Garcia, Kristine Mae Camille P.

Romualdez-Marcos vs Comelec
G.R. No. 119976
Plaintiff: Imelda Romualdez Marcos
Respondent: Commission on Elections
Facts: Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for
the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. Private respondent
Cirilo Roy Montejo, a candidate for the same position, filed a petition for
cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC alleging that petitioner did
not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. Private respondent
contended that petitioner lacked the Constitution's one-year residency
requirement for candidates for the House of Representatives.
In the case at Bar, Imelda Marcos claimed honest misinterpretation by stating in
her Certificate of Candidacy that her residency in the District of Leyte has only
been for seven months, which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since
childhood" in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy and that "she has
always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence.
Imelda moved to Tacloban, Leyte with her father when she was around 8 years
old and established domicile therein. It was further provided in the case that
although she has moved from one house to another given her marriage with then
former President Marcos and the duties that bounded her to be where her
husband is, she nevertheless showed any sign of abandoning her domicile and
even showed that she has been constantly returning and celebrating her birthday
in her hometown.
Issue: Is Imelda eligible to run for public office given the discrepancy in her
residency?
Ruling: Yes. For election purposes, residence is used synonymously with
domicile. The Court upheld the qualification of petitioner, despite her own
declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in the district for
only 7 months, because of the following: (a) a minor follows the domicile of her
parents; Tacloban became petitioners domicile of origin by operation of law when
her father brought the family to Leyte; (b) domicile of origin is lost only when
there is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which
correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and positive proof of the
concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue; (c)
the wife does not automatically gain the husbands domicile because the term
residence in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law; when

petitioner married President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and
merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium; (d) even assuming
that she gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired the right to
choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts following her return to
the country clearly indicate that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as
her domicile of choice.
Seperate Opinions: Justices Regalado, Davide Jr. and Padilla were of the other
opinion and believed that she did not meet the qualifications for the position she
is running for.