G.R. Nos. 260219 & 260231, April 22, 2025
Datu Pax Ali S. Mangudadatu, Petitioner, vs. The Commission on Elections, Sharifa Akeel Mangudadatu, Azel V. Mangudadatu, and Bai Ali A. Untong, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Datu Pax Ali S. Mangudadatu, the incumbent Mayor of Datu Abdullah Sangki (DAS), Maguindanao, filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Governor of Sultan Kudarat for the 2022 elections. He declared a period of residence in Lutayan, Sultan Kudarat, of one year and eight months preceding the election. Private respondents, including a rival gubernatorial candidate, filed petitions before the COMELEC to cancel his CoC, alleging material misrepresentation of his residency qualification. They contended he could not have established residency in Lutayan because he was actively serving as mayor in DAS.
The COMELEC First Division and En Banc ruled in favor of the private respondents, canceling Pax Ali’s CoC. The COMELEC essentially held that his incumbency and continuous discharge of duties as mayor of DAS precluded him from simultaneously acquiring a new domicile of choice in Lutayan, Sultan Kudarat. Aggrieved, Pax Ali elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via petition.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether an incumbent elected official’s active service in one locality legally prevents him from acquiring a new domicile in another locality to satisfy the residency requirement for a different elective office.

RULING

The ponencia, representing the majority, affirmed the COMELEC’s decision, ruling that Pax Ali committed a material misrepresentation regarding his residency. The majority emphasized the doctrine that domicile requires concurrence of: (1) bodily presence in the new locality, (2) intention to remain there indefinitely, and (3) intention to abandon the old domicile. It found that while Pax Ali demonstrated physical presence in Lutayan, his continued performance of mayoral duties in DAS negated the requisite intent to abandon his domicile there. His incumbency was deemed indicative of his clear choice of residence.
Justice Kho, in his Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, agreed with the majority’s ultimate disposition to deny the petition but dissented on the pivotal legal reasoning. He argued that incumbency alone should not be an absolute bar to acquiring a new domicile. Applying the evidentiary standard in election cases—substantial evidence—he found that Pax Ali’s overt acts (daily return to Lutayan after work and transfer of voter registration) sufficiently established his intent to reacquire domicile in Lutayan and abandon DAS.
Justice Kho proposed a distinct legal framework: an incumbent elected official who unequivocally demonstrates intent to transfer residency, such as by transferring voter registration or filing a CoC for another locality, should be considered ipso facto resigned from their current position from the date of that overt act. This resignation would resolve any conflict between the old and new domiciles. Applying this, he would have deemed Pax Ali resigned as Mayor of DAS from the date he transferred his voter registration to Lutayan, thereby validating his new domicile. However, as this view did not prevail, he concurred in the result based on the majority’s ruling. He also agreed with the ponencia’s abandonment of the “second-placer” rule.