G.R. No. 191938; July 2, 2010
ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ANTONIO V. GONZALES, and ORLANDO R. BALBON, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra, the incumbent Representative of Palawan’s Second District, filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Governor of Palawan, stating his residence as Aborlan, Palawan. This followed the reclassification of his previous domicile, Puerto Princesa City, as a highly urbanized city, which disqualified its residents from voting for provincial officials. Respondents Antonio Gonzales and Orlando Balbon, Jr. filed a petition to cancel Mitra’s COC, alleging he made a material misrepresentation regarding his residency. They contended Mitra remained a resident of Puerto Princesa City, citing documents like a deed of sale and a building permit that listed that city as his address, and presented affidavits from local officials asserting he was not an Aborlan resident.
Mitra countered that he had successfully abandoned his domicile of origin in Puerto Princesa and established a new domicile in Aborlan since 2008. He submitted evidence including a lease contract for a residence within the Maligaya Feedmill compound, affidavits from local Aborlan officials attesting to his residence, photographs of his farm and claimed residence, and a community tax certificate listing Aborlan as his address. The COMELEC en banc ultimately granted the petition and cancelled Mitra’s COC, finding his evidence of a bona fide change of domicile insufficient.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra’s Certificate of Candidacy on the ground of material misrepresentation regarding his residency.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, reversed the COMELEC resolutions, and reinstated Mitra’s COC. The Court held that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of the evidence on domicile. The legal logic centered on the nature of domicile, which requires both physical presence (animus manendi) and the intention to reside there permanently (animus non revertendi). The Court found that Mitra presented substantial evidence of both elements. His lease of a residential unit in Aborlan, the testimonies of local officials, his voter transfer, and his development of an agricultural business in the area collectively demonstrated a bona fide intention to establish a new domicile. The respondents’ evidence, primarily consisting of documents from a prior period and affidavits disputing his presence, did not conclusively disprove this change. The Court emphasized that the residency requirement is substantive, aimed at ensuring familiarity with the locality, but the determination of domicile involves an assessment of intent, which Mitra adequately established. The COMELEC’s conclusion was thus not supported by the evidence and amounted to a capricious disregard of established facts, constituting grave abuse of discretion.