Gallego vs.

Vera
Pedro Gallego (petitioner) vs. Vicente Vera (respondent)
No. 48641, Nov. 24, 1941; PNT: Ozaeta
Petition: for certiorari to review the decision of CA
CA affirmed that of the Court of First Instance of Leyte which declared illegal and void the petitioners election to the
office of municipal mayor of Abuyog, Leyte in the general elections of December 1940 on the ground that he did not
have the residence qualification and ordered that he be ousted from the said office.

Petitioners background
Pedro Gallego is a native of Abuyog, Leyte
He was employed as a school teacher in Abuyog until he resigned in 1937 and ran for municipal mayor, but lost.
Afterwards, he went to Malaybalay, Bukidnon and employed for the Bureau of Forestry until 1940.
During his employment in Bukidnon, he visited his family in Abuyog on August of 1938, 1939 and 1940. He
refused the offer of the government of free house and parcel of land. He still owns real property in Abuyog with
his wife.
Facts
Petitioner registered as elector in Lantapan, Malaybalay, Bukidnon and voted during the Dec 1938 elections. In
his voters affidavit, he did not state the length of time he had resided in Malaybalay.
In January 1940, he obtained and paid for his residence certificate in Malaybalay. He stated he resided in the
municipality for a year and a half.
Trial court and CA declared that he acquired a residence or domicile of choice in Malaybalay, Bukidnon and had
lost his domicile of origin in Abuyog, Leyte. His election as municipal mayor of Abuyog was void. (Tanseco v.
Arteche, Nuval v. Guray)
Issue
CA erred in holding that Pedro Gallego was a legal
resident of Malaybalay at the time of his election as
Abuyog municipal mayor
Whether or not Pedro Gallego had been a resident of
Abuyog, Leyte for at least 1 year prior to Dec 10 1940
election CA erred in affirming the decision of the trial court holding
the election of petitioner null and void

Residence = Domicile in election law
In order to acquire a domicile of choice, there must concur
1. Residence/bodily presence in the new locality
2. An intention to remain there
3. An intention to abandon the old domicile
Animus non revertendi + animus manendi
SC:
He is a native of Abuyog and even as employed in other municipalities, he always returned to Abuyog.
His departure after this election was temporary and only for employment and to make up for financial
drawback.
He did not take his wife and children to Malaybalay, notwithstanding the offer of a free house.
He bought a piece of land in Abuyog and did not avail the offer of land in Malaybalay.
He visited his family in his hometown three times notwithstanding the great distance.
Case is more analogous to cases as Larena v. Teves than those of Tanseco v. Arteche and Nuval v. Guray.
(Mere registration in a municipality in order to be an elector does not make one a resident, according to
constant rulings defining domicile as a permanent dwelling to which an absent person tends to return)
Assuming he lost his residence in Abuyog, he reacquired it more than a year prior to Dec. 10 1940.
The manifest intent of the law in fixing a residence qualification is to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted
with the conditions and needs of a community, from an elective office to serve that community. The will of the
electorate must be respected.

Judgement of CA reversed, with costs against respondent