G.R. No. 134015 , July 19, 1999
JUAN DOMINO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NARCISO RA. GRAFILO, JR., EDDY B. JAVA, JUAN P. BAYONITO, JR., ROSARIO SAMSON and DIONISIO P. LIM, SR., respondents, LUCILLE CHIONGBIAN-SOLON, intervenor.

FACTS

Petitioner Juan Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for Representative of Sarangani’s Lone District for the May 1998 elections, declaring therein a one-year and two-month residency in the constituency. Private respondents filed a petition to deny due course or cancel his certificate, alleging he was not a resident or registered voter of Sarangani. They presented evidence including Domino’s 1995 certificate of candidacy for Quezon City’s 3rd District, a Quezon City voter’s registration record dated June 1997, and a Sarangani community tax certificate suggesting it was pre-dated to January 1997. The COMELEC Second Division resolved to disqualify Domino, a ruling affirmed by the COMELEC en banc.
Domino defended his compliance with the one-year residency requirement, asserting he moved to Sarangani in January 1997. He submitted a contract of lease for a Sarangani property dated January 1997, an extra-judicial settlement of an estate purchased in November 1997, and a January 1998 Quezon City court decision excluding him and his wife from Quezon City’s voter list due to abandonment of residence. The COMELEC, however, found his evidence insufficient to prove a bona fide change of domicile.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Juan Domino for lack of the one-year residency requirement for a congressional candidate.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The legal logic centers on the concept of domicile, which requires not only physical presence (animus manendi) but also an intention to remain there permanently (animus non revertendi). For electoral purposes, residence is synonymous with domicile. The Court upheld the COMELEC’s factual finding that Domino failed to prove a bona fide transfer of domicile from Quezon City to Sarangani. His evidence was deemed unreliable; the lease contract and community tax certificate were suspect, and his application for transfer of voter registration was only filed in September 1997. Crucially, his own 1995 certificate of candidacy for Quezon City constituted a formal declaration of domicile there, which can only be abandoned by clear and positive proof of acquiring a new one. The Quezon City court’s exclusion order, while noting abandonment, did not positively establish Sarangani as his new domicile. The COMELEC’s conclusion that Domino did not possess the required one-year residency in Sarangani was supported by substantial evidence and involved no capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The determination of a candidate’s eligibility based on residency is a factual matter primarily within the COMELEC’s jurisdiction, and its findings, when supported by evidence, are accorded respect and finality.