a mistake in filling out the form, not a misrepresentation of her legal domicile. The amendment, though late, was allowed to correct this material misrepresentation and prevent disenfranchising voters. The constitutional provision aims to prevent strangers from representing a community, a mischief not present as Marcos’s lifelong ties to the district demonstrated her familiarity with its needs.