G.R. No. 36300 ; September 13, 1932
ANTONINO TANSECO, petitioner-appellee, vs. PEDRO R. ARTECHE, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Antonino Tanseco filed a quo warranto proceeding to challenge the eligibility of Pedro R. Arteche for the office of Provincial Governor of Samar, alleging Arteche lacked the required one-year bona fide residence in the province prior to the June 2, 1931 election. Arteche was born in Samar but lived in Manila for his higher education and law practice. He registered as a voter in Manila in 1928 and only cancelled that registration on February 22, 1931, stating he had reestablished residence in Catbalogan, Samar, since May 30, 1930. The proceeding was filed in the Supreme Court on the last day of the two-week period after Arteche’s proclamation. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Samar, which declared Arteche ineligible. Arteche appealed, raising procedural objections and contesting the residence ruling.

ISSUE

1. Whether the procedural objections (sufficiency of allegations, timeliness of filing, and jurisdiction due to delayed decision) are valid.
2. Whether Arteche possessed the required one-year bona fide residence in Samar prior to the election.

RULING

1. The procedural objections are without merit. The allegation that Arteche was “declared governor-elect” is sufficient. The filing in the CFI was timely as it was a continuation of the action commenced in the Supreme Court within the statutory period. The 30-day period for deciding the case is directory, not jurisdictional.
2. Arteche did not meet the residential qualification. Residence for election purposes requires bodily presence as an inhabitant, coupled with intent to remain. Arteche’s physical presence in Manila for study and law practice during the critical period, along with his voter registration there, demonstrated an abandonment of his Samar residence. His intent to reestablish residence in Samar only from May 30, 1930, was insufficient to cover the one-year period preceding the June 2, 1931 election. The judgment declaring him ineligible is affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion:* Justices Malcolm and Villamor argued that residence is a matter of intention, and Arteche’s actions (cancelling Manila registration, verified candidacy) demonstrated his intent to remain a Samar resident. They emphasized local conditions where individuals temporarily reside in Manila for education or profession, and that the will of the electorate should be respected.

AI Generated by Armztrong.