Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 26795 July 31, 1970

CARMEN QUIMIGUING, Suing through her parents, ANTONIO QUIMIGUING and JACOBA CABILIN, plaintiffs-appellants, vs.FELIX ICAO, defendant-appellee.

Torcuato L. Galon for plaintiffs-appellants.

Godardo Jacinto for defendant-appellee.

 

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Appeal on points of law from an order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte (Judge Onofre Sison Abalos, presiding), in its Civil Case No. 1590, dismissing a complaint for support and damages, and another order denying amendment of the same pleading.

The events in the court of origin can be summarized as follows:

Appellant, Carmen Quimiguing, assisted by her parents, sued Felix Icao in the court below. In her complaint it was averred that the parties were neighbors in Dapitan City, and had close and confidential relations; that defendant Icao, although married, succeeded in having carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times by force and intimidation, and without her consent; that as a result she became pregnant, despite efforts and drugs supplied by defendant, and plaintiff had to stop studying. Hence, she claimed support at P120.00 per month, damages and attorney's fees.

Duly summoned, defendant Icao moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action since the complaint did not allege that the child had been born; and after hearing arguments, the trial judge sustained defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint.

Thereafter, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to allege that as a result of the intercourse, plaintiff had later given birth to a baby girl; but the court, sustaining defendant's objection, ruled that no amendment was allowable, since the original complaint averred no cause of action. Wherefore, the plaintiff appealed directly to this Court.

We find the appealed orders of the court below to be untenable. A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The unborn child, therefore, has a right to support from its progenitors, particularly of the defendant-appellee (whose paternity is deemed admitted for the purpose of the motion to dismiss), even if the said child is only "en ventre de sa mere;" just as a conceived child, even if as yet unborn, may receive donations as prescribed by Article 742 of the same Code, and its being ignored by the parent in his testament may result in preterition of a forced heir that annuls the institution of the testamentary heir, even if such child should be born after the death of the testator Article 854, Civil Code).

ART. 742. Donations made to conceived and unborn children may be accepted by those persons who would legally represent them if they were already born.

ART. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.

If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of 'representation.

It is thus clear that the lower court's theory that Article 291 of the Civil Code declaring that support is an obligation of parents and illegitimate children "does not contemplate support to children as yet unborn," violates Article 40 aforesaid, besides imposing a condition that nowhere appears in the text of Article 291. It is true that Article 40 prescribing that "the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it" adds further "provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article" (i.e., that the foetus be alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb). This proviso, however, is not a condition precedent to the right of the conceived child; for if it were, the first part of Article 40 would become entirely useless and ineffective. Manresa, in his Commentaries (5th Ed.) to the corresponding Article 29 of the Spanish Civil Code, clearly points this out:

Los derechos atribuidos al nasciturus no son simples expectativas, ni aun en el sentido tecnico que la moderna doctrina da a esta figura juridica sino que constituyen un caso de los propiamente Ilamados 'derechos en estado de pendenci'; el nacimiento del sujeto en las condiciones previstas por el art. 30, no determina el nacimiento de aquellos derechos (que ya existian de antemano), sino que se trata de un hecho que tiene efectos declarativos. (1 Manresa, Op. cit., page 271)

A second reason for reversing the orders appealed from is that for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust (as averred in the original complaint in this case) constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused. Says Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines:

ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

The rule of Article 21 is supported by Article 2219 of the same Code:

ART 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts:

xxx xxx xxx

(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28 ....

Thus, independently of the right to Support of the child she was carrying, plaintiff herself had a cause of action for damages under the terms of the complaint; and the order dismissing it for failure to state a cause of action was doubly in error.

WHEREFORE, the orders under appeal are reversed and set aside. Let the case be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings conformable to this decision. Costs against appellee Felix Icao. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16439             July 20, 1961

ANTONIO GELUZ, petitioner, vs.THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and OSCAR LAZO, respondents.

Mariano H. de Joya for petitioner.A.P. Salvador for respondents.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

This petition for certiorari brings up for review question whether the husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could recover damages from physician who caused the same.

The litigation was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila by respondent Oscar Lazo, the of Nita Villanueva, against petitioner Antonio Geluz, a physician. Convinced of the merits of the complaint upon the evidence adduced, the trial court rendered judgment favor of plaintiff Lazo and against defendant Geluz, ordering the latter to pay P3,000.00 as damages, P700.00 attorney's fees and the costs of the suit. On appeal, Court of Appeals, in a special division of five, sustained the award by a majority vote of three justices as against two, who rendered a separate dissenting opinion.

The facts are set forth in the majority opinion as follows:

Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant (Antonio Geluz) for the first time in 1948 — through her aunt Paula Yambot. In 1950 she became pregnant by her present husband before they were legally married. Desiring to conceal her pregnancy from her parent, and acting on the advice of her aunt, she had herself aborted by the defendant. After her marriage with the plaintiff, she again became pregnant. As she was then employed in the Commission on Elections and her pregnancy proved to be inconvenient, she had herself aborted again by the defendant in October 1953. Less

than two years later, she again became pregnant. On February 21, 1955, accompanied by her sister Purificacion and the latter's daughter Lucida, she again repaired to the defendant's clinic on Carriedo and P. Gomez streets in Manila, where the three met the defendant and his wife. Nita was again aborted, of a two-month old foetus, in consideration of the sum of fifty pesos, Philippine currency. The plaintiff was at this time in the province of Cagayan, campaigning for his election to the provincial board; he did not know of, nor gave his consent, to the abortion.

It is the third and last abortion that constitutes plaintiff's basis in filing this action and award of damages. Upon application of the defendant Geluz we granted certiorari.

The Court of Appeals and the trial court predicated the award of damages in the sum of P3,000.06 upon the provisions of the initial paragraph of Article 2206 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This we believe to be error, for the said article, in fixing a minimum award of P3,000.00 for the death of a person, does not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not endowed with personality. Under the system of our Civil Code, "la criatura abortiva no alcanza la categoria de persona natural y en consscuencia es un ser no nacido a la vida del Derecho" (Casso-Cervera, "Diccionario de Derecho Privado", Vol. 1, p. 49), being incapable of having rights and obligations.

Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same was extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can take place from on that lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity as distinguished from capacity to act). It is no answer to invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro nato habetur) under Article 40 of the Civil Code, because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later with the condition specified in the following article". In the present case, there is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother's womb.

The prevailing American jurisprudence is to the same effect; and it is generally held that recovery can not had for the death of an unborn child (Stafford vs. Roadway Transit Co., 70 F. Supp. 555; Dietrich vs. Northampton, 52 Am. Rep. 242; and numerous cases collated in the editorial note, 10 ALR, (2d) 639).

This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to collect any damages at all. But such damages must be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished from the injury or violation of the rights of the deceased, his right to life and physical integrity. Because the parents can not expect either help, support or services from an unborn child, they would normally be limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the spes hominis that was the foetus, i.e., on account of distress and anguish attendant to its loss, and the disappointment of their parental expectations (Civ. Code Art. 2217), as well as to exemplary damages, if the circumstances should warrant them (Art. 2230). But in the case before us, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals have not found any basis for an award of moral damages, evidently because the appellee's indifference to the previous abortions of his wife, also caused by the appellant herein, clearly indicates that he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and affections. The lower court expressly found, and the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals did not contradict it, that the appellee was aware of the second abortion; and the probabilities are that he was likewise aware of the first. Yet despite the suspicious repetition of the event, he appeared to have taken no steps to investigate or pinpoint the causes thereof, and secure the punishment of the responsible practitioner. Even after learning of the third abortion, the appellee does not seem to have taken interest in the administrative and criminal

cases against the appellant. His only concern appears to have been directed at obtaining from the doctor a large money payment, since he sued for P50,000.00 damages and P3,000.00 attorney's fees, an "indemnity" claim that, under the circumstances of record, was clearly exaggerated.

The dissenting Justices of the Court of Appeals have aptly remarked that:

It seems to us that the normal reaction of a husband who righteously feels outraged by the abortion which his wife has deliberately sought at the hands of a physician would be highminded rather than mercenary; and that his primary concern would be to see to it that the medical profession was purged of an unworthy member rather than turn his wife's indiscretion to personal profit, and with that idea in mind to press either the administrative or the criminal cases he had filed, or both, instead of abandoning them in favor of a civil action for damages of which not only he, but also his wife, would be the beneficiaries.

It is unquestionable that the appellant's act in provoking the abortion of appellee's wife, without medical necessity to warrant it, was a criminal and morally reprehensible act, that can not be too severely condemned; and the consent of the woman or that of her husband does not excuse it. But the immorality or illegality of the act does not justify an award of damage that, under the circumstances on record, have no factual or legal basis.

The decision appealed from is reversed, and the complaint ordered dismissed. Without costs.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Department of Justice and the Board of Medical Examiners for their information and such investigation and action against the appellee Antonio Geluz as the facts may warrant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Natividad, JJ., concur.Concepcion, J., took no part.De Leon, J., took no part.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5426             May 29, 1953

RAMON JOAQUIN, petitioner, vs.ANTONIO C. NAVARRO, respondent.

Agrava, Peralta & Agrava for petitioner.Leonardo Abola for respondent.

TUASON, J.:

This three proceedings was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila in the summary settlement of states of Joaquin Navarro, Sr., his wife Angela Joaquin de Navarro, Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and Pilar Navarro, deceased. All of them having been heard jointly, Judge Rafael Amparo handed down a single decision which was appealed to the Court of Appeals, whose decision, modifying that the Court of First Instance, in turn was elevated to the Supreme Court for review.

The main question represented in the first two courts related to the sequence of the deaths of Joaquin Navarro, Sr., his wife, and their children, all of whom were killed in the massacre of civilians by Japanese troops in Manila in February 1945. The trial court found the deaths of this persons to have accurred in this order: 1st. The Navarro girls, named Pilar, Concepcion and Natividad; 2nd. Joaquin Navarro, Jr.; 3rd. Angela Joaquin de Navarro, and 4th, Joaquin Navarro, Sr. The Court of Appeals concurred with the trial court except that, with regard to Angela Joaquin de Navarro and Joaquin Navarro, Jr., the latter was declared to have survived his mother.

It is this modification of the lower court's finding which is now being contested by the petitioner. The importance of the question whether Angela Joaquin de Navarro died before Joaquin Navarro, Jr., or vice versa, lies in the fact that it radically affects the rights of succession of Ramon Joaquin, the present petitioner who was an acknowledged natural child of Angela Joaquin and adopted child of the deceased spouses, and Antonio C. Navarro, respondent, son of Joaquin Navarro, Sr. by first marriage.

The facts, which is not disputed, are outlined in the statement in the decision of the Court of Appeals as follows:

"On February 6, 1945, while the battle for the liberation of Manila was raging, the spouses Joaquin Navarro, Sr. and Angela Joaquin, together with their three daughters, Pilar, Concepcion, and Natividad, and their son Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and the latter's wife, Adela Conde, sought refuge in the ground floor of the building known as the German Club, at the corner of San Marcelino and San Luis Streets of this City. During their stay, the building was packed with refugees, shells were exploding around, and the Club was set on fire. Simultaneously, the Japanese started shooting at the people inside the building, especially those who were trying to escape. The three daughters were hit and fell of the ground near the entrance; and Joaquin Navarro, Sr., and his son decided to abandon the premises to seek a safer heaven. They could not convince Angela Joaquin who refused to join them; and son Joaquin Navarro, Sr., his son, Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and the latter's wife, Angela Conde, and a friend and former neighbor, Francisco Lopez, dashed out of the burning edifice. As they came out, Joaquin Navarro, Jr. was shot in the head by a Japanese soldier and immediately dropped. The others lay flat on the ground in front of the Club premises to avoid the bullets. Minutes later, the German Club, already on fire, collapsed, trapping many people inside, presumably including Angela Joaquin.

"Joaquin Navarro, Sr., Mrs. Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and Francisco Lopez managed to reach an air raid shelter nearby, the stayed there about three days, until February 10, 1915, when they were forced to leave the shelter be- cause the shelling tore it open. They flied toward the St. Theresa Academy in San Marcelino Street, but unfortunately met Japanese Patrols, who fired at the refugees, killing Joaquin Navarro, Sr., and his daughter-in-law.

"At the time of the masaccre, Joaquin Navarro, Sr. was aged 70; his wife Angela Joaquin was about 67 years old; Joaquin Navarro, Jr., about 30; Pilar Navarro was two or three years older than her brother; while the other sisters, Concepcion and Natividad Navarro y Joaquin, were between 23 and 25."

The Court of Appeals' finding were all taken from the testimony of Francisco Lopez, who miraculously survived the holocaust, and upon them the Court of Appeals opined that, "as between the mother Angela Joaquin and the son Joaquin Navarro, Jr., the evidence of the survivorship is uncertain and insufficient" and the statutory presumption must be applied. The appellate Court's reasoning for its conclusion is thus stated:

"It does not require argument to show that survivorship cannot be established by proof of the death of only one of the parties; but that there must be adequate proof that one was alive when the other had already died. Now in this case before us, the testimony of the sole witness Lopez is to the effect that Joaquin Navarro, Jr. was shot and died shortly after the living the German Club in the company of his father and the witness, and that the burning edified entirely collapsed minutes after the shooting of the son; but there is not a scintilla of evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which we may infer the condition of the mother, Angela Joaquin, during the appreciable interval from the instant his son turned his back to her, to dash out to the Club, until he died. All we can glean from the evidence is that Angela Joaquin was unhurt when her son left her to escape from the German Club; but she could have died almost immediately after, from a variety of causes. She might have been shot by the Japanese, like her daughters, killed by falling beams from the burning edifice, overcome by the fumes, or fatally struck by splinters from the exploding shells. We cannot say for certain. No evidence is available on the point. All we can decide is that no one saw her alive after her son left her aside, and that there is no proof when she died. Clearly, this circumstance alone cannot support a finding that she died latter than her son, and we are thus compelled to fall back upon the statutory presumption. In deed, it could be said that the purpose of the presumption of survivorship would be precisely to afford a solution to uncertainties like these. Hence the son Joaquin Navarro, Jr. aged 30, must be deemed to have survived his mother, Angela Joaquin, who was admittedly above 60 years of age (Rule 123, sec. 69, subsec. (ii), Rules of Court).

"The total lack of evidence on how Angela Joaquin died likewise disposes of the question whether she and her deceased children perished in the same calamity. There being no evidence to the contrary, the only guide is the occasion of the deaths, which is identical for all of them; that battle for the liberation of Manila. A second reason is that the law, in declaring that those fallen in the same battle are to be regarded as perishing in the same calamity, could not overlooked that a variety of cause of death can ( and usually do) operate in the source of combats. During the same battle, some may die from wounds, other from gages, fire, or drowning. It is clear that the law disregards episodic details, and treats the battle as an overall cause of death in applying the presumption of survivorship.

"We are thus led the conclusion that the order in which the members of the Navarro-Joaquin family met their end is as follows: first, the three daughters Pilar, Concepcion, and Natividad; then the mother Angela Joaquin; then the son Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and days later (of which there is no doubt), the father Joaquin Navarro, Sr."

Much space in the briefs is taken in a discussion of whether section 334(37) of Act No. 129, now section 69 (ii) of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, has repealed article 33 of the civil code of 1889, now article 43 of the New Civil Code. It is the contention of the petitioner that it did not, and that on the assumption that there is total lack of evidence, as the Court of Appeals said, then Angela Joaquin and Joaquin Navarro, Jr. should, under article 33, be held to have died at the same time.

The point is not of much if any relevancy and will be left open for the consideration when obsolute necessity there for arises. We say irrelevant because our opinion is that neither of the two provisions is applicable for the reasons to be presently set forth.

Rule 123, section 69 (ii) of the Revised Rules of Court, reads:

When two person perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle or conflagration, and it is not (1) shown who died first, and there are no (2) particular circumstances from when it can be inferred, the survivorship is presumed from the probabilities resulting from the strength and ages of the sexes, according to the following rules:

x x x           x x x           x x x

Article 33 of the Civil Code of 1889 of the following tenor:

Whenever a doubt arises as to which was the first to die to the two or more persons who would inherent one from the other, the persons who alleges the prior death of either must prove the allegation; in the absence of proof the presumption shall be that they died at the same time, and no transmission of rights from one to the other shall take place.

Most provisions, as their language plainly implies, are intended as a substitute for lacks and so are not to be available when there are facts. With particular reference to section 69 (ii) of Rule 123, "the situation which it present is one in which the facts are not only unknown but unknowable. By hypothesis, there is no specific evidence as to the time of death . . . ." . . . it is assumed that no evidence can be produced. . . . Since the facts are unknown and unknowable, the law may apply the law of fairness appropriate to the different legal situation that arises." (IX Wigmore on Evidence, 1940 ed., 483.)

In In re Wallace's Estate, 220 Pac. 683, which the Court of Appeals cited the applied with the respect to the deaths of the Navarro girls, pointing out that "our rule is taken from the Fourth Division of sec. 1936 of the California Code of Civil Procedure," the Supreme Court of California said:

When the statue speaks of "particular circumstances from which it can be inferred" that one died before the other it means that there are circumstances from which the fact of death by one before the other may be inferred as a relation conclusion from the facts proven. The statue does not mean circumstances which would shown, or which would tend to show, probably that one died before the other. Grand Lodge A.O.W.W. vs. Miller, 8 Cal. App. 28, 96 Pac. 22. When by circumstantial evidence alone, a party seeks to prove a survivorship contrary to the statutory presumption, the circumstances by which it

is sought to prove the survivorship must be such as are competent and sufficient when tested by the general rules of evidence in civil cases. The inference of survivorship cannot rest upon mere surmise, speculation, or conjecture. As was said in Grand Lodge vs. Miller, supra, "if the matter is left to probably, then the statue of the presumption."

It is manifest from the language of section 69 (ii) of Rule 123 and of that of the foregoing decision that the evidence of the survivorship need not be direct; it may be indirect, circumstantial, or inferential. Where there are facts, known or knowable, from which a rational conclusion can be made, the presumption does not step in, and the rule of preponderance of evidence controls.

Are there particular circumstances on record from which reasonable inference of survivorship between Angela Joaquin and her son can be drawn? Is Francisco Lopez' testimony competent and sufficient for this purpose? For a better appreciation of this issue, it is convenient and necessary to detail the testimony, which was described by the trial court as "disinterested and trustworthy" and by the Court of Appeals as "entitled to credence."

Lopez testified:

Q. You said you were also heat at that time as you leave the German Club with Joaquin Navarro, Sr., Joaquin Navarro, Jr. and the latter's wife?- A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you fall? — A. I fell down.

Q. And you said you fell down close to Joaquin Navarro, Jr.? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When the German Club collapsed where were you? — A. We were out 15 meters away from the building but I could see what was going on.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Q. Could there have been an interval of fifteen minutes between the two events, that is the shooting of Joaquin Navarro, Jr. and the collapse of the German Club? — A. Yes, sir, I could not say exactly, Occasions like that, you know, you are confused.

Q. Could there (have) been an interval of an hour instead of fifteen minutes? — A. Possible, but not probable.

Q. Could it have been 40 minutes? — A. Yes, sir, about 40 minutes.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Q. You also know that Angela Joaquin is already dead? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you tell the Honorable Court when did Angela Joaquin die? — A. Well, a few minutes after we have dashed out, the German Club, which was burning, collapsed over them, including Mrs. Joaquin Navarro, Sr.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Q. From your testimony it would appear that while you can give positive evidence to the fact that Pilar, Concepcion and Natividad Navarro, and Joaquin Navarro, Jr. died, you can not give the same positive evidence to the fact that Angela Joaquin also died? — A. Yes, sir, in the sense that I did not see her actually die, but when the building collapsed over her I saw and I am positive and I did not see her come out of that building so I presumed she died there.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Q. Why did you have to dash out of the German Club, you, Mr. Joaquin Navarro, Sr. and Mr. Joaquin Navarro Jr. and the latter's wife? — A. Because the Japanese had set fire to the Club and they were shooting people outside, so we thought of running away rather than be roasted.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Q. You mean to say that before you jumped out of the German Club all the Navarro girls, Pilar, Concepcion, and Natividad, were already wounded? — A. to my knowledge, yes.

Q. They were wounded? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were they lying on the ground or not? — A. On the ground near the entrance, because most of the people who were shot by the Japanese were those who were trying to escape, and as far as I can remember they were among those killed.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Q. So you noticed that they were killed or shot by the Japanese a few minutes before you left the place? — A. That is what I think, because those Japanese soldiers were shooting the people inside especially those trying to escape.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Q. And none of them was not except the girls, is that what you mean? A — . There were many people shot because they were trying to escape.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Q. How come that these girls were shot when they were inside the building, can you explain that? — A. They were trying to escape probably.

It is our opinion that the preceding testimony contains facts quite adequate to solve the problem of survivorship between Angela Joaquin and Joaquin Navarro, Jr. and keep the statutory presumption out of the case. It is believed that in the light of the conditions painted by Lopez, a fair and reasonable inference can be arrived at, namely: that Joaquin Navarro, Jr. died before his mother.

While the possibility that the mother died before the son can not be ruled out, it must be noted that this possibility is entirely speculative and must yield to the more rational deduction from proven facts that it was the other way around. Joaquin Navarro, Jr., it will be recalled, was killed, while running, in front of, and 15 meters from, the German Club. Still in the prime of life, 30, he must have negotiated that distance in five seconds or less, and so died within that interval from the time he dashed out of the building. Now, when Joaquin Navarro, Jr. with his father and wife started to flee from the clubhouse, the old lady was alive and unhurt, so much so that the Navarro father and son tried hard to have her come along. She could have perished within those five or fewer seconds, as stated, but the probabilities that she did seem very remote. True, people in the building were also killed but these, according to Lopez, were mostly refugees who had tried to slip away from it and were shot by Japanese troops. It was not very likely that Mrs. Joaquin Navarro, Sr. made an attempt to escape. She even made frantic efforts to dissuade her husband and son from leaving the place and exposing themselves to gun fire.

This determination of Mrs. Angela Joaquin to stay where she was may well give an idea, at the same time, of a condition of relative safety in the clubhouse at the moment her husband, son, and daughter-in-law left her. It strongly tends to prove that, as the situation looked to her, the perils of death from staying were not so imminent. And it lends credence to Mr. Lopez' statement that the collapse of the clubhouse occurred about 40 minutes after Joaquin Navarro the son was shot in the head and dropped dead, and that it was the collapse that killed Mrs. Angela Navarro. The Court of Appeals said the interval between Joaquin Navarro's death and the breaking down of the edifice was "minutes". Even so, it was much longer than five seconds, long enough to warrant the inference that Mrs. Angela Joaquin was sill alive when her son expired

The Court of Appeals mentioned several causes, besides the collapse of the building, by which Mrs. Navarro could have been killed. All these are speculative , and the probabilities, in the light of the known facts, are against them. Dreading Japanese sharpshooters outside as evidenced by her refusal to follow the only remaining living members of her family, she could not have kept away form protective walls. Besides, the building had been set on fire trap the refugees inside, and there was no necessity for the Japanese to was their ammunition except upon those who tried to leave the premises. Nor was Angela Joaquin likely to have been killed by falling beams because the building was made of concrete and its collapse, more likely than not, was sudden. As to fumes, these do not cause instantaneous death; certainly not within the brief space of five seconds between her son's departure and his death.

It will be said that all this is indulging in inferences that are not conclusive. Section 69(ii) of Rule 123 does not require that the inference necessary to exclude the presumption therein provided be certain. It is the "particular circumstances from which it (survivorship) can be inferred" that are required to be certain as tested by the rules of evidence. In speaking of inference the rule can not mean beyond doubt, for "inference is never certainty, but if may be

plain enough to justify a finding of fact." (In re Bohenko's Estate, 4 N.Y.S. 2nd. 427, citing Tortora vs. State of New York, 269 N.Y. 199 N.E. 44; Hart vs. Hudson River Bridge Co., 80 N.Y.). 622.) As the California courts have said, it is enough that "the circumstances by which it is sought to prove the survivorship must be such as are competent and sufficient when tested by the general rules of evidence in civil cases." (In re Wallace's Estate, supra.) "Juries must often reason," says one author, "according to probabilities, drawing an inference that the main fact in issue existed from collateral facts not directly proving, but strongly tending to prove, its existence. The vital question in such cases is the cogency of the proof afforded by the secondary facts. How likely, according to experience, is the existence of the primary fact if certain secondary facts exist?" (1 Moore on Facts, Sec. 596.) The same author tells us of a case where "a jury was justified in drawing the inference that the person who was caught firing a shot at an animal trespassing on his land was the person who fired a shot about an hour before at the same animal also trespassing." That conclusion was not airtight, but rational. In fact, the circumstances in the illustration leave greater room for another possibility than do the facts of the case at hand.

In conclusion the presumption that Angela Joaquin de Navarro died before her son is based purely on surmises, speculations, or conjectures without any sure foundation in the evidence. the opposite theory — that the mother outlived her son — is deduced from established facts which, weighed by common experience, engender the inference as a very strong probability. Gauged by the doctrine of preponderance of evidence by, which civil cases are decided, this inference ought to prevail. It can not be defeated as in an instance, cited by Lord Chief Justice Kenyon, "bordering on the ridiculous, where in an action on the game laws it was suggested that the gun with which the defendant fired was not charged with shot, but that the bird might have died in consequence of the fright." (1 Moore on Facts, 63, citing Wilkinson vs. Payne, 4 T. R. 468.)

It is said that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals which the appellant impugns, and which has been discussed, involves findings of fact which can not be disturbed. The point is not, in our judgment, well considered. The particular circumstances from which the parties and the Court of Appeals drew conclusions are, as above seen, undisputed, and this being the case, the correctness or incorrectness of those conclusions raises a question of law, not of fact, which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to look into. As was said in 1 Moran Commentaries on the Rules of ?Court, 3rd Ed. 856, 857, "Undisputed evidence is one thing, and contradicted evidence is another. An incredible witness does not cease to be such because he is not impeached or contradicted. But when the evidence is purely documentary, the authenticity of which is not questioned and the only issue is the construction to be placed thereon, or where a case is submitted upon an agreement of facts, or where all the facts are stated in the judgment and the issue is the correctness of the conclusions drawn therefrom, the question is one of law which may be reviewed by the Supreme Court."

The question of whether upon given facts the operation of the statutory presumption is to be invoked is a question of law.

The prohibition against intermeddling with decisions on questions of evidence refers to decisions supported by substantial evidence. By substantial evidence is meant real evidence or at least evidence about which reasonable men may disagree. Findings grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures come within the exception to the general rule.

We are constrained to reverse the decision under review, and hold that the distribution of the decedents' estates should be made in accordance with the decision of the trial court. This result precludes the necessity of passing upon the question of "reserva troncal" which was put forward on the hypothetical theory that Mrs. Joaquin Navarro's death preceded that of her son. Without costs.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

 

G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CIRILO ROY MONTEJO, respondents.

 

KAPUNAN, J.:

A constitutional provision should be construed as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it is aimed. 1 The 1987 Constitution mandates that an aspirant for election to the House of Representatives be "a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the election." 2 The mischief which this provision — reproduced verbatim from the 1973 Constitution — seeks to prevent is the possibility of a "stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community." 3

Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor on March 8, 1995, providing the following information in item no. 8: 4

RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION: __________ Years and seven Months.

On March 23, 1995, private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent Representative of the First District of Leyte and a candidate for the same position, filed a "Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification" 5 with the Commission on Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. In his petition, private respondent contended that Mrs. Marcos lacked the Constitution's one

year residency requirement for candidates for the House of Representatives on the evidence of declarations made by her in Voter Registration Record 94-No. 3349772 6 and in her Certificate of Candidacy. He prayed that "an order be issued declaring (petitioner) disqualified and canceling the certificate of candidacy." 7

On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, changing the entry "seven" months to "since childhood" in item no. 8 of the amended certificate. 8 On the same day, the Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte informed petitioner that:

[T]his office cannot receive or accept the aforementioned Certificate of Candidacy on the ground that it is filed out of time, the deadline for the filing of the same having already lapsed on March 20, 1995. The Corrected/Amended Certificate of Candidacy should have been filed on or before the March 20, 1995 deadline. 9

Consequently, petitioner filed the Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy with the COMELEC's Head Office in Intramuros, Manila onMarch 31, 1995. Her Answer to private respondent's petition in SPA No. 95-009 was likewise filed with the head office on the same day. In said Answer, petitioner averred that the entry of the word "seven" in her original Certificate of Candidacy was the result of an "honest misinterpretation" 10 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. 11 Impugning respondent's motive in filing the petition seeking her disqualification, she noted that:

When respondent (petitioner herein) announced that she was intending to register as a voter in Tacloban City and run for Congress in the First District of Leyte, petitioner immediately opposed her intended registration by writing a letter stating that "she is not a resident of said city but of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. After respondent had registered as a voter in Tolosa following completion of her six month actual residence therein, petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC to transfer the town of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District and pursued such a move up to the Supreme Court, his purpose being to remove respondent as petitioner's opponent in the congressional election in the First District. He also filed a bill, along with other Leyte Congressmen, seeking the creation of another legislative district to remove the town of Tolosa out of the First District, to achieve his purpose. However, such bill did not pass the Senate. Having failed on such moves, petitioner now filed the instant petition for the same objective, as it is obvious that he is afraid to submit along with respondent for the judgment and verdict of the electorate of the First District of Leyte in an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and clean elections on May 8, 1995. 12

On April 24, 1995, the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), by a vote of 2 to 1, 13 came up with a Resolution 1) finding private respondent's Petition for Disqualification in SPA 95-009 meritorious; 2) striking off petitioner's Corrected/Amended Certificate of Candidacy of March 31, 1995; and 3) canceling her original Certificate of Candidacy. 14 Dealing with two primary issues, namely, the validity of amending the original Certificate of Candidacy after the lapse of the deadline for filing certificates of candidacy, and petitioner's compliance with the one year residency requirement, the Second Division held:

Respondent raised the affirmative defense in her Answer that the printed word "Seven" (months) was a result of an "honest misinterpretation or honest mistake" on her part and, therefore, an amendment should subsequently be allowed. She averred that she thought that what was asked was her "actual and physical" presence in Tolosa and not residence of origin or domicile in the First Legislative District, to which she could have responded "since childhood." In an accompanying affidavit, she stated that her domicile is Tacloban City, a component of the First District, to which she always intended to return whenever absent and which she has never abandoned. Furthermore, in her memorandum, she tried to discredit petitioner's theory of disqualification by alleging that she has been a resident of the First Legislative District of Leyte since childhood, although she only became a resident of the Municipality of Tolosa for seven months. She asserts that she has always been a resident of Tacloban City, a component of the First District, before coming to the Municipality of Tolosa.

Along this point, it is interesting to note that prior to her registration in Tolosa, respondent announced that she would be registering in Tacloban City so that she can be a candidate for the District. However, this intention was rebuffed when petitioner wrote the Election Officer of Tacloban not to allow respondent since she is a resident of Tolosa and not Tacloban. She never disputed this claim and instead implicitly acceded to it by registering in Tolosa.

This incident belies respondent's claim of "honest misinterpretation or honest mistake." Besides, the Certificate of Candidacy only asks for RESIDENCE. Since on the basis of her Answer, she was quite aware of "residence of origin" which she interprets to be Tacloban City, it is curious why she did not cite Tacloban City in her Certificate of Candidacy. Her explanation that she thought what was asked was her actual and physical presence in Tolosa is not easy to believe because there is none in the question that insinuates about Tolosa. In fact, item no. 8 in the Certificate of Candidacy speaks clearly of "Residency in the CONSTITUENCY where I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election." Thus, the explanation of respondent fails to be persuasive.

From the foregoing, respondent's defense of an honest mistake or misinterpretation, therefore, is devoid of merit.

To further buttress respondent's contention that an amendment may be made, she cited the case of Alialy v. COMELEC (2 SCRA 957). The reliance of respondent on the case of Alialy is misplaced. The case only applies to the "inconsequential deviations which cannot affect the result of the election, or deviations from provisions intended primarily to secure timely and orderly conduct of elections." The Supreme Court in that case considered the amendment only as a matter of form. But in the instant case, the amendment cannot be considered as a matter of form or an inconsequential deviation. The change in the number of years of residence in the place where respondent seeks to be elected is a substantial matter which determines her qualification as a candidacy, specially those intended to suppress, accurate material representation in the original certificate which adversely affects the filer. To admit the amended certificate is to condone the evils brought by the shifting minds of manipulating candidate, of the detriment of the integrity of the election.

Moreover, to allow respondent to change the seven (7) month period of her residency in order to prolong it by claiming it was "since childhood" is to allow an untruthfulness to be committed before this Commission. The arithmetical accuracy of the 7 months residency the respondent indicated in her certificate of candidacy can be gleaned from her entry in her Voter's Registration Record accomplished on January 28, 1995 which reflects that she is a resident of Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte for 6 months at the time of the said registration (Annex A, Petition). Said accuracy is further buttressed by her letter to the

election officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, dated August 24, 1994, requesting for the cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters thereat so that she can be re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. The dates of these three (3) different documents show the respondent's consistent conviction that she has transferred her residence to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte from Metro Manila only for such limited period of time, starting in the last week of August 1994 which on March 8, 1995 will only sum up to 7 months. The Commission, therefore, cannot be persuaded to believe in the respondent's contention that it was an error.

xxx xxx xxx

Based on these reasons the Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy cannot be admitted by this Commission.

xxx xxx xxx

Anent the second issue, and based on the foregoing discussion, it is clear that respondent has not complied with the one year residency requirement of the Constitution.

In election cases, the term "residence" has always been considered as synonymous with "domicile" which imports not only the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in-that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. (Perfecto Faypon vs. Eliseo Quirino, 96 Phil 294; Romualdez vs. RTC-Tacloban, 226 SCRA 408). In respondent's case, when she returned to the Philippines in 1991, the residence she chose was not Tacloban but San Juan, Metro Manila. Thus, her animus revertendi is pointed to Metro Manila and not Tacloban.

This Division is aware that her claim that she has been a resident of the First District since childhood is nothing more than to give her a color of qualification where she is otherwise constitutionally disqualified. It cannot hold ground in the face of the facts admitted by the respondent in her affidavit. Except for the time that she studied and worked for some years after graduation in Tacloban City, she continuously lived in Manila. In 1959, after her husband was elected Senator, she lived and resided in San Juan, Metro Manila where she was a registered voter. In 1965, she lived in San Miguel, Manila where she was again a registered voter. In 1978, she served as member of the Batasang Pambansa as the representative of the City of Manila and later on served as the Governor of Metro Manila. She could not have served these positions if she had not been a resident of the City of Manila. Furthermore, when she filed her certificate of candidacy for the office of the President in 1992, she claimed to be a resident of San Juan, Metro Manila. As a matter of fact on August 24, 1994, respondent wrote a letter with the election officer of San Juan, Metro Manila requesting for the cancellation of her registration in the permanent list of voters that she may be re-registered or transferred to Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. These facts manifest that she could not have been a resident of Tacloban City since childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy because she became a resident of many places, including Metro Manila. This debunks her claim that prior to her residence in Tolosa, Leyte, she was a resident of the First Legislative District of Leyte since childhood.

In this case, respondent's conduct reveals her lack of intention to make Tacloban her domicile. She registered as a voter in different places and on several occasions declared that she was a resident of Manila. Although she spent her school days in Tacloban, she is considered to have abandoned such place when she chose to stay and reside in other different places. In the case of Romualdez vs. RTC (226 SCRA 408) the Court explained

how one acquires a new domicile by choice. There must concur: (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality; (2) intention to remain there; and (3) intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words there must basically be animus manendi with animus non revertendi. When respondent chose to stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila, coupled with her intention to stay there by registering as a voter there and expressly declaring that she is a resident of that place, she is deemed to have abandoned Tacloban City, where she spent her childhood and school days, as her place of domicile.

Pure intention to reside in that place is not sufficient, there must likewise be conduct indicative of such intention. Respondent's statements to the effect that she has always intended to return to Tacloban, without the accompanying conduct to prove that intention, is not conclusive of her choice of residence. Respondent has not presented any evidence to show that her conduct, one year prior the election, showed intention to reside in Tacloban. Worse, what was evident was that prior to her residence in Tolosa, she had been a resident of Manila.

It is evident from these circumstances that she was not a resident of the First District of Leyte "since childhood."

To further support the assertion that she could have not been a resident of the First District of Leyte for more than one year, petitioner correctly pointed out that on January 28, 1995 respondent registered as a voter at precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. In doing so, she placed in her Voter Registration Record that she resided in the municipality of Tolosa for a period of six months. This may be inconsequential as argued by the respondent since it refers only to her residence in Tolosa, Leyte. But her failure to prove that she was a resident of the First District of Leyte prior to her residence in Tolosa leaves nothing but a convincing proof that she had been a resident of the district for six months only. 15

In a Resolution promulgated a day before the May 8, 1995 elections, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 16 of the April 24, 1995 Resolution declaring her not qualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the First Legislative District of Leyte. 17 The Resolution tersely stated:

After deliberating on the Motion for Reconsideration, the Commission RESOLVED to DENY it, no new substantial matters having been raised therein to warrant re-examination of the resolution granting the petition for disqualification. 18

On May 11, 1995, the COMELEC issued a Resolution allowing petitioner's proclamation should the results of the canvass show that she obtained the highest number of votes in the congressional elections in the First District of Leyte. On the same day, however, the COMELEC reversed itself and issued a second Resolution directing that the proclamation of petitioner be suspended in the event that she obtains the highest number of votes. 19

In a Supplemental Petition dated 25 May 1995, petitioner averred that she was the overwhelming winner of the elections for the congressional seat in the First District of Leyte held May 8, 1995 based on the canvass completed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers on May 14, 1995. Petitioner alleged that the canvass showed that she obtained a total of 70,471 votes compared to the 36,833 votes received by Respondent

Montejo. A copy of said Certificate of Canvass was annexed to the Supplemental Petition.

On account of the Resolutions disqualifying petitioner from running for the congressional seat of the First District of Leyte and the public respondent's Resolution suspending her proclamation, petitioner comes to this court for relief.

Petitioner raises several issues in her Original and Supplemental Petitions. The principal issues may be classified into two general areas:

I. The issue of Petitioner's qualifications

Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9, 1995 elections.

II. The Jurisdictional Issue

a) Prior to the elections

Whether or not the COMELEC properly exercised its jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioner outside the period mandated by the Omnibus Election Code for disqualification cases under Article 78 of the said Code.

b) After the Elections

Whether or not the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the question of petitioner's qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections.

I. Petitioner's qualification

A perusal of the Resolution of the COMELEC's Second Division reveals a startling confusion in the application of settled concepts of "Domicile" and "Residence" in election law. While the COMELEC seems to be in agreement with the general proposition that for the purposes of election law, residence is synonymous with domicile, the Resolution reveals a tendency to substitute or mistake the concept of domicile for actual residence, a conception not intended for the purpose of determining a candidate's qualifications for election to the House of Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution. As it were, residence, for the purpose of meeting the qualification for an elective position, has a settled meaning in our jurisdiction.

Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "[f]or the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is their place of habitual residence." In Ong vs. Republic 20 this court took the concept of domicile to mean an individual's "permanent home", "a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent." 21 Based on the foregoing, domicile includes the twin elements of "the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place" and animus manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently.

Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country. The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. 22 It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual to have different residences in various places. However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice. In Uytengsu vs. Republic, 23 we laid this distinction quite clearly:

There is a difference between domicile and residence. "Residence" is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary; "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous places of residence. His place of residence is generally his place of domicile, but it is not by any means necessarily so since no length of residence without intention of remaining will constitute domicile.

For political purposes the concepts of residence and domicile are dictated by the peculiar criteria of political laws. As these concepts have evolved in our election law, what has clearly and unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile.

In Nuval vs. Guray, 24 the Court held that "the term residence. . . is synonymous with domicile which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place, but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention." 25 Larena vs. Teves 26 reiterated the same doctrine in a case involving the qualifications of the respondent therein to the post of Municipal President of Dumaguete, Negros Oriental. Faypon vs. Quirino, 27 held that the absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as a voter other than in the place where one is elected does not constitute loss of residence. 28 So settled is the concept (of domicile) in our election law that in these and other election law cases, this Court has stated that the mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence without the intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile.

The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification for certain elective positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that when the Constitution speaks of "residence" in election law, it actually means only "domicile" to wit:

Mr. Nolledo: With respect to Section 5, I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was an attempt to require residence in the place not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the elections. So my question is: What is the Committee's concept of residence of a candidate for the legislature? Is it actual residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive residence?

Mr. Davide: Madame President, insofar as the regular members of the National Assembly are concerned, the proposed section merely provides, among others, "and a resident thereof", that is, in the district for a period of not less than one year preceding the day of the election. This was in effect lifted from the 1973 Constitution, the interpretation given to it was domicile. 29

xxx xxx xxx

Mrs. Rosario Braid: The next question is on Section 7, page 2. I think Commissioner Nolledo has raised the same point that "resident" has been interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than actual residence.

Mr. De los Reyes: Domicile.

Ms. Rosario Braid: Yes, So, would the gentleman consider at the proper time to go back to actual residence rather than mere intention to reside?

Mr. De los Reyes: But we might encounter some difficulty especially considering that a provision in the Constitution in the Article on Suffrage says that Filipinos living abroad may vote as enacted by law. So, we have to stick to the original concept that it should be by domicile and not physical residence. 30

In Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 31 this Court concluded that the framers of the 1987 Constitution obviously adhered to the definition given to the term residence in election law, regarding it as having the same meaning as domicile. 32

In the light of the principles just discussed, has petitioner Imelda Romualdez Marcos satisfied the residency requirement mandated by Article VI, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution? Of what significance is the questioned entry in petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy stating her residence in the First Legislative District of Leyte as seven (7) months?

It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not and individual has satisfied the constitution's residency qualification requirement. The said statement becomes material only when there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It would be plainly ridiculous for a candidate to deliberately and knowingly make a statement in a certificate of candidacy which would lead to his or her disqualification.

It stands to reason therefore, that petitioner merely committed an honest mistake in jotting the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification requirement. The circumstances leading to her filing the questioned entry obviously resulted in the subsequent confusion which prompted petitioner to write down the period of her actual stay in Tolosa, Leyte instead of her period of residence in the First district, which was "since childhood" in the space provided. These circumstances and events are amply detailed in the COMELEC's Second Division's questioned resolution, albeit with a different interpretation. For instance, when herein petitioner announced that she would be registering in Tacloban City to make her eligible to run in the First District,

private respondent Montejo opposed the same, claiming that petitioner was a resident of Tolosa, not Tacloban City. Petitioner then registered in her place of actual residence in the First District, which is Tolosa, Leyte, a fact which she subsequently noted down in her Certificate of Candidacy. A close look at said certificate would reveal the possible source of the confusion: the entry for residence (Item No. 7) is followed immediately by the entry for residence in the constituency where a candidate seeks election thus:

7. RESIDENCE (complete Address): Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte

POST OFFICE ADDRESS FOR ELECTION PURPOSES: Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte

8. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TOBE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION:_________ Years and Seven Months.

Having been forced by private respondent to register in her place of actual residence in Leyte instead of petitioner's claimed domicile, it appears that petitioner had jotted down her period of stay in her legal residence or domicile. The juxtaposition of entries in Item 7 and Item 8 — the first requiring actual residence and the second requiring domicile — coupled with the circumstances surrounding petitioner's registration as a voter in Tolosa obviously led to her writing down an unintended entry for which she could be disqualified. This honest mistake should not, however, be allowed to negate the fact of residence in the First District if such fact were established by means more convincing than a mere entry on a piece of paper.

We now proceed to the matter of petitioner's domicile.

In support of its asseveration that petitioner's domicile could not possibly be in the First District of Leyte, the Second Division of the COMELEC, in its assailed Resolution of April 24,1995 maintains that "except for the time when (petitioner) studied and worked for some years after graduation in Tacloban City, she continuously lived in Manila." The Resolution additionally cites certain facts as indicative of the fact that petitioner's domicile ought to be any place where she lived in the last few decades except Tacloban, Leyte. First, according to the Resolution, petitioner, in 1959, resided in San Juan, Metro Manila where she was also registered voter. Then, in 1965, following the election of her husband to the Philippine presidency, she lived in San Miguel, Manila where she as a voter. In 1978 and thereafter, she served as a member of the Batasang Pambansa and Governor of Metro Manila. "She could not, have served these positions if she had not been a resident of Metro Manila," the COMELEC stressed. Here is where the confusion lies.

We have stated, many times in the past, that an individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residences in different places. Residence, it bears repeating, implies a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes. The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence. Thus, the assertion by the COMELEC that "she could not have been a resident of

Tacloban City since childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy because she became a resident of many places" flies in the face of settled jurisprudence in which this Court carefully made distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for election law purposes. In Larena vs. Teves, 33 supra, we stressed:

[T]his court is of the opinion and so holds that a person who has his own house wherein he lives with his family in a municipality without having ever had the intention of abandoning it, and without having lived either alone or with his family in another municipality, has his residence in the former municipality, notwithstanding his having registered as an elector in the other municipality in question and having been a candidate for various insular and provincial positions, stating every time that he is a resident of the latter municipality.

More significantly, in Faypon vs. Quirino, 34 We explained that:

A citizen may leave the place of his birth to look for "greener pastures," as the saying goes, to improve his lot, and that, of course includes study in other places, practice of his avocation, or engaging in business. When an election is to be held, the citizen who left his birthplace to improve his lot may desire to return to his native town to cast his ballot but for professional or business reasons, or for any other reason, he may not absent himself from his professional or business activities; so there he registers himself as voter as he has the qualifications to be one and is not willing to give up or lose the opportunity to choose the officials who are to run the government especially in national elections. Despite such registration, the animus revertendi to his home, to his domicile or residence of origin has not forsaken him. This may be the explanation why the registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin has not been deemed sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence. It finds justification in the natural desire and longing of every person to return to his place of birth. This strong feeling of attachment to the place of one's birth must be overcome by positive proof of abandonment for another.

From the foregoing, it can be concluded that in its above-cited statements supporting its proposition that petitioner was ineligible to run for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC was obviously referring to petitioner's various places of (actual) residence, not her domicile. In doing so, it not only ignored settled jurisprudence on residence in election law and the deliberations of the constitutional commission but also the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881). 35

What is undeniable, however, are the following set of facts which establish the fact of petitioner's domicile, which we lift verbatim from the COMELEC's Second Division's assailed Resolution: 36

In or about 1938 when respondent was a little over 8 years old, she established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte (Tacloban City). She studied in the Holy Infant Academy in Tacloban from 1938 to 1949 when she graduated from high school. She pursued her college studies in St. Paul's College, now Divine Word University in Tacloban, where she earned her degree in Education. Thereafter, she taught in the Leyte Chinese School, still in Tacloban City. In 1952 she went to Manila to work with her cousin, the late speaker Daniel Z. Romualdez in his office in the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married ex-President Ferdinand E. Marcos when he was still a congressman of Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. When her husband was elected Senator of the Republic in 1959, she and her husband lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965, when her husband was elected President of the Republic of the

Philippines, she lived with him in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila.

[I]n February 1986 (she claimed that) she and her family were abducted and kidnapped to Honolulu, Hawaii. In November 1991, she came home to Manila. In 1992, respondent ran for election as President of the Philippines and filed her Certificate of Candidacy wherein she indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of San Juan, Metro Manila.

Applying the principles discussed to the facts found by COMELEC, what is inescapable is that petitioner held various residences for different purposes during the last four decades. None of these purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte. Moreover, while petitioner was born in Manila, as a minor she naturally followed the domicile of her parents. She grew up in Tacloban, reached her adulthood there and eventually established residence in different parts of the country for various reasons. Even during her husband's presidency, at the height of the Marcos Regime's powers, petitioner kept her close ties to her domicile of origin by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important personal milestones in her home province, instituting well-publicized projects for the benefit of her province and hometown, and establishing a political power base where her siblings and close relatives held positions of power either through the ballot or by appointment, always with either her influence or consent. These well-publicized ties to her domicile of origin are part of the history and lore of the quarter century of Marcos power in our country. Either they were entirely ignored in the COMELEC'S Resolutions, or the majority of the COMELEC did not know what the rest of the country always knew: the fact of petitioner's domicile in Tacloban, Leyte.

Private respondent in his Comment, contends that Tacloban was not petitioner's domicile of origin because she did not live there until she was eight years old. He avers that after leaving the place in 1952, she "abandoned her residency (sic) therein for many years and . . . (could not) re-establish her domicile in said place by merely expressing her intention to live there again." We do not agree.

First, minor follows the domicile of his parents. As domicile, once acquired is retained until a new one is gained, it follows that in spite of the fact of petitioner's being born in Manila, Tacloban, Leyte was her domicile of origin by operation of law. This domicile was not established only when her father brought his family back to Leyte contrary to private respondent's averments.

Second, domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate: 37

1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile;

2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and

3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.

In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of origin should be deemed to continue. Only with evidence showing concurrence of all three requirements can the presumption of continuity or residence be rebutted, for a change of residence requires an actual and deliberate abandonment, and one cannot have two legal residences at the same time. 38 In the case at bench, the evidence adduced by private respondent plainly lacks the degree of persuasiveness required to convince this court that an abandonment of domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed occurred. To effect an abandonment requires the voluntary act of relinquishing petitioner's former domicile with an intent to supplant the former domicile with one of her own choosing (domicilium voluntarium).

In this connection, it cannot be correctly argued that petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952. For there is a clearly established distinction between the Civil Code concepts of "domicile" and "residence." 39 The presumption that the wife automatically gains the husband's domicile by operation of law upon marriage cannot be inferred from the use of the term "residence" in Article 110 of the Civil Code because the Civil Code is one area where the two concepts are well delineated. Dr. Arturo Tolentino, writing on this specific area explains:

In the Civil Code, there is an obvious difference between domicile and residence. Both terms imply relations between a person and a place; but in residence, the relation is one of fact while in domicile it is legal or juridical, independent of the necessity of physical presence. 40

Article 110 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 110. — The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.

A survey of jurisprudence relating to Article 110 or to the concepts of domicile or residence as they affect the female spouse upon marriage yields nothing which would suggest that the female spouse automatically loses her domicile of origin in favor of the husband's choice of residence upon marriage.

Article 110 is a virtual restatement of Article 58 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 which states:

La mujer esta obligada a seguir a su marido donde quiera que fije su residencia. Los Tribunales, sin embargo, podran con justa causa eximirla de esta obligacion cuando el marido transende su residencia a ultramar o' a pais extranjero.

Note the use of the phrase "donde quiera su fije de residencia" in the aforequoted article, which means wherever (the husband) wishes to establish residence. This part of the article clearly contemplates only actual residence because it refers to a positive act of fixing a family home or residence. Moreover, this interpretation is further strengthened by the phrase "cuando el marido translade su residencia" in the same

provision which means, "when the husband shall transfer his residence," referring to another positive act of relocating the family to another home or place of actual residence. The article obviously cannot be understood to refer to domicile which is a fixed,fairly-permanent concept when it plainly connotes the possibility of transferring from one place to another not only once, but as often as the husband may deem fit to move his family, a circumstance more consistent with the concept of actual residence.

The right of the husband to fix the actual residence is in harmony with the intention of the law to strengthen and unify the family, recognizing the fact that the husband and the wife bring into the marriage different domiciles (of origin). This difference could, for the sake of family unity, be reconciled only by allowing the husband to fix a single place of actual residence.

Very significantly, Article 110 of the Civil Code is found under Title V under the heading: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE. Immediately preceding Article 110 is Article 109 which obliges the husband and wife to live together, thus:

Art. 109. — The husband and wife are obligated to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support.

The duty to live together can only be fulfilled if the husband and wife are physically together. This takes into account the situations where the couple has many residences (as in the case of the petitioner). If the husband has to stay in or transfer to any one of their residences, the wife should necessarily be with him in order that they may "live together." Hence, it is illogical to conclude that Art. 110 refers to "domicile" and not to "residence." Otherwise, we shall be faced with a situation where the wife is left in the domicile while the husband, for professional or other reasons, stays in one of their (various) residences. As Dr. Tolentino further explains:

Residence and Domicile — Whether the word "residence" as used with reference to particular matters is synonymous with "domicile" is a question of some difficulty, and the ultimate decision must be made from a consideration of the purpose and intent with which the word is used. Sometimes they are used synonymously, at other times they are distinguished from one another.

xxx xxx xxx

Residence in the civil law is a material fact, referring to the physical presence of a person in a place. A person can have two or more residences, such as a country residence and a city residence. Residence is acquired by living in place; on the other hand, domicile can exist without actually living in the place. The important thing for domicile is that, once residence has been established in one place, there be an intention to stay there permanently, even if residence is also established in some otherplace. 41

In fact, even the matter of a common residence between the husband and the wife during the marriage is not an iron-clad principle; In cases applying the Civil Code on the

question of a common matrimonial residence, our jurisprudence has recognized certain situations 42 where the spouses could not be compelled to live with each other such that the wife is either allowed to maintain a residence different from that of her husband or, for obviously practical reasons, revert to her original domicile (apart from being allowed to opt for a new one). In De la Vina vs. Villareal 43 this Court held that "[a] married woman may acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her husband during the existence of the marriage where the husband has given cause for divorce." 44 Note that the Court allowed the wife either to obtain new residence or to choose a new domicile in such an event. In instances where the wife actually opts, .under the Civil Code, to live separately from her husband either by taking new residence or reverting to her domicile of origin, the Court has held that the wife could not be compelled to live with her husband on pain of contempt. In Arroyo vs. Vasques de Arroyo 45 the Court held that:

Upon examination of the authorities, we are convinced that it is not within the province of the courts of this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. Of course where the property rights of one of the pair are invaded, an action for restitution of such rights can be maintained. But we are disinclined to sanction the doctrine that an order, enforcible (sic) by process of contempt, may be entered to compel the restitution of the purely personal right of consortium. At best such an order can be effective for no other purpose than to compel the spouses to live under the same roof; and he experience of those countries where the courts of justice have assumed to compel the cohabitation of married people shows that the policy of the practice is extremely questionable. Thus in England, formerly the Ecclesiastical Court entertained suits for the restitution of conjugal rights at the instance of either husband or wife; and if the facts were found to warrant it, that court would make a mandatory decree, enforceable by process of contempt in case of disobedience, requiring the delinquent party to live with the other and render conjugal rights. Yet this practice was sometimes criticized even by the judges who felt bound to enforce such orders, and in Weldon v. Weldon (9 P.D. 52), decided in 1883, Sir James Hannen, President in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, expressed his regret that the English law on the subject was not the same as that which prevailed in Scotland, where a decree of adherence, equivalent to the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights in England, could be obtained by the injured spouse, but could not be enforced by imprisonment. Accordingly, in obedience to the growing sentiment against the practice, the Matrimonial Causes Act (1884) abolished the remedy of imprisonment; though a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights can still be procured, and in case of disobedience may serve in appropriate cases as the basis of an order for the periodical payment of a stipend in the character of alimony.

In the voluminous jurisprudence of the United States, only one court, so far as we can discover, has ever attempted to make a preemptory order requiring one of the spouses to live with the other; and that was in a case where a wife was ordered to follow and live with her husband, who had changed his domicile to the City of New Orleans. The decision referred to (Bahn v. Darby, 36 La. Ann., 70) was based on a provision of the Civil Code of Louisiana similar to article 56 of the Spanish Civil Code. It was decided many years ago, and the doctrine evidently has not been fruitful even in the State of Louisiana. In other states of the American Union the idea of enforcing cohabitation by process of contempt is rejected. (21 Cyc., 1148).

In a decision of January 2, 1909, the Supreme Court of Spain appears to have affirmed an order of the Audiencia Territorial de Valladolid requiring a wife to return to the marital domicile, and in the alternative, upon her failure to do so, to make a particular disposition

of certain money and effects then in her possession and to deliver to her husband, as administrator of the ganancial property, all income, rents, and interest which might accrue to her from the property which she had brought to the marriage. (113 Jur. Civ., pp. 1, 11) But it does not appear that this order for the return of the wife to the marital domicile was sanctioned by any other penalty than the consequences that would be visited upon her in respect to the use and control of her property; and it does not appear that her disobedience to that order would necessarily have been followed by imprisonment for contempt.

Parenthetically when Petitioner was married to then Congressman Marcos, in 1954, petitioner was obliged — by virtue of Article 110 of the Civil Code — to follow her husband's actual place of residence fixed by him. The problem here is that at that time, Mr. Marcos had several places of residence, among which were San Juan, Rizal and Batac, Ilocos Norte. There is no showing which of these places Mr. Marcos did fix as his family's residence. But assuming that Mr. Marcos had fixed any of these places as the conjugal residence, what petitioner gained upon marriage was actual residence. She did not lose her domicile of origin.

On the other hand, the common law concept of "matrimonial domicile" appears to have been incorporated, as a result of our jurisprudential experiences after the drafting of the Civil Code of 1950, into the New Family Code. To underscore the difference between the intentions of the Civil Code and the Family Code drafters, the term residence has been supplanted by the term domicile in an entirely new provision (Art. 69) distinctly different in meaning and spirit from that found in Article 110. The provision recognizes revolutionary changes in the concept of women's rights in the intervening years by making the choice of domicile a product of mutual agreement between the spouses. 46

Without as much belaboring the point, the term residence may mean one thing in civil law (or under the Civil Code) and quite another thing in political law. What stands clear is that insofar as the Civil Code is concerned-affecting the rights and obligations of husband and wife — the term residence should only be interpreted to mean "actual residence." The inescapable conclusion derived from this unambiguous civil law delineation therefore, is that when petitioner married the former President in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner gained a new "domicile" after her marriage and only acquired a right to choose a new one after her husband died, petitioner's acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she not only impliedly but expressly chose her domicile of origin (assuming this was lost by operation of law) as her domicile. This "choice" was unequivocally expressed in her letters to the Chairman of the PCGG when petitioner sought the PCGG's permission to "rehabilitate (our) ancestral house in Tacloban and Farm in Olot, Leyte. . . to make them livable for the Marcos family to have a home in our homeland." 47 Furthermore, petitioner obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte, while living in her brother's house, an act which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested in her letters to the PCGG Chairman. She could not have gone straight to her home in San Juan, as it was in a state of disrepair, having been previously looted by vandals. Her "homes" and

"residences" following her arrival in various parts of Metro Manila merely qualified as temporary or "actual residences," not domicile. Moreover, and proceeding from our discussion pointing out specific situations where the female spouse either reverts to her domicile of origin or chooses a new one during the subsistence of the marriage, it would be highly illogical for us to assume that she cannot regain her original domicile upon the death of her husband absent a positive act of selecting a new one where situations exist within the subsistence of the marriage itself where the wife gains a domicile different from her husband.

In the light of all the principles relating to residence and domicile enunciated by this court up to this point, we are persuaded that the facts established by the parties weigh heavily in favor of a conclusion supporting petitioner's claim of legal residence or domicile in the First District of Leyte.

II. The jurisdictional issue

Petitioner alleges that the jurisdiction of the COMELEC had already lapsed considering that the assailed resolutions were rendered on April 24, 1995, fourteen (14) days before the election in violation of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. 48 Moreover, petitioner contends that it is the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and not the COMELEC which has jurisdiction over the election of members of the House of Representatives in accordance with Article VI Sec. 17 of the Constitution. This is untenable.

It is a settled doctrine that a statute requiring rendition of judgment within a specified time is generally construed to be merely directory, 49 "so that non-compliance with them does not invalidate the judgment on the theory that if the statute had intended such result it would have clearly indicated it." 50 The difference between a mandatory and a directory provision is often made on grounds of necessity. Adopting the same view held by several American authorities, this court in Marcelino vs. Cruz held that: 51

The difference between a mandatory and directory provision is often determined on grounds of expediency, the reason being that less injury results to the general public by disregarding than enforcing the letter of the law.

In Trapp v. Mc Cormick, a case calling for the interpretation of a statute containing a limitation of thirty (30) days within which a decree may be entered without the consent of counsel, it was held that "the statutory provisions which may be thus departed from with impunity, without affecting the validity of statutory proceedings, are usually those which relate to the mode or time of doing that which is essential to effect the aim and purpose of the Legislature or some incident of the essential act." Thus, in said case, the statute under examination was construed merely to be directory.

The mischief in petitioner's contending that the COMELEC should have abstained from rendering a decision after the period stated in the Omnibus Election Code because it lacked jurisdiction, lies in the fact that our courts and other quasi-judicial bodies would then refuse to render judgments merely on the ground of having failed to reach a decision within a given or prescribed period.

In any event, with the enactment of Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. 6646 in relation to Section 78 of B.P. 881, 52 it is evident that the respondent Commission does not lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending disqualification case under Section 78 of B.P. 881 even after the elections.

As to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's supposed assumption of jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner's qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections, suffice it to say that HRET's jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress begins only after a candidate has become a member of the House of Representatives. 53 Petitioner not being a member of the House of Representatives, it is obvious that the HRET at this point has no jurisdiction over the question.

It would be an abdication of many of the ideals enshrined in the 1987 Constitution for us to either to ignore or deliberately make distinctions in law solely on the basis of the personality of a petitioner in a case. Obviously a distinction was made on such a ground here. Surely, many established principles of law, even of election laws were flouted for the sake perpetuating power during the pre-EDSA regime. We renege on these sacred ideals, including the meaning and spirit of EDSA ourselves bending established principles of principles of law to deny an individual what he or she justly deserves in law. Moreover, in doing so, we condemn ourselves to repeat the mistakes of the past.

WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Leyte.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, J., is on leave.

 

 

 

Separate Opinions

 

PUNO, J., concurring:

It was Aristotle who taught mankind that things that are alike should be treated alike, while things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness.

1 Like other candidates, petitioner has clearly met the residence requirement provided by Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution. 2 We cannot disqualify her and treat her unalike, for the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. I proceed from the following factual and legal propositions:

First. There is no question that petitioner's original domicile is in Tacloban, Leyte. Her parents were domiciled in Tacloban. Their ancestral house is in Tacloban. They have vast real estate in the place. Petitioner went to school and thereafter worked there. I consider Tacloban as her initial domicile, both her domicile of origin and her domicile of choice. Her domicile of origin as it was the domicile of her parents when she was a minor; and her domicile of choice, as she continued living there even after reaching the age of majority.

Second. There is also no question that in May, 1954, petitioner married the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. By contracting marriage, her domicile became subject to change by law, and the right to change it was given by Article 110 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 110. The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic. 3 (Emphasis supplied)

In De la Viña v. Villareal and Geopano, 4 this Court explained why the domicile of the wife ought to follow that of the husband. We held: "The reason is founded upon the theoretic identity of person and interest between the husband and the wife, and the presumption that, from the nature of the relation, the home of one is the home of the other. It is intended to promote, strengthen, and secure their interests in this relation, as it ordinarily exists, where union and harmony prevail."

5 In accord with this objective, Article 109 of the Civil Code also obligated the husband and wife "to live together."

Third. The difficult issues start as we determine whether petitioner's marriage to former President Marcos ipso facto resulted in the loss of her Tacloban domicile. I respectfully submit that her marriage by itself alone did not cause her to lose her Tacloban domicile. Article 110 of the Civil Code merely gave the husband the right to fix the domicile of the family. In the exercise of the right, the husband may explicitly choose the prior domicile of his wife, in which case, the wife's domicile remains unchanged. The husband can also implicitly acquiesce to his wife's prior domicile even if it is different. So we held in de la Viña, 6

. . . . When married women as well as children subject to parental authority live, with the acquiescence of their husbands or fathers, in a place distinct from where the latter live, they have their own independent domicile. . . .

It is not, therefore, the mere fact of marriage but the deliberate choice of a different domicile by the husband that will change the domicile of a wife from what it was prior to their marriage. The domiciliary decision made by the husband in the exercise of the right conferred by Article 110 of the Civil Code binds the wife. Any and all acts of a wife during her coverture contrary to the domiciliary choice of the husband cannot change in any way the domicile legally fixed by the husband. These acts are void not only because the wife lacks the capacity to choose her domicile but also because they are contrary to law and public policy.

In the case at bench, it is not disputed that former President Marcos exercised his right to fix the family domicile and established it in Batac, Ilocos Norte, where he was then the congressman. At that particular point of time and throughout their married life, petitioner lost her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte. Since petitioner's Batac domicile has been fixed by operation of law, it was not affected in 1959 when her husband was elected as Senator, when they lived in San Juan, Rizal and where she registered as a voter. It was not also affected in 1965 when her husband was elected President, when they lived in Malacañang Palace, and when she registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila. Nor was it affected when she served as a member of the Batasang Pambansa, Minister of Human Settlements and Governor of Metro Manila during the incumbency of her husband as President of the nation. Under Article 110 of the Civil Code, it was only her husband who could change the family domicile in Batac and the evidence shows he did not effect any such change. To a large degree, this follows the common law that "a woman on her marriage loses her own domicile and by operation of law, acquires that of her husband, no matter where the wife actually lives or what she believes or intends." 7

Fourth. The more difficult task is how to interpret the effect of the death on September 28, 1989 of former President Marcos on petitioner's Batac domicile. The issue is of first impression in our jurisdiction and two (2) schools of thought contend for acceptance. One is espoused by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Davide, Jr., heavily relying on American authorities. 8 He echoes the theory that after the husband's death, the wife retains the last domicile of her husband until she makes an actual change.

I do not subscribe to this submission. The American case law that the wife still retains her dead husband's domicile is based on ancient common law which we can no longer apply in the Philippine setting today. The common law identified the domicile of a wife as that of the husband and denied to her the power of acquiring a domicile of her own separate and apart from him. 9 Legal scholars agree that two (2) reasons support this common law doctrine. The first reason as pinpointed by the legendary Blackstone is derived from the view that "the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended duringthe marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband." 10 The second reason lies in "the desirability of having the interests of each member of the family unit governed by the same law." 11 The presumption that the wife retains the domicile of her deceased husband is an extension of this common law concept. The concept and its extension have provided some of the most iniquitous jurisprudence against women. It was under common law that the 1873 American case of Bradwell v.

Illinois 12 was decided where women were denied the right to practice law. It was unblushingly ruled that "the natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life . . . This is the law of the Creator." Indeed, the rulings relied upon by Mr. Justice Davide in CJS 13 and AM JUR 2d 14 are American state court decisions handed down between the years 1917

15 and 1938, 16 or before the time when women were accorded equality of rights with men. Undeniably, the women's liberation movement resulted in far-ranging state legislations in the United States to eliminate gender inequality. 17 Starting in the decade of the seventies, the courts likewise liberalized their rulings as they started invalidating laws infected with gender-bias. It was in 1971 when the US Supreme Court in Reed v. Reed, 18 struck a big blow for women equality when it declared as unconstitutional an Idaho law that required probate courts to choose male family members over females as estate administrators. It held that mere administrative inconvenience cannot justify a sex-based distinction. These significant changes both in law and in case law on the status of women virtually obliterated the iniquitous common law surrendering the rights of married women to their husbands based on the dubious theory of the parties' theoretic oneness. The Corpus Juris Secundum editors did not miss the relevance of this revolution on women's right as they observed: "However, it has been declared that under modern statutes changing the status of married women and departing from the common law theory of marriage, there is no reason why a wife may not acquire a separate domicile for every purpose known to the law." 19 In publishing in 1969 the Restatement of the Law, Second (Conflict of Laws 2d), the reputable American Law Institute also categorically stated that the view of Blackstone ". . . is no longer held. As the result of statutes and court decisions, a wife now possesses practically the same rights and powers as her unmarried sister." 20

In the case at bench, we have to decide whether we should continue clinging to the anachronistic common law that demeans women, especially married women. I submit that the Court has no choice except to break away from this common law rule, the root of the many degradations of Filipino women. Before 1988, our laws particularly the Civil Code, were full of gender discriminations against women. Our esteemed colleague, Madam Justice Flerida Ruth Romero, cited a few of them as follows: 21

xxx xxx xxx

Legal Disabilities Suffered by Wives

Not generally known is the fact that under the Civil Code, wives suffer under certain restrictions or disabilities. For instance, the wife cannot accept gifts from others, regardless of the sex of the giver or the value of the gift, other than from her very close relatives, without her husband's consent. She may accept only from, say, her parents, parents-in-law, brothers, sisters and the relatives within the so-called fourth civil degree. She may not exercise her profession or occupation or engage in business if her husband objects on serious grounds or if his income is sufficient to support their family in accordance with their social standing. As to what constitutes "serious grounds" for objecting, this is within the discretion of the husband.

xxx xxx xxx

Because of the present inequitable situation, the amendments to the Civil Law being proposed by the University of the Philippines Law Center would allow absolute divorce which severes the matrimonial ties, such that the divorced spouses are free to get married a year after the divorce is decreed by the courts. However, in order to place the husband and wife on an equal footing insofar as the bases for divorce are concerned, the following are specified as the grounds for absolute divorce: (1) adultery or having a paramour committed by the respondent in any of the ways specified in the Revised Penal Code or (2) an attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner which amounts to attempted parricide under the Revised Penal Code; (3) abandonment of the petitioner by the respondent without just cause for a period of three consecutive years; or (4) habitual maltreatment.

With respect to property relations, the husband is automatically the administrator of the conjugal property owned in common by the married couple even if the wife may be the more astute or enterprising partner. The law does not leave it to the spouses to decide who shall act as such administrator. Consequently, the husband is authorized to engage in acts and enter into transactions beneficial to the conjugal partnership. The wife, however, cannot similarly bind the partnership without the husband's consent.

And while both exercise joint parental authority over their children, it is the father whom the law designates as the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the unemancipated child.

Taking the lead in Asia, our government exerted efforts, principally through legislations, to eliminate inequality between men and women in our land. The watershed came on August 3, 1988 when our Family Code took effect which, among others, terminated the unequal treatment of husband and wife as to their rights and responsibilities. 22

The Family Code attained this elusive objective by giving new rights to married women and by abolishing sex-based privileges of husbands. Among others, married women are now given the joint right to administer the family property, whether in the absolute community system or in the system of conjugal partnership; 23 joint parental authority over their minor children, both over their persons as well as their properties; 24 joint responsibility for the support of the family; 25 the right to jointly manage the household; 26 and, the right to object to their husband's exercise of profession, occupation, business or activity. 27 Of particular relevance to the case at bench is Article 69 of the Family Code which took away the exclusive right of the husband to fix the family domicile and gave it jointly to the husband and the wife, thus:

Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide.

The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (Emphasis supplied)

Article 69 repealed Article 110 of the Civil Code. Commenting on the duty of the husband and wife to live together, former Madam Justice Alice Sempio-Diy of the

Court of Appeals specified the instances when a wife may now refuse to live with her husband, thus: 28

(2) The wife has the duty to live with her husband, but she may refuse to do so in certain cases like:

(a) If the place chosen by the husband as family residence is dangerous to her Life;

(b) If the husband subjects her to maltreatment or abusive conduct or insults, making common life impossible;

(c) If the husband compels her to live with his parents, but she cannot get along with her mother-in-law and they have constant quarrels (Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, CA, 46 OG 6122);

(d) Where the husband has continuously carried illicit relations for 10 years with different women and treated his wife roughly and without consideration. (Dadivas v. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 92);

(e) Where the husband spent his time in gambling, giving no money to his family for food and necessities, and at the same time insulting his wife and laying hands on her. (Panuncio v. Sula, CA, 34 OG 129);

(f) If the husband has no fixed residence and lives a vagabond life as a tramp (1 Manresa 329);

(g) If the husband is carrying on a shameful business at home (Gahn v. Darby, 38 La. Ann. 70).

The inescapable conclusion is that our Family Code has completely emancipated the wife from the control of the husband, thus abandoning the parties' theoretic identity of interest. No less than the late revered Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes who chaired the Civil Code Revision Committee of the UP Law Center gave this insightful view in one of his rare lectures after retirement: 29

xxx xxx xxx

The Family Code is primarily intended to reform the family law so as to emancipate the wife from the exclusive control of the husband and to place her at parity with him insofar as the family is concerned. The wife and the husband are now placed on equal standing by the Code. They are now joint administrators of the family properties and exercise joint authority over the persons and properties of their children. This means a dual authority in the family. The husband will no longer prevail over the wife but she has to agree on all matters concerning the family. (Emphasis supplied)

In light of the Family Code which abrogated the inequality between husband and wife as started and perpetuated by the common law, there is no reason in espousing the anomalous rule that the wife still retains the domicile of her dead husband. Article 110 of the Civil Code which provides the statutory support for this stance has been repealed by Article 69 of the Family Code. By its repeal, it

becomes a dead-letter law, and we are not free to resurrect it by giving it further effect in any way or manner such as by ruling that the petitioner is still bound by the domiciliary determination of her dead husband.

Aside from reckoning with the Family Code, we have to consider our Constitution and its firm guarantees of due process and equal protection oflaw. 30 It can hardly be doubted that the common law imposition on a married woman of her dead husband's domicile even beyond his grave is patently discriminatory to women. It is a gender-based discrimination and is not rationally related to the objective of promoting family solidarity. It cannot survive a constitutional challenge. Indeed, compared with our previous fundamental laws, the 1987 Constitution is more concerned with equality between sexes as it explicitly commands that the State ". . . shall ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men." To be exact, section 14, Article II provides: "The State recognizes the role of women in nation building, and shall ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men. We shall be transgressing the sense and essence of this constitutional mandate if we insist on giving our women the caveman's treatment.

Prescinding from these premises, I respectfully submit that the better stance is to rule that petitioner reacquired her Tacloban domicile upon the death of her husband in 1989. This is the necessary consequence of the view that petitioner's Batac dictated domicile did not continue after her husband's death; otherwise, she would have no domicile and that will violate the universal rule that no person can be without a domicile at any point of time. This stance also restores the right of petitioner to choose her domicile before it was taken away by Article 110 of the Civil Code, a right now recognized by the Family Code and protected by the Constitution. Likewise, I cannot see the fairness of the common law requiring petitioner to choose again her Tacloban domicile before she could be released from her Batac domicile. She lost her Tacloban domicile not through her act but through the act of her deceased husband when he fixed their domicile in Batac. Her husband is dead and he cannot rule her beyond the grave. The law disabling her to choose her own domicile has been repealed. Considering all these, common law should not put the burden on petitioner to prove she has abandoned her dead husband's domicile. There is neither rhyme nor reason for this gender-based burden.

But even assuming arguendo that there is need for convincing proof that petitioner chose to reacquire her Tacloban domicile, still, the records reveal ample evidence to this effect. In her affidavit submitted to the respondent COMELEC, petitioner averred:

xxx xxx xxx

36. In November, 1991, I came home to our beloved country, after several requests for my return were denied by President Corazon C. Aquino, and after I filed suits for our Government to issue me my passport.

37. But I came home without the mortal remains of my beloved husband, President Ferdinand E. Marcos, which the Government considered a threat to the national security and welfare.

38. Upon my return to the country, I wanted to immediately live and reside in Tacloban City or in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, even if my residences there were not livable as they had been destroyed and cannibalized. The PCGG, however, did not permit and allow me.

39. As a consequence, I had to live at various times in the Westin Philippine Plaza in Pasay City, a friend's apartment on Ayala Avenue, a house in South Forbes Park which my daughter rented, and Pacific Plaza, all in Makati.

40. After the 1992 Presidential Elections, I lived and resided in the residence of my brother in San Jose, Tacloban City, and pursued my negotiations with PCGG to recover my sequestered residences in Tacloban City and Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.

40.1 In preparation for my observance of All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day that year, I renovated my parents' burial grounds and entombed their bones which had been excalvated, unearthed and scattered.

41. On November 29, 1993, I formally wrote PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for permissions to —

. . . rehabilitate . . . (o)ur ancestral house in Tacloban and farmhouse in Olot, Leyte . . . to make them livable for us the Marcos family to have a home in our own motherland.

xxx xxx xxx

42. It was only on 06 June 1994, however, when PCGG Chairman Gunigundo, in his letter to Col. Simeon Kempis, Jr., PCGG Region 8 Representative, allowed me to repair and renovate my Leyte residences. I quote part of his letter:

Dear Col. Kempis,

Upon representation by Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos to this Commission, that she intends to visit our sequestered properties in Leyte, please allow her access thereto. She may also cause repairs and renovation of the sequestered properties, in which event, it shall be understood that her undertaking said repairs is not authorization for her to take over said properties, and that all expenses shall be for her account and not reimbursable. Please extend the necessary courtesy to her.

xxx xxx xxx

43. I was not permitted, however, to live and stay in the Sto. Niño Shrine residence in Tacloban City where I wanted to stay and reside, after repairs and renovations were completed. In August 1994, I transferred from San Jose, Tacloban City, to my residence in Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, when PCGG permitted me to stay and live there.

It is then clear that in 1992 petitioner reestablished her domicile in the First District of Leyte. It is not disputed that in 1992, she first lived at the house of her brother in San Jose, Tacloban City and later, in August 1994, she transferred her residence in Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. Both Tacloban City and the municipality of Olot are within the First District of Leyte. Since petitioner reestablished her old domicile in 1992 in the First District of Leyte, she more than

complied with the constitutional requirement of residence". . . for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election," i.e., the May 8, 1995 elections.

The evidence presented by the private respondent to negate the Tacloban domicile of petitioner is nil. He presented petitioner's Voter's Registration Record filed with the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct 10-A of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte wherein she stated that her period of residence in said barangay was six (6) months as of the date of her filing of said Voter's Registration Record on January 28, 1995. 31 This statement in petitioner's Voter's Registration Record is a non-prejudicial admission. The Constitution requires at least one (1) year residence in the district in which the candidate shall be elected. In the case at bench, the reference is the First District of Leyte. Petitioner's statement proved that she resided in Olot six (6) months before January 28, 1995 but did not disprove that she has also resided in Tacloban City starting 1992. As aforestated, Olot and Tacloban City are both within the First District of Leyte, hence, her six (6) months residence in Olot should be counted not against, but in her favor. Private respondent also presented petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 8, 1995 32 where she placed seven (7) months after Item No. 8 which called for information regarding "residence in the constituency where I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election." Again, this original certificate of candidacy has no evidentiary value because an March 1, 1995 it was corrected by petitioner. In her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, 33 petitioner wrote "since childhood" after Item No. 8. The amendment of a certificate of candidacy to correct a bona fide mistake has been allowed by this Court as a matter of course and as a matter of right. As we held in Alialy v. COMELEC, 34 viz.:

xxx xxx xxx

The absence of the signature of the Secretary of the local chapter N.P in the original certificate of candidacy presented before the deadline September 11, 1959, did not render the certificate invalid. The amendment of the certificate, although at a date after the deadline, but before the election, was substantial compliance with the law, and the defect was cured.

It goes without saying that petitioner's erroneous Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 8, 1995 cannot be used as evidence against her. Private respondent's petition for the disqualification of petitioner rested alone on these two (2) brittle pieces of documentary evidence — petitioner's Voter's Registration Record and her original Certificate of Candidacy. Ranged against the evidence of the petitioner showing her ceaseless contacts with Tacloban, private respondent's two (2) pieces of evidence are too insufficient to disqualify petitioner, more so, to deny her the right to represent the people of the First District of Leyte who have overwhelmingly voted for her.

Fifth. Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution mandates that "bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination." 35 A detached reading of the records of the case at bench will show that all forms of legal

and extra-legal obstacles have been thrown against petitioner to prevent her from running as the people's representative in the First District of Leyte. In petitioner's Answer to the petition to disqualify her, she averred: 36

xxx xxx xxx

10. Petitioner's (herein private respondent Montejo) motive in filing the instant petition is devious. When respondent (petitioner herein) announced that she was intending to register as a voter in Tacloban City and run for Congress in the First District of Leyte, petitioner (Montejo) immediately opposed her intended registration by writing a letter stating that "she is not a resident of said city but of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte." (Annex "2" of respondent's affidavit, Annex "2"). After respondent (petitioner herein) had registered as a voter in Tolosa following completion of her six-month actual residence therein, petitioner (Montejo) filed a petition with the COMELEC to transfer the town of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District and pursued such move up to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 118702, his purpose being to remove respondent (petitioner herein) as petitioner's (Montejo's) opponent in the congressional election in the First District. He also filed a bill, along with other Leyte Congressmen, seeking to create another legislative district, to remove the town of Tolosa out of the First District and to make it a part of the new district, to achieve his purpose. However, such bill did not pass the Senate. Having, failed on such moves, petitioner now filed the instant petition, for the same objective, as it is obvious that he is afraid to submit himself along with respondent (petitioner herein) for the judgment and verdict of the electorate of the First District of Leyte in an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and clean elections on May 8, 1995.

These allegations which private respondent did not challenge were not lostto the perceptive eye of Commissioner Maambong who in his Dissenting Opinion, 37 held:

xxx xxx xxx

Prior to the registration date — January 28, 1995 the petitioner (herein private respondent Montejo) wrote the Election Officer of Tacloban City not to allow respondent (petitioner herein) to register thereat since she is a resident of Tolosa and not Tacloban City. The purpose of this move of the petitioner (Montejo) is not lost to (sic) the Commission. In UND No. 95-001 (In the matter of the Legislative Districts of the Provinces of Leyte, Iloilo, and South Cotabato, Out of Which the New Provinces of Biliran, Guimaras and Saranggani Were Respectively Created), . . . Hon. Cirilo Roy G. Montejo, Representative, First District of Leyte, wanted the Municipality of Tolosa, in the First District of Leyte, transferred to the Second District of Leyte. The Hon. Sergio A.F. Apostol, Representative of the Second District of Leyte, opposed the move of the petitioner (Montejo). Under Comelec Resolution No. 2736 (December 29, 1994), the Commission on Elections refused to make the proposed transfer. Petitioner (Montejo) filed "Motion for Reconsideration of ResolutionNo. 2736" which the Commission denied in a Resolution promulgated on February 1, 1995. Petitioner (Montejo) filed a petition for certiorari before the Honorable Supreme Court (Cirilo Roy G. Montejo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 118702) questioning the resolution of the Commission. Believing that he could get a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court, petitioner (Montejo) tried to make sure that the respondent (petitioner herein) will register as a voter in Tolosa so that she will be forced to run as Representative not in the First but in the Second District.

It did not happen. On March 16, 1995, the Honorable Supreme Court unanimously promulgated a "Decision," penned by Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the dispositive portion of which reads:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, Section 1 of Resolution No. 2736 insofar as it transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the Second District and the municipality of Palompon of the Fourth District to the Third District of the province of Leyte, is annulled and set aside. We also deny the Petition praying for the transfer of the municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District of the province of Leyte. No costs.

Petitioner's (Montejo's) plan did not work. But the respondent (petitioner herein) was constrained to register in the Municipality of Tolosa where her house is instead of Tacloban City, her domicile. In any case, both Tacloban City and Tolosa are in the First Legislative District.

All these attempts to misuse our laws and legal processes are forms of rank harassments and invidious discriminations against petitioner to deny her equal access to a public office. We cannot commit any hermeneutic violence to the Constitution by torturing the meaning of equality, the end result of which will allow the harassment and discrimination of petitioner who has lived a controversial life, a past of alternating light and shadow. There is but one Constitution for all Filipinos. Petitioner cannot be adjudged by a "different" Constitution, and the worst way to interpret the Constitution is to inject in its interpretation, bile and bitterness.

Sixth. In Gallego v. Vera, 38 we explained that the reason for this residence requirement is "to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted, with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community . . . ." Petitioner's lifetime contacts with the First District of Leyte cannot be contested. Nobody can claim that she is not acquainted with its problems because she is a stranger to the place. None can argue she cannot satisfy the intent of the Constitution.

Seventh. In resolving election cases, a dominant consideration is the need to effectuate the will of the electorate. The election results show that petitioner received Seventy Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-one (70,471) votes, while private respondent got only Thirty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Three (36,833) votes. Petitioner is clearly the overwhelming choice of the electorate of the First District of Leyte and this is not a sleight of statistics. We cannot frustrate this sovereign will on highly arguable technical considerations. In case of doubt, we should lean towards a rule that will give life to the people's political judgment.

A final point. The case at bench provides the Court with the rare opportunity to rectify the inequality of status between women and men by rejecting the iniquitous common law precedents on the domicile of married women and by redefining domicile in accord with our own culture, law, and Constitution. To rule that a married woman is eternally tethered to the domicile dictated by her dead husband is to preserve the anachronistic and anomalous balance of advantage of a husband over his wife. We should not allow

the dead to govern the living even if the glories of yesteryears seduce us to shout long live the dead! The Family Code buried this gender-based discrimination against married women and we should not excavate what has been entombed. More importantly, the Constitution forbids it.

I vote to grant the petition.

Bellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur.

FRANCISCO, J., concurring:

I concur with Mr. Justice Kapunan's ponencia finding petitioner qualified for the position of Representative of the First Congressional District of Leyte. I wish, however, to express a few comments on the issue of petitioner's domicile.

Domicile has been defined as that place in which a person's habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom, and that place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed his abode, or habitation, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his permanent home (28 C.J.S. §1). It denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business, or pleasure, or for like reasons one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances, in the sense that they disclose intent. (Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA 966, 969)

Domicile is classified into domicile of origin and domicile of choice. The law attributes to every individual a domicile of origin, which is the domicile of his parents, or of the head of his family, or of the person on whom he is legally dependent at the time of his birth. While the domicile of origin is generally the place where one is born or reared, it maybe elsewhere (28 C.J.S. §5). Domicile of choice, on the other hand, is the place which the person has elected and chosen for himself to displace his previous domicile; it has for its true basis or foundation the intention of the person (28 C.J.S. §6). In order to hold that a person has abandoned his domicile and acquired a new one called domicile of choice, the following requisites must concur, namely, (a) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (b) intention to remain there or animus manendi, and (c) an intention to abandon the old domicile or animus non revertendi (Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, 226 SCRA 408, 415). A third classification is domicile by operation of law which attributes to a person a domicile independent of his own intention or actual residence, ordinarily resulting from legal domestic relations, as that of the wife arising from marriage, or the relation of a parent and a child (28 C.J.S. §7).

In election law, when our Constitution speaks of residence for election purposes it means domicile (Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692, 713; Nuval v. Guray, 52 Phil. 645, 651). To my mind, public respondent Commission on Elections misapplied this concept, of domicile which led to petitioner's disqualification by ruling that petitioner failed to comply with the constitutionally mandated one-year residence requirement. Apparently, public respondent Commission

deemed as conclusive petitioner's stay and registration as voter in many places as conduct disclosing her intent to abandon her established domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte. In several decisions, though, the Court has laid down the rule that registration of a voter in a place other than his place of origin is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence (Faypon v. Quirino, 96 Phil. 294, 300). Respondent Commission offered no cogent reason to depart from this rule except to surmise petitioner's intent of abandoning her domicile of origin.

It has been suggested that petitioner's domicile of origin was supplanted by a new domicile due to her marriage, a domicile by operation of law. The proposition is that upon the death of her husband in 1989 she retains her husband's domicile, i.e., Batac, Ilocos Norte, until she makes an actual change thereof. I find this proposition quite untenable.

Tacloban, Leyte, is petitioner's domicile of origin which was involuntarily supplanted with another, i.e., Batac, Ilocos Norte, upon her marriage in 1954 with then Congressman Marcos. By legal fiction she followed the domicile of her husband. In my view, the reason for the law is for the spouses to fully and effectively perform their marital duties and obligations to one another. 1 The question of domicile, however, is not affected by the fact that it was the legal or moral duty of the individual to reside in a given place (28 C.J.S. §11). Thus, while the wife retains her marital domicile so long as the marriage subsists, she automatically loses it upon the latter's termination, for the reason behind the law then ceases. Otherwise, petitioner, after her marriage was ended by the death of her husband, would be placed in a quite absurd and unfair situation of having been freed from all wifely obligations yet made to hold on to one which no longer serves any meaningful purpose.

It is my view therefore that petitioner reverted to her original domicile of Tacloban, Leyte upon her husband's death without even signifying her intention to that effect. It is for the private respondent to prove, not for petitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effectively abandoned Tacloban, Leyte for Batac, Ilocos Norte or for some other place/s. The clear rule is that it is the party (herein private respondent) claiming that a person has abandoned or lost his residence of origin who must show and prove preponderantly such abandonment or loss (Faypon v. Quirino, supra at 298; 28 C.J.S. §16), because the presumption is strongly in favor of an original or former domicile, as against an acquired one (28 C.J.S. §16). Private respondent unfortunately failed to discharge this burden as the record is devoid of convincing proof that petitioner has acquired whether voluntarily or involuntarily, a new domicile to replace her domicile of origin.

The records, on the contrary, clearly show that petitioner has complied with the constitutional one-year residence requirement. After her exile abroad, she returned to the Philippines in 1991 to reside in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, but the Presidential Commission on Good Government which sequestered her residential house and other properties forbade her necessitating her transient stay in various places in Manila (Affidavit p.6, attached as Annex I of the Petition). In 1992, she ran for the position of president writing in her certificate of candidacy her residence as San Juan, Metro Manila. After her loss

therein, she went back to Tacloban City, acquired her residence certificate 2 and resided with her brother in San Jose. She resided in San Jose, Tacloban City until August of 1994 when she was allowed by the PCGG to move and reside in her sequestered residential house in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte (Annex I, p. 6). 3 It was in the same month of August when she applied for the cancellation of her previous registration in San Juan, Metro Manila in order to register anew as voter of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, which she did on January 28, 1995. From this sequence of events, I find it quite improper to use as the reckoning period of the one-year residence requirement the date when she applied for the cancellation of her previous registration in San Juan, Metro Manila. The fact which private respondent never bothered to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence after the 1992 presidential election from San Juan, Metro Manila to San Jose, Tacloban City, and resided therein until August of 1994. She later transferred to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte (Annex I, p. 7). It appearing that both Tacloban City and Tolosa, Leyte are within the First Congressional District of Leyte, it indubitably stands that she had more than a year of residence in the constituency she sought to be elected. Petitioner, therefore, has satisfactorily complied with the one-year qualification required by the 1987 Constitution.

I vote to grant the petition.

ROMERO, J., separate opinion:

Petitioner has appealed to this Court for relief after the COMELEC ruled that she was disqualified from running for Representative of her District and that, in the event that she should, nevertheless, muster a majority vote, her proclamation should be suspended. Not by a straightforward ruling did the COMELEC pronounce its decision as has been its unvarying practice in the past, but by a startling succession of "reverse somersaults." Indicative of its shifting stance vis-a-vis petitioner's certificate of candidacy were first, the action of its Second Division disqualifying her and canceling her original Certificate of Candidacy by a vote of 2-1 on April 24, 1995; then the denial by the COMELEC en banc of her Motion for Reconsideration on May 7, 1995, a day before the election; then because she persisted in running, its decision onMay 11, 1995 or three days after the election, allowing her proclamation in the event that the results of the canvass should show that she obtained the highest number of votes (obviously noting that petitioner had won overwhelmingly over her opponent), but almost simultaneously reversing itself by directing that even if she wins, her proclamation should nonetheless be suspended.

Crucial to the resolution of the disqualification issue presented by the case at bench is the interpretation to be given to the one-year residency requirement imposed by the Constitution on aspirants for a Congressional seat. 1

Bearing in mind that the term "resident" has been held to be synonymous with "domicile" for election purposes, it is important to determine whether petitioner's domicile was in the First District of Leyte and if so, whether she had resided there for at least a period of one year. Undisputed is her domicile of origin, Tacloban, where her

parents lived at the time of her birth. Depending on what theory one adopts, the same may have been changed when she married Ferdinand E. Marcos, then domiciled in Batac, by operation of law. Assuming it did, his death certainly released her from the obligation to live with him at the residence fixed by him during his lifetime. What may confuse the layman at this point is the fact that the term "domicile" may refer to "domicile of origin," "domicile of choice," or "domicile by operation of law," which subject we shall not belabor since it has been amply discussed by the ponente and in the other separate opinions.

In any case, what assumes relevance is the divergence of legal opinion as to the effect of the husband's death on the domicile of the widow. Some scholars opine that the widow's domicile remains unchanged; that the deceased husband's wishes perforce still bind the wife he has left behind. Given this interpretation, the widow cannot possibly go far enough to sever the domiciliary tie imposed by her husband.

It is bad enough to interpret the law as empowering the husband unilaterally to fix the residence or domicile of the family, as laid down in the Civil Code, 2 but to continue giving obeisance to his wishes even after the rationale underlying the mutual duty of the spouses to live together has ceased, is to close one's eyes to the stark realities of the present.

At the other extreme is the position that the widow automatically reverts to her domicile of origin upon the demise of her husband. Does the law so abhor a vacuum that the widow has to be endowed somehow with a domicile? To answer this question which is far from rhetorical, one will have to keep in mind the basic principles of domicile. Everyone must have a domicile. Then one must have only a single domicile for the same purpose at any given time. Once established, a domicile remains until a new one is acquired, for no person lives who has no domicile, as defined by the law be is subject to.

At this juncture, we are confronted with an unexplored legal terrain in this jurisdiction, rendered more murky by the conflicting opinions of foreign legal authorities. This being the state of things, it is imperative as it is opportune to illumine the darkness with the beacon light of truth, as dictated by experience and the necessity of according petitioner her right to choose her domicile in keeping with the enlightened global trend to recognize and protect the human rights of women, no less than men.

Admittedly, the notion of placing women at par with men, insofar as civil, political and social rights are concerned, is a relatively recent phenomenon that took seed only in the middle of this century. It is a historical fact that for over three centuries, the Philippines had been colonized by Spain, a conservative, Catholic country which transplanted to our shores the Old World cultures, mores and attitudes and values. Through the imposition on our government of the Spanish Civil Code in 1889, the people, both men and women, had no choice but to accept such concepts as the husband's being the head of the family and the wife's subordination to his authority. In such role, his was the right to make vital decisions for the family. Many instances come to mind, foremost

being what is related to the issue before us, namely, that "the husband shall fix the residence of the family." 3 Because he is made responsible for the support of the wife and the rest of the family, 4 he is also empowered to be the administrator of the conjugal property, with a few exceptions 5 and may, therefore, dispose of the conjugal partnership property for the purposes specified under the law; 6 whereas, as a general rule, the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband's consent. 7 As regards the property pertaining to the children under parental authority, the father is the legal administrator and only in his absence may the mother assume his powers. 8 Demeaning to the wife's dignity are certain strictures on her personal freedoms, practically relegating her to the position of minors and disabled persons. To illustrate a few: The wife cannot, without the husband's consent, acquire any gratuitous title, except from her ascendants, descendants, parents-in-law, and collateral relatives within the fourth degree. 9 With respect to her employment, the husband wields a veto power in the case the wife exercises her profession or occupation or engages in business, provided his income is sufficient for the family, according to its social standing and his opposition is founded on serious and valid grounds. 10 Most offensive, if not repulsive, to the liberal-minded is the effective prohibition upon a widow to get married till after three hundred days following the death of her husband, unless in the meantime, she has given birth to a child. 11 The mother who contracts a subsequent marriage loses the parental authority over her children, unless the deceased husband, father of the latter, has expressly provided in his will that his widow might marry again, and has ordered that in such case she should keep and exercise parental authority over their children. 12 Again, an instance of a husband's overarching influence from beyond the grave.

All these indignities and disabilities suffered by Filipino wives for hundreds of years evoked no protest from them until the concept of human rights and equality between and among nations and individuals found hospitable lodgment in the United Nations Charter of which the Philippines was one of the original signatories. By then, the Spanish "conquistadores" had been overthrown by the American forces at the turn of the century. The bedrock of the U.N. Charter was firmly anchored on this credo: "to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women." (Emphasis supplied)

It took over thirty years before these egalitarian doctrines bore fruit, owing largely to the burgeoning of the feminist movement. What may be regarded as the international bill of rights for women was implanted in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted by the U.N. General Assembly which entered into force as an international treaty on September 3, 1981. In ratifying the instrument, the Philippines bound itself to implement its liberating spirit and letter, for its Constitution, no less, declared that "The Philippines. . . adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations." 13 One such principle embodied in the CEDAW is granting to men and women "the same rights with regard to the law relating to the movement of persons and the freedom to choose their residence and domicile." 14 (Emphasis supplied).

CEDAW's pro-women orientation which was not lost on Filipino women was reflected in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines and later, in the Family Code, 15 both of which were speedily approved by the first lady President of the country, Corazon C. Aquino. Notable for its emphasis on the human rights of all individuals and its bias for equality between the sexes are the following provisions: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights" 16 and "The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men." 17

A major accomplishment of women in their quest for equality with men and the elimination of discriminatory provisions of law was the deletion in the Family Code of almost all of the unreasonable strictures on wives and the grant to them of personal rights equal to that of their husbands. Specifically, the husband and wife are now given the right jointly to fix the family domicile; 18 concomitant to the spouses' being jointly responsible for the support of the family is the right and duty of both spouses to manage the household; 19 the administration and the enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly; 20 the father and mother shall now jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of their unemancipated common child 21 and several others.

Aware of the hiatus and continuing gaps in the law, insofar as women's rights are concerned, Congress passed a law popularly known as "Women in Development and Nation Building Act" 22 Among the rights given to married women evidencing their capacity to act in contracts equal to that of men are:

(1) Women shall have the capacity to borrow and obtain loans and execute security and credit arrangements under the same conditions as men;

(2) Women shall have equal access to all government and private sector programs granting agricultural credit, loans and non material resources and shall enjoy equal treatment in agrarian reform and land resettlement programs;

(3) Women shall have equal rights to act as incorporators and enter into insurance contracts; and

(4) Married women shall have rights equal to those of married men in applying for passports, secure visas and other travel documents, without need to secure the consent of their spouses.

As the world draws the curtain on the Fourth World Conference of Women in Beijing, let this Court now be the first to respond to its clarion call that "Women's Rights are Human Rights" and that "All obstacles to women's full participation in decision-making at all levels, including the family" should be removed. Having been herself a Member of the Philippine Delegation to the International Women's Year Conference in Mexico in 1975, this writer is only too keenly aware of the unremitting struggle being waged by women the world over, Filipino women not excluded, to be accepted as equals of men and to

tear down the walls of discrimination that hold them back from their proper places under the sun.

In light of the inexorable sweep of events, local and global, legislative, executive and judicial, according more rights to women hitherto denied them and eliminating whatever pockets of discrimination still exist in their civil, political and social life, can it still be insisted that widows are not at liberty to choose their domicile upon the death of their husbands but must retain the same, regardless?

I submit that a widow, like the petitioner and others similarly situated, can no longer be bound by the domicile of the departed husband, if at all she was before. Neither does she automatically revert to her domicile of origin, but exercising free will, she may opt to reestablish her domicile of origin. In returning to Tacloban and subsequently, to Barangay Olot, Tolosa, both of which are located in the First District of Leyte, petitioner amply demonstrated by overt acts, her election of a domicile of choice, in this case, a reversion to her domicile of origin. Added together, the time when she set up her domicile in the two places sufficed to meet the one-year requirement to run as Representative of the First District of Leyte.

In view of the foregoing expatiation, I vote to GRANT the petition.

VITUG, J., separate opinion:

The case at bench deals with explicit Constitutional mandates.

The Constitution is not a pliable instrument. It is a bedrock in our legal system that sets up ideals and directions and render steady our strides hence. It only looks back so as to ensure that mistakes in the past are not repeated. A compliant transience of a constitution belittles its basic function and weakens its goals. A constitution may well become outdated by the realities of time. When it does, it must be changed but while it remains, we owe it respect and allegiance. Anarchy, open or subtle, has never been, nor must it ever be, the answer to perceived transitory needs, let alone societal attitudes, or the Constitution might lose its very essence.

Constitutional provisions must be taken to be mandatory in character unless, either by express statement or by necessary implication, a different intention is manifest (see Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51).

The two provisions initially brought to focus are Section 6 and Section 17 of Article VI of the fundamental law. These provisions read:

Sec. 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.

Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

The Commission on Election (the "COMELEC") is constitutionally bound to enforce and administer "all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of election . . ." (Art. IX, C, Sec. 2, Constitution) that, there being nothing said to the contrary, should include its authority to pass upon the qualification and disqualification prescribed by law of candidates to an elective office. Indeed, pre-proclamation controversies are expressly placed under the COMELEC's jurisdiction to hear and resolve (Art. IX, C, Sec. 3, Constitution).

The matter before us specifically calls for the observance of the constitutional one-year residency requirement. The issue (whether or not there is here such compliance), to my mind, is basically a question of fact or at least inextricably linked to such determination. The findings and judgment of the COMELEC, in accordance with the long established rule and subject only to a number of exceptions under the basic heading of "grave abuse of discretion," are not reviewable by this Court.

I do not find much need to do a complex exercise on what seems to me to be a plain matter. Generally, the term "residence" has a broader connotation that may mean permanent (domicile), official (place where one's official duties may require him to stay) or temporary (the place where he sojourns during a considerable length of time). For civil law purposes, i.e., as regards the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of a natural person is the place of his habitual residence (see Article 50, Civil Code). In election cases, the controlling rule is that heretofore announced by this Court in Romualdez vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City (226 SCRA 408, 409); thus:

In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous terms, thus: "(t)he term "residence" as used in the election law is synonymous with "domicile," which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention." "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. . . . . Residence thus acquired, however, may be lost by adopting another choice of domicile. In order, in turn, to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words, there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.

Using the above tests, I am not convinced that we can charge the COMELEC with having committed grave abuse of discretion in its assailed resolution.

The COMELEC's jurisdiction, in the case of congressional elections, ends when the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal concerned begins. It signifies that the protestee must have theretofore been duly proclaimed and has since become a "member" of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The question can be asked on whether or not the proclamation of a candidate is just a ministerial function of the Commission on Elections dictated solely on the number of votes cast in an election exercise. I believe, it is not. A ministerial duty is an obligation the performance of which, being adequately defined, does not allow the use of further judgment or discretion. The COMELEC, in its particular case, is tasked with the full responsibility of ascertaining all the facts and conditions such as may be required by law before a proclamation is properly done.

The Court, on its part, should, in my view at least, refrain from any undue encroachment on the ultimate exercise of authority by the Electoral Tribunals on matters which, by no less than a constitutional fiat, are explicitly within their exclusive domain. The nagging question, if it were otherwise, would be the effect of the Court's peremptory pronouncement on the ability of the Electoral Tribunal to later come up with its own judgment in a contest "relating to the election, returns and qualification" of its members.

Prescinding from all the foregoing, I should like to next touch base on the applicability to this case of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, in relation to Section 72 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, each providing thusly:

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6646

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. — The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election in which the disqualification is sought.

Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason,

a candidate is not declared by final, judgment before an election to be disqualified, and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office.

I realize that in considering the significance of the law, it may be preferable to look for not so much the specific instances they ostensibly would cover as the principle they clearly convey. Thus, I will not scoff at the argument that it should be sound to say that votes cast in favor of the disqualified candidate, whenever ultimately declared as such, should not be counted in his or her favor and must accordingly be considered to be stray votes. The argument, nevertheless, is far outweighed by the rationale of the now prevailing doctrine first enunciated in the case of Topacio vs. Paredes (23 Phil. 238 [1912]) which, although later abandoned in Ticzon vs. Comelec (103 SCRA 687 [1981]), and Santos vs. COMELEC (137 SCRA 740 [1985]), was restored, along with the interim case of Geronimo vs. Ramos (136 SCRA 435 [1985]), by the Labo (176 SCRA 1 (1989]), Abella (201 SCRA 253 [1991]), Labo (211 SCRA 297 [1992]) and, most recently, Benito (235 SCRA 436 [1994]) rulings. Benito vs. Comelec was a unanimous decision penned by Justice Kapunan and concurred in by Chief Justice Narvasa, Justices Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Romero, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and Mendoza (Justices Cruz and Bellosillo were on official leave). For easy reference, let me quote from the first Labo decision:

Finally, there is the question of whether or not the private respondent, who filed the quo warranto petition, can replace the petitioner as mayor. He cannot. The simple reason is that as he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City.

The latest ruling of the Court on this issue is Santos v. Commission on Elections, (137 SCRA 740) decided in 1985. In that case, the candidate who placed second was proclaimed elected after the votes for his winning rival, who was disqualified as a turncoat and considered a non-candidate, were all disregard as stray. In effect, the second placer won by default. That decision was supported by eight members of the Court then, (Cuevas, J., ponente, with Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Alampay and Aquino, JJ., concurring.) with three dissenting (Teehankee, Acting C.J., Abad Santos and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.) and another two reserving their vote. (Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.) One was on official leave. (Fernando, C.J.)

Re-examining that decision, the Court finds, and so holds, that it should be reversed in favor of the earlier case of Geronimo v. Ramos, (136 SCRA 435) which represents the more logical and democratic rule. That case, which reiterated the doctrine first announced in 1912 in Topacio v. Paredes, (23 Phil. 238) was supported by ten members of the Court, (Gutierrez, Jr., ponente, with Teehankee, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concurring) without any dissent, although one reserved his vote, (Makasiar, J.) another took no part, (Aquino, J.) and two others were on leave. (Fernando, C.J. and Concepcion, Jr., J.) There the Court held:

. . . it would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which

have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him.

Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. (20 Corpus Juris 2nd, S 243, p. 676.)

The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. The votes cast for a dead, disqualified, or non-eligible person may not be valid to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. However, in the absence of a statute which clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was alive, qualified, or eligible, they should not be treated as stray, void or meaningless. (at pp. 20-21)

Considering all the foregoing, I am constrained to vote for the dismissal of the petition.

MENDOZA, J., separate opinion:

In my view the issue in this case is whether the Commission on Elections has the power to disqualify candidates on the ground that they lack eligibility for the office to which they seek to be elected. I think that it has none and that the qualifications of candidates may be questioned only in the event they are elected, by filing a petition for quo warranto or an election protest in the appropriate forum, not necessarily in the COMELEC but, as in this case, in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. That the parties in this case took part in the proceedings in the COMELEC is of no moment. Such proceedings were unauthorized and were not rendered valid by their agreement to submit their dispute to that body.

The various election laws will be searched in vain for authorized proceedings for determining a candidate's qualifications for an office before his election. There are none in the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), in the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646), or in the law providing for synchronized elections (R.A. No. 7166). There are, in other words, no provisions for pre-proclamation contests but only election protests or quo warranto proceedings against winning candidates.

To be sure, there are provisions denominated for "disqualification," but they are not concerned with a declaration of the ineligibility of a candidate. These provisions are concerned with the incapacity (due to insanity, incompetence or conviction of an offense) of a person either to be a candidate or to continue as a candidate for public office. There is also a provision for the denial or cancellation of certificates of candidacy, but it applies only to cases involving false representations as to certain matters required by law to be stated in the certificates.

These provisions are found in the following parts of the Omnibus Election Code:

§ 12. Disqualifications. — Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.

The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. (Emphasis added)

§ 68. Disqualifications. — Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. (Emphasis added)

§ 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate ofcandidacy. — A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election. (Emphasis added)

the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646):

§ 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and; upon motion for the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. (Emphasis added).

§ 7. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. — The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.

and the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160):

§ 40. Disqualifications. — The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;

(b) Those removed from office as a result of on administrative case;

(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;

(d) Those with dual citizenship;

(e) Fugitive from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;

(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and

(g) The insane or feeble-minded.

The petition filed by private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo in the COMELEC, while entitled "For Cancellation and Disqualification," contained no allegation that private respondent Imelda Romualdez-Marcos made material representations in her certificate of candidacy which were false, it sought her disqualification on the ground that "on the basis of her Voter Registration Record and Certificate of Candidacy, [she] is disqualified from running for the position of Representative, considering that on election day, May 8, 1995, [she] would have resided less than ten (10) months in the district where she is seeking to be elected." For its part, the COMELEC's Second Division, in its resolution of April 24, 1995, cancelled her certificate of candidacy and corrected certificate of candidacy on the basis of its finding that petitioner is "not qualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the First Legislative District of Leyte" and not because of any finding that she had made false representations as to material matters in her certificate of candidacy.

Montejo's petition before the COMELEC was therefore not a petition for cancellation of certificate of candidacy under § 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, but essentially a petition to declare private respondent ineligible. It is important to note this, because, as will presently be explained, proceedings under § 78 have for their purpose to disqualify a person from being a candidate, whereas quo warranto proceedings have for their purpose to disqualify a person from holding public office. Jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings involving members of the House of Representatives is vested in the Electoral Tribunal of that body.

Indeed, in the only cases in which this Court dealt with petitions for the cancellation of certificates of candidacy, the allegations were that the respondent candidates had made false representations in their certificates of candidacy with regard to their citizenship, 1 age, 2 or residence. 3 But in the generality of cases in which this Court passed upon the qualifications of respondents for office, this Court did so in the context of election

protests 4 or quo warranto proceedings 5 filed after the proclamation of the respondents or protestees as winners.

Three reasons may be cited to explain the absence of an authorized proceeding for determining before election the qualifications of a candidate.

First is the fact that unless a candidate wins and is proclaimed elected, there is no necessity for determining his eligibility for the office. In contrast, whether an individual should be disqualified as a candidate for acts constituting election offenses (e.g., vote buying, over spending, commission of prohibited acts) is a prejudicial question which should be determined lest he wins because of the very acts for which his disqualification is being sought. That is why it is provided that if the grounds for disqualification are established, a candidate will not be voted for; if he has been voted for, the votes in his favor will not be counted; and if for some reason he has been voted for and he has won, either he will not be proclaimed or his proclamation will be set aside. 6

Second is the fact that the determination of a candidate's eligibility, e.g., his citizenship or, as in this case, his domicile, may take a long time to make, extending beyond the beginning of the term of the office. This is amply demonstrated in the companion case (G.R. No. 120265, Agapito A. Aquino v. COMELEC) where the determination of Aquino's residence was still pending in the COMELEC even after the elections of May 8, 1995. This is contrary to the summary character of proceedings relating to certificates of candidacy. That is why the law makes the receipt of certificates of candidacy a ministerial duty of the COMELEC and its officers. 7 The law is satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of candidacy that they are eligible for the position which they seek to fill, leaving the determination of their qualifications to be made after the election and only in the event they are elected. Only in cases involving charges of false representations made in certificates of candidacy is the COMELEC given jurisdiction.

Third is the policy underlying the prohibition against pre-proclamation cases in elections for President, Vice President, Senators and members of the House of Representatives. (R.A. No. 7166, § 15) The purpose is to preserve the prerogatives of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the other Tribunals as "sole judges" under the Constitution of the election, returns and qualifications of members of Congress or of the President and Vice President, as the case may be.

By providing in § 253 for the remedy of quo warranto for determining an elected official's qualifications after the results of elections are proclaimed, while being conspicuously silent about a pre-proclamation remedy based on the same ground, the Omnibus Election Code, or OEC, by its silence underscores the policy of not authorizing any inquiry into the qualifications of candidates unless they have been elected.

Apparently realizing the lack of an authorized proceeding for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, the COMELEC amended its rules on February 15, 1993 so as to provide in Rule 25, § 1 the following:

Grounds for disqualification. — Any candidate who does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate.

The lack of provision for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, however, cannot be supplied by a mere rule. Such an act is equivalent to the creation of a cause of action which is a substantive matter which the COMELEC, in the exercise of its rulemaking power under Art. IX, A, § 6 of the Constitution, cannot do. It is noteworthy that the Constitution withholds from the COMELEC even the power to decide cases involving the right to vote, which essentially involves an inquiry into qualifications based on age, residence and citizenship of voters. (Art. IX, C, § 2(3))

The assimilation in Rule 25 of the COMELEC rules of grounds for ineligibility into grounds for disqualification is contrary to the evident intention of the law. For not only in their grounds but also in their consequences are proceedings for "disqualification" different from those for a declaration of "ineligibility." "Disqualification" proceedings, as already stated, are based on grounds specified in §§ 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and in § 40 of the Local Government Code and are for the purpose of barring an individual from becoming a candidate or from continuing as a candidate for public office. In a word, their purpose is to eliminate a candidate from the race either from the start or during its progress. "Ineligibility," on the other hand, refers to the lack of the qualifications prescribed in the Constitution or the statutes for holding public office and the purpose of the proceedings for declaration of ineligibility is to remove the incumbent from office.

Consequently, that an individual possesses the qualifications for a public office does not imply that he is not disqualified from becoming a candidate or continuing as a candidate for a public office and vice versa. We have this sort of dichotomy in our Naturalization Law. (C.A. No. 473) That an alien has the qualifications prescribed in § 2 of the law does not imply that he does not suffer from any of disqualifications provided in § 4.

Indeed, provisions for disqualifications on the ground that the candidate is guilty of prohibited election practices or offenses, like other pre-proclamation remedies, are aimed at the detestable practice of "grabbing the proclamation and prolonging the election protest," 8 through the use of "manufactured" election returns or resort to other trickery for the purpose of altering the results of the election. This rationale does not apply to cases for determining a candidate's qualifications for office before the election. To the contrary, it is the candidate against whom a proceeding for disqualification is brought who could be prejudiced because he could be prevented from assuming office even though in end he prevails.

To summarize, the declaration of ineligibility of a candidate may only be sought in an election protest or action for quo warranto filed pursuant to § 253 of the Omnibus Election Code within 10 days after his proclamation. With respect to elective local officials (e.g., Governor, Vice Governor, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, etc.) such petition must be filed either with the COMELEC, the Regional Trial Courts, or

Municipal Trial Courts, as provided in Art. IX, C, § 2(2) of the Constitution. In the case of the President and Vice President, the petition must be filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Art. VII, § 4, last paragraph), and in the case of the Senators, with the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and in the case of Congressmen, with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. (Art. VI, § 17) There is greater reason for not allowing before the election the filing of disqualification proceedings based on alleged ineligibility in the case of candidates for President, Vice President, Senators and members of the House of Representatives, because of the same policy prohibiting the filing of pre-proclamation cases against such candidates.

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over SPA No. 95-009; that its proceedings in that case, including its questioned orders, are void; and that the eligibility of petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos for the office of Representative of the First District of Leyte may only be inquired into by the HRET.

Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition and to annul the proceedings of the Commission on Elections in SPA No. 95-009, including its questioned orders doted April 24, 1995, May 7, 1995, May 11, 1995 and May 25, 1995, declaring petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos ineligible and ordering her proclamation as Representative of the First District of Leyte suspended. To the extent that Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure authorizes proceedings for the disqualification of candidates on the ground of ineligibility for the office, it should considered void.

The provincial board of canvassers should now proceed with the proclamation of petitioner.

Narvasa, C.J., concurs.

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

I regret that I cannot join the majority opinion as expressed in the well-written ponencia of Mr. Justice Kapunan.

As in any controversy arising out of a Constitutional provision, the inquiry must begin and end with the provision itself. The controversy should not be blurred by what, to me, are academic disquisitions. In this particular controversy, the Constitutional provision on point states that — "no person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five (25) years of age, able to read and write, and except the party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election." (Article VI, section 6)

It has been argued that for purposes of our election laws, the term residence has been understood as synonymous with domicile. This argument has been validated by no less than the Court in numerous cases 1 where significantly the factual circumstances clearly

and convincingly proved that a person does not effectively lose his domicile of origin if the intention to reside therein is manifest with his personal presence in the place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.

With this basic thesis in mind, it would not be difficult to conceive of different modalities within which the phrase "a resident thereof (meaning, the legislative district) for a period of not less than one year" would fit.

The first instance is where a person's residence and domicile coincide in which case a person only has to prove that he has been domiciled in a permanent location for not less than a year before the election.

A second situation is where a person maintains a residence apart from his domicile in which case he would have the luxury of district shopping, provided of course, he satisfies the one-year residence period in the district as the minimum period for eligibility to the position of congressional representative for the district.

In either case, one would not be constitutionally disqualified for abandoning his residence in order to return to his domicile of origin, or better still, domicile of choice; neither would one be disqualified for abandoning altogether his domicile in favor of his residence in the district where he desires to be a candidate.

The most extreme circumstance would be a situation wherein a person maintains several residences in different districts. Since his domicile of origin continues as an option as long as there is no effective abandonment (animus non revertendi), he can practically choose the district most advantageous for him.

All these theoretical scenarios, however, are tempered by the unambiguous limitation that "for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election", he must be a resident in the district where he desires to be elected.

To my mind, the one year residence period is crucial regardless of whether or not the term "residence" is to be synonymous with "domicile." In other words, the candidate's intent and actual presence in one district must in all situations satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental law. And this, because of a definite Constitutional purpose. He must be familiar with the environment and problems of a district he intends to represent in Congress and the one-year residence in said district would be the minimum period to acquire such familiarity, if not versatility.

In the case of petitioner Imelda R. Marcos, the operative facts are distinctly set out in the now assailed decision of the Comelec 2nd Division dated 24 April 1995 (as affirmed by the Comelec en banc) —

In or about 1938 when respondent was a little over 8 years old, she established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte (Tacloban City). She studied in the Holy Infant Academy in Tacloban from 1938 to 1948 when she graduated from high school. She pursued her college studies in St. Paul's College, now Divine Word University of Tacloban, where she

earned her degree in Education. Thereafter, she taught in the Leyte Chinese High School, still in Tacloban City. In 1952 she went to Manila to work with her cousin, the late Speaker Daniel Z. Romualdez in his office in the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married ex-president Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a congressman of Ilocos Norte. She lived with him in Batac, Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. When her husband was elected Senator of the Republic in 1959, she and her husband lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965 when her husband was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines, she lived with him in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila.

During the Marcos presidency, respondent served as a Member of the Batasang Pambansa, Minister of Human Settlements and Governor of Metro Manila. She claimed that in February 1986, she and her family were abducted and kidnapped to Honolulu, Hawaii. In November 1991, she came home to Manila. In 1992 respondent ran for election as President of the Philippines and filed her Certificate of Candidacy wherein she indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of San Juan, Metro Manila. On August 24, 1994, respondent filed a letter with the election officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, requesting for cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters in Precinct No. 157 of San Juan, Metro Manila, in order that she may be re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. (Annex 2-B, Answer). On August 31, 1994, respondent filed her Sworn Application for Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration (Annex 2-C, Answer) stating that she is a duly registered voter in 157-A, Brgy. Maytunas, San Juan, Metro that she intends to register at Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.

On January 28, 1995 respondent registered as a voter at Precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. She filed with the Board of Election Inspectors CE Form No. 1, Voter Registration Record No. 94-3349772, wherein she alleged that she has resided in the municipality of Tolosa for a period of 6 months (Annex A, Petition).

On March 8, 1995, respondent filed with the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor, Leyte, a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte wherein she also alleged that she has been a resident in the constituency where she seeks to be elected for a period of 7 months. The pertinent entries therein are as follows:

7. PROFESSION OR OCCUPATION: House-wife/ Teacher/ Social Worker

8. RESIDENCE (complete address): Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte

Post Office Address for election purposes: Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte

9. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHEREIN I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION: ________ Years Seven Months

10. I AM NOT A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF, OR IMMIGRANT TO, A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

THAT I AM ELIGIBLE for said office; That I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; That I will obey the laws, legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly-constituted authorities;

That the obligation imposed by my oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and That the facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge.

(Sgd.) Imelda Romualdez-Marcos

(Signature of Candidate) 2

Petitioner's aforestated certificate of candidacy filed on 8 March 1995 contains the decisive component or seed of her disqualification. It is contained in her answer under oath of "seven months" to the query of "residence in the constituency wherein I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election."

It follows from all the above that the Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in holding that petitioner is disqualified from the position of representative for the 1st congressional district of Leyte in the elections of8 May 1995, for failure to meet the "not less than one-year residence in the constituency (1st district, Leyte) immediately preceding the day of election(8 May 1995)."

Having arrived at petitioner's disqualification to be a representative of the first district of Leyte, the next important issue to resolve is whether or not the Comelec can order the Board of Canvassers to determine and proclaim the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates for representative in said district.

I am not unaware of the pronouncement made by this Court in the case of Labo vs. Comelec, G.R. 86564, August 1, 1989, 176 SCRA 1 which gave the rationale as laid down in the early 1912 case of Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238 that:

. . . . Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. (20 Corpus Juris 2nd, S 243, p. 676)

The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. The votes cast for a dead, disqualified, or non-eligible person may not be valid to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. However, in the absence of a statute which clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was alive, qualified, or eligible, they should not be treated as stray, void or meaningless.

Under Sec. 6 RA 6646, (An Act Introducing Additional Reforms in the Electoral System and for other purposes) (84 O.G. 905, 22 February 1988) it is provided that:

. . . — Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may, during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

There is no need to indulge in legal hermeneutics to sense the plain and unambiguous meaning of the provision quoted above. As the law now stands, the legislative policy does not limit its concern with the effect of a final judgement of disqualification only before the election, but even during or after the election. The law is clear that in all situations, the votes cast for a disqualified candidate SHALL NOT BE COUNTED. The law has also validated the jurisdiction of the Court or Commission on Election to continue hearing the petition for disqualification in case a candidate is voted for and receives the highest number of votes, if for any reason, he is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified.

Since the present case is an after election scenario, the power to suspend proclamation (when evidence of his guilt is strong) is also explicit under the law. What happens then when after the elections are over, one is declared disqualified? Then, votes cast for him "shall not be counted" and in legal contemplation, he no longer received the highest number of votes.

It stands to reason that Section 6 of RA 6646 does not make the second placer the winner simply because a "winning candidate is disqualified," but that the law considers him as the candidate who had obtained the highest number of votes as a result of the votes cast for the disqualified candidate not being counted or considered.

As this law clearly reflects the legislative policy on the matter, then there is no reason why this Court should not re-examine and consequently abandon the doctrine in the Jun Labo case. It has been stated that "the qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility" most especially when it is mandated by no less than the Constitution.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte to proclaim the candidate receiving the highest number of votes, from among the qualified candidates, as the duly elected representative of the 1st district of Leyte.

Hermosisima, Jr. J., dissent.

REGALADO, J., dissenting:

While I agree with same of the factual bases of the majority opinion, I cannot arrive conjointly at the same conclusion drawn therefrom Hence, this dissent which assuredly is not formulated "on the basis of the personality of a petitioner in a case."

I go along with the majority in their narration of antecedent facts, insofar as the same are pertinent to this case, and which I have simplified as follows:

1. Petitioner, although born in Manila, resided during her childhood in the present Tacloban City, she being a legitimate daughter of parents who appear to have taken up permanent residence therein. She also went to school there and, for a time, taught in one of the schools in that city.

2. When she married then Rep. Ferdinand E. Marcos who was then domiciled in Batac, Ilocos Norte, by operation of law she acquired a new domicile in that place in 1954.

3. In the successive years and during the events that happened thereafter, her husband having been elected as a Senator and then as President, she lived with him and their family in San Juan, Rizal and then in Malacanang Palace in San Miguel, Manila.

4. Over those years, she registered as a voter and actually voted in Batac, Ilocos Norte, then in San Juan, Rizal, and also in San Miguel, Manila, all these merely in the exercise of the right of suffrage.

5. It does not appear that her husband, even after he had assumed those lofty positions successively, ever abandoned his domicile of origin in Batac, Ilocos Norte where he maintained his residence and invariably voted in all elections.

6. After the ouster of her husband from the presidency in 1986 and the sojourn of the Marcos family in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A., she eventually returned to the Philippines in 1991 and resided in different places which she claimed to have been merely temporary residences.

7. In 1992, petitioner ran for election as President of the Philippines and in her certificate of candidacy she indicated that she was then a registered voter and resident of San Juan, Metro Manila.

8. On August 24, 1994, she filed a letter for the cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters in Precinct No. 157 of San Juan, Metro Manila in order that she may "be re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte." On August 31, 1994, she followed this up with her Sworn Application for Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration wherein she stated that she was a registered voter in Precinct No. 157-A, Brgy. Maytunas, San Juan, Metro Manila and that she intended to register in Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.

9. On January 28, 1995, petitioner registered as a voter at Precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, for which purpose she filed with the therein Board of Election Inspectors a voter's registration record form alleging that she had resided in that municipality for six months.

10. On March 8, 1995, petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte wherein she alleged that she had been a resident for "Seven Months" of the constituency where she sought to be elected.

11. On March 29, 1995, she filed an "Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy" wherein her answer in the original certificate of candidacy to item "8. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK, TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION:" was changed or replaced with a new entry reading "SINCE CHILDHOOD."

The sole issue for resolution is whether, for purposes of her candidacy, petitioner had complied with the residency requirement of one year as mandated by no less than Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

I do not intend to impose upon the time of my colleagues with a dissertation on the difference between residence and domicile. We have had enough of that and I understand that for purposes of political law and, for that matter of international law, residence is understood to be synonymous with domicile. That is so understood in our jurisprudence and in American Law, in contradistinction to the concept of residence for purposes of civil, commercial and procedural laws whenever an issue thereon is relevant or controlling.

Consequently, since in the present case the question of petitioner's residence is integrated in and inseparable from her domicile, I am addressing the issue from the standpoint of the concept of the latter term, specifically its permutations into the domicile of origin, domicile of choice and domicile by operation

of law, as understood in American law from which for this case we have taken our jurisprudential bearings.

My readings inform me that the domicile of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the "domicile of origin," constitutes the domicile of an infant until abandoned, or until the acquisition of a new domicile in a different place. 1 In the instant case, we may grant that petitioner's domicile of origin, 2 at least as of 1938, was what is now Tacloban City.

Now, as I have observed earlier, domicile is said to be of three kinds, that is, domicile by birth, domicile by choice, and domicile by operation of law. The first is the common case of the place of birth or domicilium originis, the second is that which is voluntarily acquired by a party or domicilium propio motu; the last which is consequential, as that of a wife arising from marriage, 3 is sometimes called domicilium necesarium. There is no debate that the domicile of origin can be lost or replaced by a domicile of choice or a domicile by operation of law subsequently acquired by the party.

When petitioner contracted marriage in 1954 with then Rep. Marcos, by operation of law, not only international or American but of our own enactment, 4 she acquired her husband's domicile of origin in Batac, Ilocos Norte and correspondingly lost her own domicile of origin in Tacloban City.

Her subsequent changes of residence — to San Juan, Rizal, then to San Miguel, Manila, thereafter to Honolulu, Hawaii, and back to now San Juan, Metro Manila — do not appear to have resulted in her thereby acquiring new domiciles of choice. In fact, it appears that her having resided in those places was by reason of the fortunes or misfortunes of her husband and his peregrinations in the assumption of new official positions or the loss of them. Her residence in Honolulu and, of course, those after her return to the Philippines were, as she claimed, against her will or only for transient purposes which could not have invested them with the status of domiciles of choice. 5

After petitioner's return to the Philippines in 1991 and up to the present imbroglio over her requisite residency in Tacloban City or Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, there is no showing that she ever attempted to acquire any other domicile of choice which could have resulted in the abandonment of her legal domicile in Batac, Ilocos Norte. On that score, we note the majority's own submission 6 that, to successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate (a) an actual removal or an actual change of domicile, (b) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one, and (c) acts which correspond with the purpose.

We consequently have to also note that these requirements for the acquisition of a domicile of choice apply whether what is sought to be changed or substituted is a domicile of origin (domicilium originis) or a domicile by operation of law (domicilium necesarium). Since petitioner had lost her domicilium originis which had been replaced by her domicilium necesarium, it is therefore her continuing domicile in Batac, Ilocos Norte which, if at all, can be the object of legal change under the contingencies of the case at bar.

To get out of this quandary, the majority decision echoes the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong in SPA 95-009 of the Commission on Elections, 7 and advances this novel proposition.

It may be said that petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952 (sic, 1954). By operation of law (domicilium necesarium), her legal domicile at the time of her marriage became Batac, Ilocos Norte although there were no indications of an intention on her part to abandon her domicile of origin. Because of her husband's subsequent death and through the operation of the provisions of the New Family Code already in force at the time, however, her legal domicile automatically reverted to her domicile of origin. . . . (Emphasis supplied).

Firstly, I am puzzled why although it is conceded that petitioner had acquired a domicilium necesarium in Batac, Ilocos Norte, the majority insists on making a qualification that she did not intend to abandon her domicile of origin. I find this bewildering since, in this situation, it is the law that declares where petitioner's domicile is at any given time, and not her self-serving or putative intent to hold on to her former domicile. Otherwise, contrary to their own admission that one cannot have more than one domicile at a time, 8 the majority would be suggesting that petitioner retained Tacloban City as (for lack of a term in law since it does not exist therein) the equivalent of what is fancied as a reserved, dormant, potential, or residual domicile.

Secondly, domicile once lost in accordance with law can only be recovered likewise in accordance with law. However, we are here being titillated with the possibility of an automatic reversion to or reacquisition of a domicile of origin after the termination of the cause for its loss by operation of law. The majority agrees that since petitioner lost her domicile of origin by her marriage, the termination of the marriage also terminates that effect thereof. I am impressed by the ingeniousness of this theory which proves that, indeed, necessity is the mother of inventions. Regretfully, I find some difficulty in accepting either the logic or the validity of this argument.

If a party loses his domicile of origin by obtaining a new domicile of choice, he thereby voluntarily abandons the former in favor of the latter. If, thereafter, he abandons that chosen domicile, he does not per se recover his original domicile unless, by subsequent acts legally indicative thereof, he evinces his intent and desire to establish the same as his new domicile, which is precisely what petitioner belatedly and, evidently just for purposes of her candidacy, unsuccessfully tried to do.

One's subsequent abandonment of his domicile of choice cannot automatically restore his domicile of origin, not only because there is no legal authority therefor but because it would be absurd Pursued to its logical consequence, that theory of ipso jure reversion would rule out the fact that said party could already very well have obtained another domicile, either of choice or by operation of law, other than his domicile of origin. Significantly and obviously for this reason, the Family Code, which the majority inexplicably invokes, advisedly does not regulate this contingency since it would impinge on one's freedom of choice.

Now, in the instant case, petitioner not only voluntarily abandoned her domicile of choice (unless we assume that she entered into the marital state against her will) but, on top of that, such abandonment was further affirmed through her acquisition of a new domicile by operation of law. In fact, this is even a case of both voluntary and legal abandonment of a domicile of origin. With much more reason, therefore, should we reject the proposition that with the termination of her marriage in 1989, petitioner had supposedly per se and ipso facto reacquired her domicile of origin which she lost in 1954. Otherwise, this would be tantamount to saying that during the period of marital coverture, she was simultaneously in possession and enjoyment of a domicile of origin which was only in a state of suspended animation.

Thus, the American rule is likewise to the effect that while after the husband's death the wife has the right to elect her own domicile, 9 she nevertheless retains the last domicile of her deceased husband until she makes an actual change. 10 In the absence of affirmative evidence, to the contrary, the presumption is that a wife's domicile or legal residence follows that of her husband and will continue after his death. 11

I cannot appreciate the premises advanced in support of the majority's theory based on Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code. All that is of any relevance therein is that under this new code, the right and power to fix the family domicile is now shared by the spouses. I cannot perceive how that joint right, which in the first place was never exercised by the spouses, could affect the domicile fixed by the law for petitioner in 1954 and, for her husband, long prior thereto. It is true that a wife now has the coordinate power to determine the conjugal or family domicile, but that has no bearing on this case. With the death of her husband, and each of her children having gotten married and established their own respective domiciles, the exercise of that joint power was and is no longer called for or material in the present factual setting of this controversy. Instead, what is of concern in petitioner's case was the matter of her having acquired or not her own domicile of choice.

I agree with the majority's discourse on the virtues of the growing and expanded participation of women in the affairs of the nation, with equal rights and recognition by Constitution and statutory conferment. However, I have searched in vain for a specific law or judicial pronouncement which either expressly or by necessary implication supports the majority's desired theory of automatic reacquisition of or reversion to the domicilium originis of petitioner. Definitely, as between the settled and desirable legal norms that should govern this issue, there is a world of difference; and, unquestionably, this should be resolved by legislative articulation but not by the eloquence of the well-turned phrase.

In sum, petitioner having lost Tacloban City as her domicile of origin since 1954 and not having automatically reacquired any domicile therein, she cannot legally claim that her residency in the political constituency of which it is a part continued since her birth up to the present. Respondent commission was, therefore, correct in rejecting her pretension to that effect in her amended/corrected certificate of candidacy, and in holding her to her admission in the original certificate that she had actually resided in that constituency for only seven months prior to the election. These considerations render it unnecessary to further pass upon the procedural issues raised by petitioner.

ON THE FOREGOING PREMISES, I vote to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.

DAVIDE, JR., J., dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority written by Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, more particularly on the issue of the petitioner's qualification.

Under Section 7, Subdivision A, Article IX of the Constitution, decisions, orders, or rulings of the COMELEC may be brought to this Court only by the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Aratuc vs. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251 [1979]; Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84 [1989]).

Accordingly, a writ of certiorari may be granted only if the COMELEC has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion (Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court). Since the COMELEC has, undoubtedly, jurisdiction over the private respondent's petition, the only issue left is whether it acted with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the petitioner.

My careful and meticulous perusal of the challenged resolution of 24 April 1995 of the COMELEC Second Division and the En Banc resolution of 7 May 1995 discloses total absence of abuse of discretion, much less grave abuse thereof. The resolution of the Second Division dispassionately and objectively discussed in minute details the facts which established beyond cavil that herein petitioner was disqualified as a candidate on the ground of lack of residence in the First Congressional District of Leyte. It has not misapplied, miscomprehended, or misunderstood facts or circumstances of substance pertinent to the issue of her residence.

The majority opinion, however, overturned the COMELEC's findings of fact for lack of proof that the petitioner has abandoned Tolosa as her domicile of origin, which is allegedly within the First Congressional District of Leyte.

I respectfully submit that the petitioner herself has provided the COMELEC, either by admission or by documentary evidence, overwhelming proof of the loss or abandonment of her domicile of origin, which is Tacloban City and not Tolosa, Leyte. Assuming that she decided to live again in her domicile of origin, that became her second domicile of choice, where her stay, unfortunately, was for only seven months before the day of the election. She was then disqualified to be a candidate for the position of Representative of the First Congressional District of Leyte. A holding to the contrary would be arbitrary.

It may indeed be conceded that the petitioner's domicile of choice was either Tacloban City or Tolosa, Leyte. Nevertheless, she lost it by operation of law sometime in May 1954 upon her marriage to the then Congressman (later, President) Ferdinand E. Marcos. A domicile by operation of law is that domicile

which the law attributes to a person, independently of his own intention or actual residence, as results from legal domestic relations as that of the wife arising from marriage (28 C.J.S. Domicile § 7, 11). Under the governing law then, Article 110 of the Civil Code, her new domicile or her domicile of choice was the domicile of her husband, which was Batac, Ilocos Norte. Said Article reads as follows:

Art. 110. The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.

Commenting thereon, civilist Arturo M. Tolentino states:

Although the duty of the spouses to live together is mutual, the husband has a predominant right because he is empowered by law to fix the family residence. This right even predominates over some rights recognized by law in the wife. For instance, under article 117 the wife may engage in business or practice a profession or occupation. But because of the power of the husband to fix the family domicile he may fix it at such a place as would make it impossible for the wife to continue in business or in her profession. For justifiable reasons, however, the wife may be exempted from living in the residence chosen by the husband. The husband cannot validly allege desertion by the wife who refuses to follow him to a new place of residence, when it appears that they have lived for years in a suitable home belonging to the wife, and that his choice of a different home is not made in good faith. (Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, vol. 1, 1985 ed., 339).

Under common law, a woman upon her marriage loses her own domicile and, by operation of law, acquires that of her husband, no matter where the wife actually lives or what she believes or intends. Her domicile is fixed in the sense that it is declared to be the same as his, and subject to certain limitations, he can change her domicile by changing his own (25 Am Jur 2d Domicile § 48, 37).

It must, however, be pointed out that under Article 69 of the Family Code, the fixing of the family domicile is no longer the sole prerogative of the husband, but is now a joint decision of the spouses, and in case of disagreement the court shall decide. The said article uses the term "family domicile," and not family residence, as "the spouses may have multiple residences, and the wife may elect to remain in one of such residences, which may destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits" (ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, [1988], 102).

The theory of automatic restoration of a woman's domicile of origin upon the death of her husband, which the majority opinion adopts to overcome the legal effect of the petitioner's marriage on her domicile, is unsupported by law and by jurisprudence. The settled doctrine is that after the husband's death the wife has a right to elect her own domicile, but she retains the last domicile of her husband until she makes an actual change (28 C.J.S. Domicile § 12, 27). Or, on the death of the husband, the power of the wife to acquire her own domicile is revived, but until she exercises the power her domicile remains that of the husband at the time of his death (25 Am Jur 2d Domicile § 62, 45). Note that what is revived is not her domicile of origin but her power to acquire her own domicile.

Clearly, even after the death of her husband, the petitioner's domicile was that of her husband at the time of his death — which was Batac, Ilocos Norte, since their residences in San Juan, Metro Manila, and San Miguel, Manila, were their residences for convenience to enable her husband to effectively perform his official duties. Their residence in San Juan was a conjugal home, and it was there to which she returned in 1991 when she was already a widow. In her sworn certificate of candidacy for the Office of the President in the synchronized elections of May 1992, she indicated therein that she was a resident of San Juan, Metro Manila. She also voted in the said elections in that place.

On the basis of her evidence, it was only on 24 August 1994 when she exercised her right as a widow to acquire her own domicile in Tolosa, Leyte, through her sworn statement requesting the Election Officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, to cancel her registration in the permanent list of voters in Precinct 157 thereat and praying that she be "re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, the place of [her] birth and permanent residence" (photocopy of Exhibit "B," attached as Annex "2" of private respondent Montejo's Comment). Notably, she contradicted this sworn statement regarding her place of birth when, in her Voter's Affidavit sworn to on 15 March 1992 (photocopy of Exhibit "C," attached as Annex "3," Id.), her Voter Registration Record sworn to on 28 January 1995 (photocopy of Exhibit "E," attached as Annex "5," Id.), and her Certificate of Candidacy sworn to on 8 March 1995 (photocopy of Exhibit "A," attached as Annex "1," Id.), she solemnly declared that she was born in Manila.

The petitioner is even uncertain as to her domicile of origin. Is it Tacloban City or Tolosa, Leyte? In the affidavit attached to her Answer to the petition for disqualification (Annex "I" of Petition), she declared under oath that her "domicile or residence is Tacloban City." If she did intend to return to such domicile or residence of origin why did she inform the Election Officer of San Juan that she would transfer to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, and indicate in her Voter's Registration Record and in her certificate of candidacy that her residence is Olot, Tolosa, Leyte? While this uncertainty is not important insofar as residence in the congressional district is concerned, it nevertheless proves that forty-one years had already lapsed since she had lost or abandoned her domicile of origin by virtue of marriage and that such length of time diminished her power of recollection or blurred her memory.

I find to be misplaced the reliance by the majority opinion on Faypon vs. Quirino (96 Phil. 294 [1954]), and the subsequent cases which established the principle that absence from original residence or domicile of origin to pursue studies, practice one's profession, or engage in business in other states does not constitute loss of such residence or domicile. So is the reliance on Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that transfer of residence to any other place by reason of one's "occupation; profession; employment in private and public service; educational activities; work in military or naval reservations; service in the army, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police force; or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law" is not deemed as loss of original residence. Those cases and legal provision do not include marriage of a woman. The reason for the exclusion is, of course, Article 110 of the Civil Code. If it were the intention of this Court or of the legislature to consider the marriage of a woman as a circumstance which would not operate as an abandonment of domicile (of origin or of choice), then such cases and legal provision should have expressly mentioned the same.

This Court should not accept as gospel truth the self-serving claim of the petitioner in her affidavit (Annex "A" of her Answer in COMELEC SPA No. 95-009; Annex "I" of Petition) that her "domicile or residence of origin is Tacloban City," and that she "never intended to abandon this domicile or residence of origin to which [she] always intended to return whenever absent." Such a claim of intention cannot prevail over the effect of Article 110 of the Civil Code. Besides, the facts and circumstances or the vicissitudes of the petitioner's life after her marriage in 1954 conclusively establish that she had indeed abandoned her domicile of origin and had acquired a new one animo et facto (KOSSUTH KENT KENNAN, A Treatise on Residence and Domicile, [1934], 214, 326).

Neither should this Court place complete trust on the petitioner's claim that she "merely committed an honest mistake" in writing down the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification requirement in the certificate of candidacy. Such a claim is self-serving and, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, would be all sound and fury signifying nothing. To me, she did not commit any mistake, honest or otherwise; what she stated was the truth.

The majority opinion also disregards a basic rule in evidence that he who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it (Imperial Victory Shipping Agency vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 178 [1991]; P.T. Cerna Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 19 [1993]). Having admitted marriage to the then Congressman Marcos, the petitioner could not deny the legal consequence thereof on the change of her domicile to that of her husband. The majority opinion rules or at least concludes that "[b]y operation of

law (domicilium necesarium), her legal domicile at the time of her marriage automatically became Batac, Ilocos Norte." That conclusion is consistent with Article 110 of the Civil Code. Since she is presumed to retain her deceased husband's domicile until she exercises her revived power to acquire her own domicile, the burden is upon her to prove that she has exercised her right to acquire her own domicile. She miserably failed to discharge that burden.

I vote to deny the petition.

Separate Opinions

PUNO, J., concurring:

It was Aristotle who taught mankind that things that are alike should be treated alike, while things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness. 1 Like other candidates, petitioner has clearly met the residence requirement provided by Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution. 2 We cannot disqualify her and treat her unalike, for the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law. I proceed from the following factual and legal propositions:

First. There is no question that petitioner's original domicile is in Tacloban, Leyte. Her parents were domiciled in Tacloban. Their ancestral house is in Tacloban. They have vast real estate in the place. Petitioner went to school and thereafter worked there. I consider Tacloban as her initial domicile, both her domicile of origin and her domicile of choice. Her domicile of origin as it was the domicile of her parents when she was a minor; and her domicile of choice, as she continued living there even after reaching the age of majority.

Second. There is also no question that in May, 1954, petitioner married the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. By contracting marriage, her domicile became subject to change by law, and the right to change it was given by Article 110 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 110. The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic. 3 (Emphasis supplied)

In De la Viña v. Villareal and Geopano, 4 this Court explained why the domicile of the wife ought to follow that of the husband. We held: "The reason is founded upon the theoretic identity of person and interest between the husband and the wife, and the presumption that, from the nature of the relation, the home of one is the home of the other. It is intended to promote, strengthen, and secure their interests in this relation, as it ordinarily exists, where union and harmony prevail." 5 In accord with this objective, Article 109 of the Civil Code also obligated the husband and wife "to live together."

Third. The difficult issues start as we determine whether petitioner's marriage to former President Marcos ipso facto resulted in the loss of her Tacloban domicile. I respectfully submit that her marriage by itself alone did not cause her to lose her Tacloban domicile. Article 110 of the Civil Code merely gave the husband the right to fix the domicile of the family. In the exercise of the right, the husband may explicitly choose the prior domicile of his wife, in which case, the wife's domicile remains unchanged. The husband can also implicitly acquiesce to his wife's prior domicile even if it is different. So we held in de la Viña, 6

. . . . When married women as well as children subject to parental authority live, with the acquiescence of their husbands or fathers, in a place distinct from where the latter live, they have their own independent domicile. . . .

It is not, therefore, the mere fact of marriage but the deliberate choice of a different domicile by the husband that will change the domicile of a wife from what it was prior to their marriage. The domiciliary decision made by the husband in the exercise of the right conferred by Article 110 of the Civil Code binds the wife. Any and all acts of a wife during her coverture contrary to the domiciliary choice of the husband cannot change in any way the domicile legally fixed by the husband. These acts are void not only because the wife lacks the capacity to choose her domicile but also because they are contrary to law and public policy.

In the case at bench, it is not disputed that former President Marcos exercised his right to fix the family domicile and established it in Batac, Ilocos Norte, where he was then the congressman. At that particular point of time and throughout their married life, petitioner lost her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte. Since petitioner's Batac domicile has been fixed by operation of law, it was not affected in 1959 when her husband was elected as Senator, when they lived in San Juan, Rizal and where she registered as a voter. It was not also affected in 1965 when her husband was elected President, when they lived in Malacañang Palace, and when she registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila. Nor was it affected when she served as a member of the Batasang Pambansa, Minister of Human Settlements and Governor of Metro Manila during the incumbency of her husband as President of the nation. Under Article 110 of the Civil Code, it was only her husband who could change the family domicile in Batac and the evidence shows he did not effect any such change. To a large degree, this follows the common law that "a woman on her marriage loses her own domicile and by operation of law, acquires that of her husband, no matter where the wife actually lives or what she believes or intends." 7

Fourth. The more difficult task is how to interpret the effect of the death on September 28, 1989 of former President Marcos on petitioner's Batac domicile. The issue is of first impression in our jurisdiction and two (2) schools of thought contend for acceptance. One is espoused by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Davide, Jr., heavily relying on American authorities. 8 He echoes the theory that after the husband's death, the wife retains the last domicile of her husband until she makes an actual change.

I do not subscribe to this submission. The American case law that the wife still retains her dead husband's domicile is based on ancient common law which we can no longer apply in the Philippine setting today. The common law identified the domicile of a wife as that of the husband and denied to her the power of acquiring a domicile of her own separate and apart from him. 9 Legal scholars agree that two (2) reasons support this common law doctrine. The first reason as pinpointed by the legendary Blackstone is derived from the view that "the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended duringthe marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband." 10 The second reason lies in "the desirability of having the interests of each member of the family unit governed by the same law." 11 The presumption that the wife retains the domicile of her deceased husband is an extension of this common law concept. The concept and its extension have provided some of the most iniquitous jurisprudence against women. It was under common law that the 1873 American case of Bradwell v. Illinois 12 was decided where women were denied the right to practice law. It was unblushingly ruled that "the natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life . . . This is the law of the Creator." Indeed, the rulings relied upon by Mr. Justice Davide in CJS 13 and AM JUR 2d 14 are American state court decisions handed down between the years 1917 15 and 1938, 16 or before the time when women were accorded equality of rights with men. Undeniably, the women's liberation movement resulted in far-ranging state legislations in the United States to eliminate gender inequality. 17 Starting in the decade of the seventies, the courts likewise liberalized their rulings as they started invalidating laws infected with gender-bias. It was in 1971 when the US Supreme Court in Reed v. Reed, 18 struck a big blow for women equality when it declared as unconstitutional an Idaho law that required probate courts to choose male family members over females as estate administrators. It held that mere administrative inconvenience cannot justify a sex-based distinction. These significant changes both in law and in case law on the status of women virtually obliterated the iniquitous common law surrendering the rights of married women to their husbands based on the dubious theory of the parties' theoretic oneness. The Corpus Juris Secundum editors did not miss the relevance of this revolution on women's right as they observed: "However, it has been declared that under modern statutes changing the status of married women and departing from the common law theory

of marriage, there is no reason why a wife may not acquire a separate domicile for every purpose known to the law." 19 In publishing in 1969 the Restatement of the Law, Second (Conflict of Laws 2d), the reputable American Law Institute also categorically stated that the view of Blackstone ". . . is no longer held. As the result of statutes and court decisions, a wife now possesses practically the same rights and powers as her unmarried sister." 20

In the case at bench, we have to decide whether we should continue clinging to the anachronistic common law that demeans women, especially married women. I submit that the Court has no choice except to break away from this common law rule, the root of the many degradations of Filipino women. Before 1988, our laws particularly the Civil Code, were full of gender discriminations against women. Our esteemed colleague, Madam Justice Flerida Ruth Romero, cited a few of them as follows: 21

xxx xxx xxx

Legal Disabilities Suffered by Wives

Not generally known is the fact that under the Civil Code, wives suffer under certain restrictions or disabilities. For instance, the wife cannot accept gifts from others, regardless of the sex of the giver or the value of the gift, other than from her very close relatives, without her husband's consent. She may accept only from, say, her parents, parents-in-law, brothers, sisters and the relatives within the so-called fourth civil degree. She may not exercise her profession or occupation or engage in business if her husband objects on serious grounds or if his income is sufficient to support their family in accordance with their social standing. As to what constitutes "serious grounds" for objecting, this is within the discretion of the husband.

xxx xxx xxx

Because of the present inequitable situation, the amendments to the Civil Law being proposed by the University of the Philippines Law Center would allow absolute divorce which severes the matrimonial ties, such that the divorced spouses are free to get married a year after the divorce is decreed by the courts. However, in order to place the husband and wife on an equal footing insofar as the bases for divorce are concerned, the following are specified as the grounds for absolute divorce: (1) adultery or having a paramour committed by the respondent in any of the ways specified in the Revised Penal Code or (2) an attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner which amounts to attempted parricide under the Revised Penal Code; (3) abandonment of the petitioner by the respondent without just cause for a period of three consecutive years; or (4) habitual maltreatment.

With respect to property relations, the husband is automatically the administrator of the conjugal property owned in common by the married couple even if the wife may be the more astute or enterprising partner. The law does not leave it to the spouses to decide who shall act as such administrator. Consequently, the husband is authorized to engage in acts and enter into transactions beneficial to the conjugal partnership. The wife, however, cannot similarly bind the partnership without the husband's consent.

And while both exercise joint parental authority over their children, it is the father whom the law designates as the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the unemancipated child.

Taking the lead in Asia, our government exerted efforts, principally through legislations, to eliminate inequality between men and women in our land. The watershed came on August 3,

1988 when our Family Code took effect which, among others, terminated the unequal treatment of husband and wife as to their rights and responsibilities. 22

The Family Code attained this elusive objective by giving new rights to married women and by abolishing sex-based privileges of husbands. Among others, married women are now given the joint right to administer the family property, whether in the absolute community system or in the system of conjugal partnership; 23 joint parental authority over their minor children, both over their persons as well as their properties; 24 joint responsibility for the support of the family; 25 the right to jointly manage the household; 26

and, the right to object to their husband's exercise of profession, occupation, business or activity. 27 Of particular relevance to the case at bench is Article 69 of the Family Code which took away the exclusive right of the husband to fix the family domicile and gave it jointly to the husband and the wife, thus:

Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide.

The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (Emphasis supplied)

Article 69 repealed Article 110 of the Civil Code. Commenting on the duty of the husband and wife to live together, former Madam Justice Alice Sempio-Diy of the Court of Appeals specified the instances when a wife may now refuse to live with her husband, thus: 28

(2) The wife has the duty to live with her husband, but she may refuse to do so in certain cases like:

(a) If the place chosen by the husband as family residence is dangerous to her Life;

(b) If the husband subjects her to maltreatment or abusive conduct or insults, making common life impossible;

(c) If the husband compels her to live with his parents, but she cannot get along with her mother-in-law and they have constant quarrels (Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, CA, 46 OG 6122);

(d) Where the husband has continuously carried illicit relations for 10 years with different women and treated his wife roughly and without consideration. (Dadivas v. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 92);

(e) Where the husband spent his time in gambling, giving no money to his family for food and necessities, and at the same time insulting his wife and laying hands on her. (Panuncio v. Sula, CA, 34 OG 129);

(f) If the husband has no fixed residence and lives a vagabond life as a tramp (1 Manresa 329);

(g) If the husband is carrying on a shameful business at home (Gahn v. Darby, 38 La. Ann. 70).

The inescapable conclusion is that our Family Code has completely emancipated the wife from the control of the husband, thus abandoning the parties' theoretic identity of interest. No less than

the late revered Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes who chaired the Civil Code Revision Committee of the UP Law Center gave this insightful view in one of his rare lectures after retirement: 29

xxx xxx xxx

The Family Code is primarily intended to reform the family law so as to emancipate the wife from the exclusive control of the husband and to place her at parity with him insofar as the family is concerned. The wife and the husband are now placed on equal standing by the Code. They are now joint administrators of the family properties and exercise joint authority over the persons and properties of their children. This means a dual authority in the family. The husband will no longer prevail over the wife but she has to agree on all matters concerning the family. (Emphasis supplied)

In light of the Family Code which abrogated the inequality between husband and wife as started and perpetuated by the common law, there is no reason in espousing the anomalous rule that the wife still retains the domicile of her dead husband. Article 110 of the Civil Code which provides the statutory support for this stance has been repealed by Article 69 of the Family Code. By its repeal, it becomes a dead-letter law, and we are not free to resurrect it by giving it further effect in any way or manner such as by ruling that the petitioner is still bound by the domiciliary determination of her dead husband.

Aside from reckoning with the Family Code, we have to consider our Constitution and its firm guarantees of due process and equal protection oflaw. 30 It can hardly be doubted that the common law imposition on a married woman of her dead husband's domicile even beyond his grave is patently discriminatory to women. It is a gender-based discrimination and is not rationally related to the objective of promoting family solidarity. It cannot survive a constitutional challenge. Indeed, compared with our previous fundamental laws, the 1987 Constitution is more concerned with equality between sexes as it explicitly commands that the State ". . . shall ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men." To be exact, section 14, Article II provides: "The State recognizes the role of women in nation building, and shall ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men. We shall be transgressing the sense and essence of this constitutional mandate if we insist on giving our women the caveman's treatment.

Prescinding from these premises, I respectfully submit that the better stance is to rule that petitioner reacquired her Tacloban domicile upon the death of her husband in 1989. This is the necessary consequence of the view that petitioner's Batac dictated domicile did not continue after her husband's death; otherwise, she would have no domicile and that will violate the universal rule that no person can be without a domicile at any point of time. This stance also restores the right of petitioner to choose her domicile before it was taken away by Article 110 of the Civil Code, a right now recognized by the Family Code and protected by the Constitution. Likewise, I cannot see the fairness of the common law requiring petitioner to choose again her Tacloban domicile before she could be released from her Batac domicile. She lost her Tacloban domicile not through her act but through the act of her deceased husband when he fixed their domicile in Batac. Her husband is dead and he cannot rule her beyond the grave. The law disabling her to choose her own domicile has been repealed. Considering all these, common law should not put the burden on petitioner to prove she has abandoned her dead husband's domicile. There is neither rhyme nor reason for this gender-based burden.

But even assuming arguendo that there is need for convincing proof that petitioner chose to reacquire her Tacloban domicile, still, the records reveal ample evidence to this effect. In her affidavit submitted to the respondent COMELEC, petitioner averred:

xxx xxx xxx

36. In November, 1991, I came home to our beloved country, after several requests for my return were denied by President Corazon C. Aquino, and after I filed suits for our Government to issue me my passport.

37. But I came home without the mortal remains of my beloved husband, President Ferdinand E. Marcos, which the Government considered a threat to the national security and welfare.

38. Upon my return to the country, I wanted to immediately live and reside in Tacloban City or in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, even if my residences there were not livable as they had been destroyed and cannibalized. The PCGG, however, did not permit and allow me.

39. As a consequence, I had to live at various times in the Westin Philippine Plaza in Pasay City, a friend's apartment on Ayala Avenue, a house in South Forbes Park which my daughter rented, and Pacific Plaza, all in Makati.

40. After the 1992 Presidential Elections, I lived and resided in the residence of my brother in San Jose, Tacloban City, and pursued my negotiations with PCGG to recover my sequestered residences in Tacloban City and Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.

40.1 In preparation for my observance of All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day that year, I renovated my parents' burial grounds and entombed their bones which had been excalvated, unearthed and scattered.

41. On November 29, 1993, I formally wrote PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for permissions to —

. . . rehabilitate . . . (o)ur ancestral house in Tacloban and farmhouse in Olot, Leyte . . . to make them livable for us the Marcos family to have a home in our own motherland.

xxx xxx xxx

42. It was only on 06 June 1994, however, when PCGG Chairman Gunigundo, in his letter to Col. Simeon Kempis, Jr., PCGG Region 8 Representative, allowed me to repair and renovate my Leyte residences. I quote part of his letter:

Dear Col. Kempis,

Upon representation by Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos to this Commission, that she intends to visit our sequestered properties in Leyte, please allow her access thereto. She may also cause repairs and renovation of the sequestered properties, in which event, it shall be understood that her undertaking said repairs is not authorization for her to take over said properties, and that all expenses shall be for her account and not reimbursable. Please extend the necessary courtesy to her.

xxx xxx xxx

43. I was not permitted, however, to live and stay in the Sto. Niño Shrine residence in Tacloban City where I wanted to stay and reside, after repairs and renovations were completed. In August 1994, I transferred from San Jose, Tacloban City, to my residence in Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, when PCGG permitted me to stay and live there.

It is then clear that in 1992 petitioner reestablished her domicile in the First District of Leyte. It is not disputed that in 1992, she first lived at the house of her brother in San Jose, Tacloban City and later, in August 1994, she transferred her residence in Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. Both Tacloban City and the municipality of Olot are within the First District of Leyte. Since petitioner reestablished her old domicile in 1992 in the First District of Leyte, she more than complied with the constitutional requirement of residence". . . for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election," i.e., the May 8, 1995 elections.

The evidence presented by the private respondent to negate the Tacloban domicile of petitioner is nil. He presented petitioner's Voter's Registration Record filed with the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct 10-A of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte wherein she stated that her period of residence in said barangay was six (6) months as of the date of her filing of said Voter's Registration Record on January 28, 1995. 31 This statement in petitioner's Voter's Registration Record is a non-prejudicial admission. The Constitution requires at least one (1) year residence in the district in which the candidate shall be elected. In the case at bench, the reference is the First District of Leyte. Petitioner's statement proved that she resided in Olot six (6) months before January 28, 1995 but did not disprove that she has also resided in Tacloban City starting 1992. As aforestated, Olot and Tacloban City are both within the First District of Leyte, hence, her six (6) months residence in Olot should be counted not against, but in her favor. Private respondent also presented petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 8, 1995 32 where she placed seven (7) months after Item No. 8 which called for information regarding "residence in the constituency where I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election." Again, this original certificate of candidacy has no evidentiary value because an March 1, 1995 it was corrected by petitioner. In her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, 33 petitioner wrote "since childhood" after Item No. 8. The amendment of a certificate of candidacy to correct a bona fide mistake has been allowed by this Court as a matter of course and as a matter of right. As we held in Alialy v. COMELEC, 34 viz.:

xxx xxx xxx

The absence of the signature of the Secretary of the local chapter N.P in the original certificate of candidacy presented before the deadline September 11, 1959, did not render the certificate invalid. The amendment of the certificate, although at a date after the deadline, but before the election, was substantial compliance with the law, and the defect was cured.

It goes without saying that petitioner's erroneous Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 8, 1995 cannot be used as evidence against her. Private respondent's petition for the disqualification of petitioner rested alone on these two (2) brittle pieces of documentary evidence — petitioner's Voter's Registration Record and her original Certificate of Candidacy. Ranged against the evidence of the petitioner showing her ceaseless contacts with Tacloban, private respondent's two (2) pieces of evidence are too insufficient to disqualify petitioner, more so, to deny her the right to represent the people of the First District of Leyte who have overwhelmingly voted for her.

Fifth. Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution mandates that "bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination." 35 A detached reading of the records of the case at bench will show that all forms of legal and extra-legal obstacles have been thrown against petitioner to prevent her from running as the people's representative in the First District of Leyte. In petitioner's Answer to the petition to disqualify her, she averred: 36

xxx xxx xxx

10. Petitioner's (herein private respondent Montejo) motive in filing the instant petition is devious. When respondent (petitioner herein) announced that she was intending to register as a voter in Tacloban City and run for Congress in the First District of Leyte,

petitioner (Montejo) immediately opposed her intended registration by writing a letter stating that "she is not a resident of said city but of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte." (Annex "2" of respondent's affidavit, Annex "2"). After respondent (petitioner herein) had registered as a voter in Tolosa following completion of her six-month actual residence therein, petitioner (Montejo) filed a petition with the COMELEC to transfer the town of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District and pursued such move up to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 118702, his purpose being to remove respondent (petitioner herein) as petitioner's (Montejo's) opponent in the congressional election in the First District. He also filed a bill, along with other Leyte Congressmen, seeking to create another legislative district, to remove the town of Tolosa out of the First District and to make it a part of the new district, to achieve his purpose. However, such bill did not pass the Senate. Having, failed on such moves, petitioner now filed the instant petition, for the same objective, as it is obvious that he is afraid to submit himself along with respondent (petitioner herein) for the judgment and verdict of the electorate of the First District of Leyte in an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and clean elections on May 8, 1995.

These allegations which private respondent did not challenge were not lostto the perceptive eye of Commissioner Maambong who in his Dissenting Opinion, 37 held:

xxx xxx xxx

Prior to the registration date — January 28, 1995 the petitioner (herein private respondent Montejo) wrote the Election Officer of Tacloban City not to allow respondent (petitioner herein) to register thereat since she is a resident of Tolosa and not Tacloban City. The purpose of this move of the petitioner (Montejo) is not lost to (sic) the Commission. In UND No. 95-001 (In the matter of the Legislative Districts of the Provinces of Leyte, Iloilo, and South Cotabato, Out of Which the New Provinces of Biliran, Guimaras and Saranggani Were Respectively Created), . . . Hon. Cirilo Roy G. Montejo, Representative, First District of Leyte, wanted the Municipality of Tolosa, in the First District of Leyte, transferred to the Second District of Leyte. The Hon. Sergio A.F. Apostol, Representative of the Second District of Leyte, opposed the move of the petitioner (Montejo). Under Comelec Resolution No. 2736 (December 29, 1994), the Commission on Elections refused to make the proposed transfer. Petitioner (Montejo) filed "Motion for Reconsideration of ResolutionNo. 2736" which the Commission denied in a Resolution promulgated on February 1, 1995. Petitioner (Montejo) filed a petition for certiorari before the Honorable Supreme Court (Cirilo Roy G. Montejo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 118702) questioning the resolution of the Commission. Believing that he could get a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court, petitioner (Montejo) tried to make sure that the respondent (petitioner herein) will register as a voter in Tolosa so that she will be forced to run as Representative not in the First but in the Second District.

It did not happen. On March 16, 1995, the Honorable Supreme Court unanimously promulgated a "Decision," penned by Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the dispositive portion of which reads:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, Section 1 of Resolution No. 2736 insofar as it transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the Second District and the municipality of Palompon of the Fourth District to the Third District of the province of Leyte, is annulled and set aside. We also deny the Petition praying for the transfer of the municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District of the province of Leyte. No costs.

Petitioner's (Montejo's) plan did not work. But the respondent (petitioner herein) was constrained to register in the Municipality of Tolosa where her house is instead of

Tacloban City, her domicile. In any case, both Tacloban City and Tolosa are in the First Legislative District.

All these attempts to misuse our laws and legal processes are forms of rank harassments and invidious discriminations against petitioner to deny her equal access to a public office. We cannot commit any hermeneutic violence to the Constitution by torturing the meaning of equality, the end result of which will allow the harassment and discrimination of petitioner who has lived a controversial life, a past of alternating light and shadow. There is but one Constitution for all Filipinos. Petitioner cannot be adjudged by a "different" Constitution, and the worst way to interpret the Constitution is to inject in its interpretation, bile and bitterness.

Sixth. In Gallego v. Vera, 38 we explained that the reason for this residence requirement is "to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted, with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community . . . ." Petitioner's lifetime contacts with the First District of Leyte cannot be contested. Nobody can claim that she is not acquainted with its problems because she is a stranger to the place. None can argue she cannot satisfy the intent of the Constitution.

Seventh. In resolving election cases, a dominant consideration is the need to effectuate the will of the electorate. The election results show that petitioner received Seventy Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-one (70,471) votes, while private respondent got only Thirty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Three (36,833) votes. Petitioner is clearly the overwhelming choice of the electorate of the First District of Leyte and this is not a sleight of statistics. We cannot frustrate this sovereign will on highly arguable technical considerations. In case of doubt, we should lean towards a rule that will give life to the people's political judgment.

A final point. The case at bench provides the Court with the rare opportunity to rectify the inequality of status between women and men by rejecting the iniquitous common law precedents on the domicile of married women and by redefining domicile in accord with our own culture, law, and Constitution. To rule that a married woman is eternally tethered to the domicile dictated by her dead husband is to preserve the anachronistic and anomalous balance of advantage of a husband over his wife. We should not allow the dead to govern the living even if the glories of yesteryears seduce us to shout long live the dead! The Family Code buried this gender-based discrimination against married women and we should not excavate what has been entombed. More importantly, the Constitution forbids it.

I vote to grant the petition.

Bellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur.

FRANCISCO, J., concurring:

I concur with Mr. Justice Kapunan's ponencia finding petitioner qualified for the position of Representative of the First Congressional District of Leyte. I wish, however, to express a few comments on the issue of petitioner's domicile.

Domicile has been defined as that place in which a person's habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom, and that place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed his abode, or habitation, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his permanent home (28 C.J.S. §1). It denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business, or pleasure, or for like reasons one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances, in the sense that they disclose intent. (Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA 966, 969)

Domicile is classified into domicile of origin and domicile of choice. The law attributes to every individual a domicile of origin, which is the domicile of his parents, or of the head of his family, or of the person on whom he is legally dependent at the time of his birth. While the domicile of origin is generally the place

where one is born or reared, it maybe elsewhere (28 C.J.S. §5). Domicile of choice, on the other hand, is the place which the person has elected and chosen for himself to displace his previous domicile; it has for its true basis or foundation the intention of the person (28 C.J.S. §6). In order to hold that a person has abandoned his domicile and acquired a new one called domicile of choice, the following requisites must concur, namely, (a) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (b) intention to remain there or animus manendi, and (c) an intention to abandon the old domicile or animus non revertendi (Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, 226 SCRA 408, 415). A third classification is domicile by operation of law which attributes to a person a domicile independent of his own intention or actual residence, ordinarily resulting from legal domestic relations, as that of the wife arising from marriage, or the relation of a parent and a child (28 C.J.S. §7).

In election law, when our Constitution speaks of residence for election purposes it means domicile (Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692, 713; Nuval v. Guray, 52 Phil. 645, 651). To my mind, public respondent Commission on Elections misapplied this concept, of domicile which led to petitioner's disqualification by ruling that petitioner failed to comply with the constitutionally mandated one-year residence requirement. Apparently, public respondent Commission deemed as conclusive petitioner's stay and registration as voter in many places as conduct disclosing her intent to abandon her established domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte. In several decisions, though, the Court has laid down the rule that registration of a voter in a place other than his place of origin is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence (Faypon v. Quirino, 96 Phil. 294, 300). Respondent Commission offered no cogent reason to depart from this rule except to surmise petitioner's intent of abandoning her domicile of origin.

It has been suggested that petitioner's domicile of origin was supplanted by a new domicile due to her marriage, a domicile by operation of law. The proposition is that upon the death of her husband in 1989 she retains her husband's domicile, i.e., Batac, Ilocos Norte, until she makes an actual change thereof. I find this proposition quite untenable.

Tacloban, Leyte, is petitioner's domicile of origin which was involuntarily supplanted with another, i.e., Batac, Ilocos Norte, upon her marriage in 1954 with then Congressman Marcos. By legal fiction she followed the domicile of her husband. In my view, the reason for the law is for the spouses to fully and effectively perform their marital duties and obligations to one another. 1 The question of domicile, however, is not affected by the fact that it was the legal or moral duty of the individual to reside in a given place (28 C.J.S. §11). Thus, while the wife retains her marital domicile so long as the marriage subsists, she automatically loses it upon the latter's termination, for the reason behind the law then ceases. Otherwise, petitioner, after her marriage was ended by the death of her husband, would be placed in a quite absurd and unfair situation of having been freed from all wifely obligations yet made to hold on to one which no longer serves any meaningful purpose.

It is my view therefore that petitioner reverted to her original domicile of Tacloban, Leyte upon her husband's death without even signifying her intention to that effect. It is for the private respondent to prove, not for petitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effectively abandoned Tacloban, Leyte for Batac, Ilocos Norte or for some other place/s. The clear rule is that it is the party (herein private respondent) claiming that a person has abandoned or lost his residence of origin who must show and prove preponderantly such abandonment or loss (Faypon v. Quirino, supra at 298; 28 C.J.S. §16), because the presumption is strongly in favor of an original or former domicile, as against an acquired one (28 C.J.S. §16). Private respondent unfortunately failed to discharge this burden as the record is devoid of convincing proof that petitioner has acquired whether voluntarily or involuntarily, a new domicile to replace her domicile of origin.

The records, on the contrary, clearly show that petitioner has complied with the constitutional one-year residence requirement. After her exile abroad, she returned to the Philippines in 1991 to reside in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, but the Presidential Commission on Good Government which sequestered her residential house and other properties forbade her necessitating her transient stay in various places in Manila (Affidavit p.6, attached as Annex I of the Petition). In 1992, she ran for the position of president writing in

her certificate of candidacy her residence as San Juan, Metro Manila. After her loss therein, she went back to Tacloban City, acquired her residence certificate 2 and resided with her brother in San Jose. She resided in San Jose, Tacloban City until August of 1994 when she was allowed by the PCGG to move and reside in her sequestered residential house in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte (Annex I, p. 6). 3 It was in the same month of August when she applied for the cancellation of her previous registration in San Juan, Metro Manila in order to register anew as voter of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, which she did on January 28, 1995. From this sequence of events, I find it quite improper to use as the reckoning period of the one-year residence requirement the date when she applied for the cancellation of her previous registration in San Juan, Metro Manila. The fact which private respondent never bothered to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence after the 1992 presidential election from San Juan, Metro Manila to San Jose, Tacloban City, and resided therein until August of 1994. She later transferred to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte (Annex I, p. 7). It appearing that both Tacloban City and Tolosa, Leyte are within the First Congressional District of Leyte, it indubitably stands that she had more than a year of residence in the constituency she sought to be elected. Petitioner, therefore, has satisfactorily complied with the one-year qualification required by the 1987 Constitution.

I vote to grant the petition.

ROMERO, J., separate opinion:

Petitioner has appealed to this Court for relief after the COMELEC ruled that she was disqualified from running for Representative of her District and that, in the event that she should, nevertheless, muster a majority vote, her proclamation should be suspended. Not by a straightforward ruling did the COMELEC pronounce its decision as has been its unvarying practice in the past, but by a startling succession of "reverse somersaults." Indicative of its shifting stance vis-a-vis petitioner's certificate of candidacy were first, the action of its Second Division disqualifying her and canceling her original Certificate of Candidacy by a vote of 2-1 on April 24, 1995; then the denial by the COMELEC en banc of her Motion for Reconsideration on May 7, 1995, a day before the election; then because she persisted in running, its decision onMay 11, 1995 or three days after the election, allowing her proclamation in the event that the results of the canvass should show that she obtained the highest number of votes (obviously noting that petitioner had won overwhelmingly over her opponent), but almost simultaneously reversing itself by directing that even if she wins, her proclamation should nonetheless be suspended.

Crucial to the resolution of the disqualification issue presented by the case at bench is the interpretation to be given to the one-year residency requirement imposed by the Constitution on aspirants for a Congressional seat. 1

Bearing in mind that the term "resident" has been held to be synonymous with "domicile" for election purposes, it is important to determine whether petitioner's domicile was in the First District of Leyte and if so, whether she had resided there for at least a period of one year. Undisputed is her domicile of origin, Tacloban, where her parents lived at the time of her birth. Depending on what theory one adopts, the same may have been changed when she married Ferdinand E. Marcos, then domiciled in Batac, by operation of law. Assuming it did, his death certainly released her from the obligation to live with him at the residence fixed by him during his lifetime. What may confuse the layman at this point is the fact that the term "domicile" may refer to "domicile of origin," "domicile of choice," or "domicile by operation of law," which subject we shall not belabor since it has been amply discussed by the ponente and in the other separate opinions.

In any case, what assumes relevance is the divergence of legal opinion as to the effect of the husband's death on the domicile of the widow. Some scholars opine that the widow's domicile remains unchanged; that the deceased husband's wishes perforce still bind the wife he has left behind. Given this interpretation, the widow cannot possibly go far enough to sever the domiciliary tie imposed by her husband.

It is bad enough to interpret the law as empowering the husband unilaterally to fix the residence or domicile of the family, as laid down in the Civil Code, 2 but to continue giving obeisance to his wishes even after the rationale underlying the mutual duty of the spouses to live together has ceased, is to close one's eyes to the stark realities of the present.

At the other extreme is the position that the widow automatically reverts to her domicile of origin upon the demise of her husband. Does the law so abhor a vacuum that the widow has to be endowed somehow with a domicile? To answer this question which is far from rhetorical, one will have to keep in mind the basic principles of domicile. Everyone must have a domicile. Then one must have only a single domicile for the same purpose at any given time. Once established, a domicile remains until a new one is acquired, for no person lives who has no domicile, as defined by the law be is subject to.

At this juncture, we are confronted with an unexplored legal terrain in this jurisdiction, rendered more murky by the conflicting opinions of foreign legal authorities. This being the state of things, it is imperative as it is opportune to illumine the darkness with the beacon light of truth, as dictated by experience and the necessity of according petitioner her right to choose her domicile in keeping with the enlightened global trend to recognize and protect the human rights of women, no less than men.

Admittedly, the notion of placing women at par with men, insofar as civil, political and social rights are concerned, is a relatively recent phenomenon that took seed only in the middle of this century. It is a historical fact that for over three centuries, the Philippines had been colonized by Spain, a conservative, Catholic country which transplanted to our shores the Old World cultures, mores and attitudes and values. Through the imposition on our government of the Spanish Civil Code in 1889, the people, both men and women, had no choice but to accept such concepts as the husband's being the head of the family and the wife's subordination to his authority. In such role, his was the right to make vital decisions for the family. Many instances come to mind, foremost being what is related to the issue before us, namely, that "the husband shall fix the residence of the family." 3 Because he is made responsible for the support of the wife and the rest of the family, 4 he is also empowered to be the administrator of the conjugal property, with a few exceptions 5 and may, therefore, dispose of the conjugal partnership property for the purposes specified under the law; 6 whereas, as a general rule, the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband's consent. 7 As regards the property pertaining to the children under parental authority, the father is the legal administrator and only in his absence may the mother assume his powers. 8 Demeaning to the wife's dignity are certain strictures on her personal freedoms, practically relegating her to the position of minors and disabled persons. To illustrate a few: The wife cannot, without the husband's consent, acquire any gratuitous title, except from her ascendants, descendants, parents-in-law, and collateral relatives within the fourth degree. 9 With respect to her employment, the husband wields a veto power in the case the wife exercises her profession or occupation or engages in business, provided his income is sufficient for the family, according to its social standing and his opposition is founded on serious and valid grounds. 10 Most offensive, if not repulsive, to the liberal-minded is the effective prohibition upon a widow to get married till after three hundred days following the death of her husband, unless in the meantime, she has given birth to a child. 11 The mother who contracts a subsequent marriage loses the parental authority over her children, unless the deceased husband, father of the latter, has expressly provided in his will that his widow might marry again, and has ordered that in such case she should keep and exercise parental authority over their children. 12 Again, an instance of a husband's overarching influence from beyond the grave.

All these indignities and disabilities suffered by Filipino wives for hundreds of years evoked no protest from them until the concept of human rights and equality between and among nations and individuals found hospitable lodgment in the United Nations Charter of which the Philippines was one of the original signatories. By then, the Spanish "conquistadores" had been overthrown by the American forces at the turn of the century. The bedrock of the U.N. Charter was firmly anchored on this credo: "to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women." (Emphasis supplied)

It took over thirty years before these egalitarian doctrines bore fruit, owing largely to the burgeoning of the feminist movement. What may be regarded as the international bill of rights for women was implanted in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted by the U.N. General Assembly which entered into force as an international treaty on September 3, 1981. In ratifying the instrument, the Philippines bound itself to implement its liberating spirit and letter, for its Constitution, no less, declared that "The Philippines. . . adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations." 13 One such principle embodied in the CEDAW is granting to men and women "the same rights with regard to the law relating to the movement of persons and the freedom to choose their residence and domicile." 14 (Emphasis supplied).

CEDAW's pro-women orientation which was not lost on Filipino women was reflected in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines and later, in the Family Code, 15 both of which were speedily approved by the first lady President of the country, Corazon C. Aquino. Notable for its emphasis on the human rights of all individuals and its bias for equality between the sexes are the following provisions: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights" 16 and "The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men." 17

A major accomplishment of women in their quest for equality with men and the elimination of discriminatory provisions of law was the deletion in the Family Code of almost all of the unreasonable strictures on wives and the grant to them of personal rights equal to that of their husbands. Specifically, the husband and wife are now given the right jointly to fix the family domicile; 18 concomitant to the spouses' being jointly responsible for the support of the family is the right and duty of both spouses to manage the household; 19 the administration and the enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly; 20 the father and mother shall now jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of their unemancipated common child 21 and several others.

Aware of the hiatus and continuing gaps in the law, insofar as women's rights are concerned, Congress passed a law popularly known as "Women in Development and Nation Building Act" 22 Among the rights given to married women evidencing their capacity to act in contracts equal to that of men are:

(1) Women shall have the capacity to borrow and obtain loans and execute security and credit arrangements under the same conditions as men;

(2) Women shall have equal access to all government and private sector programs granting agricultural credit, loans and non material resources and shall enjoy equal treatment in agrarian reform and land resettlement programs;

(3) Women shall have equal rights to act as incorporators and enter into insurance contracts; and

(4) Married women shall have rights equal to those of married men in applying for passports, secure visas and other travel documents, without need to secure the consent of their spouses.

As the world draws the curtain on the Fourth World Conference of Women in Beijing, let this Court now be the first to respond to its clarion call that "Women's Rights are Human Rights" and that "All obstacles to women's full participation in decision-making at all levels, including the family" should be removed. Having been herself a Member of the Philippine Delegation to the International Women's Year Conference in Mexico in 1975, this writer is only too keenly aware of the unremitting struggle being waged by women the world over, Filipino women not excluded, to be accepted as equals of men and to tear down the walls of discrimination that hold them back from their proper places under the sun.

In light of the inexorable sweep of events, local and global, legislative, executive and judicial, according more rights to women hitherto denied them and eliminating whatever pockets of discrimination still exist in their civil, political and social life, can it still be insisted that widows are not at liberty to choose their domicile upon the death of their husbands but must retain the same, regardless?

I submit that a widow, like the petitioner and others similarly situated, can no longer be bound by the domicile of the departed husband, if at all she was before. Neither does she automatically revert to her domicile of origin, but exercising free will, she may opt to reestablish her domicile of origin. In returning to Tacloban and subsequently, to Barangay Olot, Tolosa, both of which are located in the First District of Leyte, petitioner amply demonstrated by overt acts, her election of a domicile of choice, in this case, a reversion to her domicile of origin. Added together, the time when she set up her domicile in the two places sufficed to meet the one-year requirement to run as Representative of the First District of Leyte.

In view of the foregoing expatiation, I vote to GRANT the petition.

VITUG, J., separate opinion:

The case at bench deals with explicit Constitutional mandates.

The Constitution is not a pliable instrument. It is a bedrock in our legal system that sets up ideals and directions and render steady our strides hence. It only looks back so as to ensure that mistakes in the past are not repeated. A compliant transience of a constitution belittles its basic function and weakens its goals. A constitution may well become outdated by the realities of time. When it does, it must be changed but while it remains, we owe it respect and allegiance. Anarchy, open or subtle, has never been, nor must it ever be, the answer to perceived transitory needs, let alone societal attitudes, or the Constitution might lose its very essence.

Constitutional provisions must be taken to be mandatory in character unless, either by express statement or by necessary implication, a different intention is manifest (see Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51).

The two provisions initially brought to focus are Section 6 and Section 17 of Article VI of the fundamental law. These provisions read:

Sec. 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.

Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

The Commission on Election (the "COMELEC") is constitutionally bound to enforce and administer "all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of election . . ." (Art. IX, C, Sec. 2, Constitution) that, there being nothing said to the contrary, should include its authority to pass upon the qualification and disqualification prescribed by law of candidates to an elective office. Indeed, pre-proclamation

controversies are expressly placed under the COMELEC's jurisdiction to hear and resolve (Art. IX, C, Sec. 3, Constitution).

The matter before us specifically calls for the observance of the constitutional one-year residency requirement. The issue (whether or not there is here such compliance), to my mind, is basically a question of fact or at least inextricably linked to such determination. The findings and judgment of the COMELEC, in accordance with the long established rule and subject only to a number of exceptions under the basic heading of "grave abuse of discretion," are not reviewable by this Court.

I do not find much need to do a complex exercise on what seems to me to be a plain matter. Generally, the term "residence" has a broader connotation that may mean permanent (domicile), official (place where one's official duties may require him to stay) or temporary (the place where he sojourns during a considerable length of time). For civil law purposes, i.e., as regards the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of a natural person is the place of his habitual residence (see Article 50, Civil Code). In election cases, the controlling rule is that heretofore announced by this Court in Romualdez vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City (226 SCRA 408, 409); thus:

In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous terms, thus: "(t)he term "residence" as used in the election law is synonymous with "domicile," which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention." "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. . . . . Residence thus acquired, however, may be lost by adopting another choice of domicile. In order, in turn, to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words, there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.

Using the above tests, I am not convinced that we can charge the COMELEC with having committed grave abuse of discretion in its assailed resolution.

The COMELEC's jurisdiction, in the case of congressional elections, ends when the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal concerned begins. It signifies that the protestee must have theretofore been duly proclaimed and has since become a "member" of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The question can be asked on whether or not the proclamation of a candidate is just a ministerial function of the Commission on Elections dictated solely on the number of votes cast in an election exercise. I believe, it is not. A ministerial duty is an obligation the performance of which, being adequately defined, does not allow the use of further judgment or discretion. The COMELEC, in its particular case, is tasked with the full responsibility of ascertaining all the facts and conditions such as may be required by law before a proclamation is properly done.

The Court, on its part, should, in my view at least, refrain from any undue encroachment on the ultimate exercise of authority by the Electoral Tribunals on matters which, by no less than a constitutional fiat, are explicitly within their exclusive domain. The nagging question, if it were otherwise, would be the effect of the Court's peremptory pronouncement on the ability of the Electoral Tribunal to later come up with its own judgment in a contest "relating to the election, returns and qualification" of its members.

Prescinding from all the foregoing, I should like to next touch base on the applicability to this case of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, in relation to Section 72 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, each providing thusly:

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6646

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. — The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election in which the disqualification is sought.

Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason, a candidate is not declared by final, judgment before an election to be disqualified, and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office.

I realize that in considering the significance of the law, it may be preferable to look for not so much the specific instances they ostensibly would cover as the principle they clearly convey. Thus, I will not scoff at the argument that it should be sound to say that votes cast in favor of the disqualified candidate, whenever ultimately declared as such, should not be counted in his or her favor and must accordingly be considered to be stray votes. The argument, nevertheless, is far outweighed by the rationale of the now prevailing doctrine first enunciated in the case of Topacio vs. Paredes (23 Phil. 238 [1912]) which, although later abandoned in Ticzon vs. Comelec (103 SCRA 687 [1981]), and Santos vs. COMELEC (137 SCRA 740 [1985]), was restored, along with the interim case of Geronimo vs. Ramos (136 SCRA 435 [1985]), by the Labo (176 SCRA 1 (1989]), Abella (201 SCRA 253 [1991]), Labo (211 SCRA 297 [1992]) and, most recently, Benito (235 SCRA 436 [1994]) rulings. Benito vs. Comelec was a unanimous decision penned by Justice Kapunan and concurred in by Chief Justice Narvasa, Justices Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Romero, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and Mendoza (Justices Cruz and Bellosillo were on official leave). For easy reference, let me quote from the first Labo decision:

Finally, there is the question of whether or not the private respondent, who filed the quo warranto petition, can replace the petitioner as mayor. He cannot. The simple reason is that as he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City.

The latest ruling of the Court on this issue is Santos v. Commission on Elections, (137 SCRA 740) decided in 1985. In that case, the candidate who placed second was proclaimed elected after the votes for his winning rival, who was disqualified as a turncoat and considered a non-candidate, were all disregard as stray. In effect, the second placer won by default. That decision was supported by eight members of the Court then, (Cuevas, J., ponente, with Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente,

Alampay and Aquino, JJ., concurring.) with three dissenting (Teehankee, Acting C.J., Abad Santos and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.) and another two reserving their vote. (Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.) One was on official leave. (Fernando, C.J.)

Re-examining that decision, the Court finds, and so holds, that it should be reversed in favor of the earlier case of Geronimo v. Ramos, (136 SCRA 435) which represents the more logical and democratic rule. That case, which reiterated the doctrine first announced in 1912 in Topacio v. Paredes, (23 Phil. 238) was supported by ten members of the Court, (Gutierrez, Jr., ponente, with Teehankee, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concurring) without any dissent, although one reserved his vote, (Makasiar, J.) another took no part, (Aquino, J.) and two others were on leave. (Fernando, C.J. and Concepcion, Jr., J.) There the Court held:

. . . it would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him.

Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. (20 Corpus Juris 2nd, S 243, p. 676.)

The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. The votes cast for a dead, disqualified, or non-eligible person may not be valid to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. However, in the absence of a statute which clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was alive, qualified, or eligible, they should not be treated as stray, void or meaningless. (at pp. 20-21)

Considering all the foregoing, I am constrained to vote for the dismissal of the petition.

MENDOZA, J., separate opinion:

In my view the issue in this case is whether the Commission on Elections has the power to disqualify candidates on the ground that they lack eligibility for the office to which they seek to be elected. I think that it has none and that the qualifications of candidates may be questioned only in the event they are elected, by filing a petition for quo warranto or an election protest in the appropriate forum, not necessarily in the COMELEC but, as in this case, in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. That the parties in this case took part in the proceedings in the COMELEC is of no moment. Such proceedings were unauthorized and were not rendered valid by their agreement to submit their dispute to that body.

The various election laws will be searched in vain for authorized proceedings for determining a candidate's qualifications for an office before his election. There are none in the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), in the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646), or in the law providing for

synchronized elections (R.A. No. 7166). There are, in other words, no provisions for pre-proclamation contests but only election protests or quo warranto proceedings against winning candidates.

To be sure, there are provisions denominated for "disqualification," but they are not concerned with a declaration of the ineligibility of a candidate. These provisions are concerned with the incapacity (due to insanity, incompetence or conviction of an offense) of a person either to be a candidate or to continue as a candidate for public office. There is also a provision for the denial or cancellation of certificates of candidacy, but it applies only to cases involving false representations as to certain matters required by law to be stated in the certificates.

These provisions are found in the following parts of the Omnibus Election Code:

§ 12. Disqualifications. — Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.

The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. (Emphasis added)

§ 68. Disqualifications. — Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. (Emphasis added)

§ 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate ofcandidacy. — A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election. (Emphasis added)

the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646):

§ 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the

action, inquiry or protest and; upon motion for the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. (Emphasis added).

§ 7. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. — The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.

and the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160):

§ 40. Disqualifications. — The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;

(b) Those removed from office as a result of on administrative case;

(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;

(d) Those with dual citizenship;

(e) Fugitive from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;

(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and

(g) The insane or feeble-minded.

The petition filed by private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo in the COMELEC, while entitled "For Cancellation and Disqualification," contained no allegation that private respondent Imelda Romualdez-Marcos made material representations in her certificate of candidacy which were false, it sought her disqualification on the ground that "on the basis of her Voter Registration Record and Certificate of Candidacy, [she] is disqualified from running for the position of Representative, considering that on election day, May 8, 1995, [she] would have resided less than ten (10) months in the district where she is seeking to be elected." For its part, the COMELEC's Second Division, in its resolution of April 24, 1995, cancelled her certificate of candidacy and corrected certificate of candidacy on the basis of its finding that petitioner is "not qualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the First Legislative District of Leyte" and not because of any finding that she had made false representations as to material matters in her certificate of candidacy.

Montejo's petition before the COMELEC was therefore not a petition for cancellation of certificate of candidacy under § 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, but essentially a petition to declare private respondent ineligible. It is important to note this, because, as will presently be explained, proceedings under § 78 have for their purpose to disqualify a person from being a candidate, whereas quo warranto proceedings have for their purpose to disqualify a person from holding public office. Jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings involving members of the House of Representatives is vested in the Electoral Tribunal of that body.

Indeed, in the only cases in which this Court dealt with petitions for the cancellation of certificates of candidacy, the allegations were that the respondent candidates had made false representations in their certificates of candidacy with regard to their citizenship, 1 age, 2 or residence. 3 But in the generality of

cases in which this Court passed upon the qualifications of respondents for office, this Court did so in the context of election protests 4 or quo warranto proceedings 5 filed after the proclamation of the respondents or protestees as winners.

Three reasons may be cited to explain the absence of an authorized proceeding for determining before election the qualifications of a candidate.

First is the fact that unless a candidate wins and is proclaimed elected, there is no necessity for determining his eligibility for the office. In contrast, whether an individual should be disqualified as a candidate for acts constituting election offenses (e.g., vote buying, over spending, commission of prohibited acts) is a prejudicial question which should be determined lest he wins because of the very acts for which his disqualification is being sought. That is why it is provided that if the grounds for disqualification are established, a candidate will not be voted for; if he has been voted for, the votes in his favor will not be counted; and if for some reason he has been voted for and he has won, either he will not be proclaimed or his proclamation will be set aside. 6

Second is the fact that the determination of a candidate's eligibility, e.g., his citizenship or, as in this case, his domicile, may take a long time to make, extending beyond the beginning of the term of the office. This is amply demonstrated in the companion case (G.R. No. 120265, Agapito A. Aquino v. COMELEC) where the determination of Aquino's residence was still pending in the COMELEC even after the elections of May 8, 1995. This is contrary to the summary character of proceedings relating to certificates of candidacy. That is why the law makes the receipt of certificates of candidacy a ministerial duty of the COMELEC and its officers. 7 The law is satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of candidacy that they are eligible for the position which they seek to fill, leaving the determination of their qualifications to be made after the election and only in the event they are elected. Only in cases involving charges of false representations made in certificates of candidacy is the COMELEC given jurisdiction.

Third is the policy underlying the prohibition against pre-proclamation cases in elections for President, Vice President, Senators and members of the House of Representatives. (R.A. No. 7166, § 15) The purpose is to preserve the prerogatives of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the other Tribunals as "sole judges" under the Constitution of the election, returns and qualifications of members of Congress or of the President and Vice President, as the case may be.

By providing in § 253 for the remedy of quo warranto for determining an elected official's qualifications after the results of elections are proclaimed, while being conspicuously silent about a pre-proclamation remedy based on the same ground, the Omnibus Election Code, or OEC, by its silence underscores the policy of not authorizing any inquiry into the qualifications of candidates unless they have been elected.

Apparently realizing the lack of an authorized proceeding for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, the COMELEC amended its rules on February 15, 1993 so as to provide in Rule 25, § 1 the following:

Grounds for disqualification. — Any candidate who does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate.

The lack of provision for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, however, cannot be supplied by a mere rule. Such an act is equivalent to the creation of a cause of action which is a substantive matter which the COMELEC, in the exercise of its rulemaking power under Art. IX, A, § 6 of the Constitution, cannot do. It is noteworthy that the Constitution withholds from the COMELEC even the power to decide cases involving the right to vote, which essentially involves an inquiry into qualifications based on age, residence and citizenship of voters. (Art. IX, C, § 2(3))

The assimilation in Rule 25 of the COMELEC rules of grounds for ineligibility into grounds for disqualification is contrary to the evident intention of the law. For not only in their grounds but also in their consequences are proceedings for "disqualification" different from those for a declaration of "ineligibility." "Disqualification" proceedings, as already stated, are based on grounds specified in §§ 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and in § 40 of the Local Government Code and are for the purpose of barring an individual from becoming a candidate or from continuing as a candidate for public office. In a word, their purpose is to eliminate a candidate from the race either from the start or during its progress. "Ineligibility," on the other hand, refers to the lack of the qualifications prescribed in the Constitution or the statutes for holding public office and the purpose of the proceedings for declaration of ineligibility is to remove the incumbent from office.

Consequently, that an individual possesses the qualifications for a public office does not imply that he is not disqualified from becoming a candidate or continuing as a candidate for a public office and vice versa. We have this sort of dichotomy in our Naturalization Law. (C.A. No. 473) That an alien has the qualifications prescribed in § 2 of the law does not imply that he does not suffer from any of disqualifications provided in § 4.

Indeed, provisions for disqualifications on the ground that the candidate is guilty of prohibited election practices or offenses, like other pre-proclamation remedies, are aimed at the detestable practice of "grabbing the proclamation and prolonging the election protest," 8 through the use of "manufactured" election returns or resort to other trickery for the purpose of altering the results of the election. This rationale does not apply to cases for determining a candidate's qualifications for office before the election. To the contrary, it is the candidate against whom a proceeding for disqualification is brought who could be prejudiced because he could be prevented from assuming office even though in end he prevails.

To summarize, the declaration of ineligibility of a candidate may only be sought in an election protest or action for quo warranto filed pursuant to § 253 of the Omnibus Election Code within 10 days after his proclamation. With respect to elective local officials (e.g., Governor, Vice Governor, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, etc.) such petition must be filed either with the COMELEC, the Regional Trial Courts, or Municipal Trial Courts, as provided in Art. IX, C, § 2(2) of the Constitution. In the case of the President and Vice President, the petition must be filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Art. VII, § 4, last paragraph), and in the case of the Senators, with the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and in the case of Congressmen, with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. (Art. VI, § 17) There is greater reason for not allowing before the election the filing of disqualification proceedings based on alleged ineligibility in the case of candidates for President, Vice President, Senators and members of the House of Representatives, because of the same policy prohibiting the filing of pre-proclamation cases against such candidates.

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over SPA No. 95-009; that its proceedings in that case, including its questioned orders, are void; and that the eligibility of petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos for the office of Representative of the First District of Leyte may only be inquired into by the HRET.

Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition and to annul the proceedings of the Commission on Elections in SPA No. 95-009, including its questioned orders doted April 24, 1995, May 7, 1995, May 11, 1995 and May 25, 1995, declaring petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos ineligible and ordering her proclamation as Representative of the First District of Leyte suspended. To the extent that Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure authorizes proceedings for the disqualification of candidates on the ground of ineligibility for the office, it should considered void.

The provincial board of canvassers should now proceed with the proclamation of petitioner.

Narvasa, C.J., concurs.

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

I regret that I cannot join the majority opinion as expressed in the well-written ponencia of Mr. Justice Kapunan.

As in any controversy arising out of a Constitutional provision, the inquiry must begin and end with the provision itself. The controversy should not be blurred by what, to me, are academic disquisitions. In this particular controversy, the Constitutional provision on point states that — "no person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five (25) years of age, able to read and write, and except the party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election." (Article VI, section 6)

It has been argued that for purposes of our election laws, the term residence has been understood as synonymous with domicile. This argument has been validated by no less than the Court in numerous cases 1 where significantly the factual circumstances clearly and convincingly proved that a person does not effectively lose his domicile of origin if the intention to reside therein is manifest with his personal presence in the place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.

With this basic thesis in mind, it would not be difficult to conceive of different modalities within which the phrase "a resident thereof (meaning, the legislative district) for a period of not less than one year" would fit.

The first instance is where a person's residence and domicile coincide in which case a person only has to prove that he has been domiciled in a permanent location for not less than a year before the election.

A second situation is where a person maintains a residence apart from his domicile in which case he would have the luxury of district shopping, provided of course, he satisfies the one-year residence period in the district as the minimum period for eligibility to the position of congressional representative for the district.

In either case, one would not be constitutionally disqualified for abandoning his residence in order to return to his domicile of origin, or better still, domicile of choice; neither would one be disqualified for abandoning altogether his domicile in favor of his residence in the district where he desires to be a candidate.

The most extreme circumstance would be a situation wherein a person maintains several residences in different districts. Since his domicile of origin continues as an option as long as there is no effective abandonment (animus non revertendi), he can practically choose the district most advantageous for him.

All these theoretical scenarios, however, are tempered by the unambiguous limitation that "for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election", he must be a resident in the district where he desires to be elected.

To my mind, the one year residence period is crucial regardless of whether or not the term "residence" is to be synonymous with "domicile." In other words, the candidate's intent and actual presence in one district must in all situations satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental law. And this, because of a definite Constitutional purpose. He must be familiar with the environment and problems of a district he intends to represent in Congress and the one-year residence in said district would be the minimum period to acquire such familiarity, if not versatility.

In the case of petitioner Imelda R. Marcos, the operative facts are distinctly set out in the now assailed decision of the Comelec 2nd Division dated 24 April 1995 (as affirmed by the Comelec en banc) —

In or about 1938 when respondent was a little over 8 years old, she established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte (Tacloban City). She studied in the Holy Infant Academy in Tacloban from 1938 to 1948 when she graduated from high school. She pursued her college studies in St. Paul's College, now Divine Word University of Tacloban, where she earned her degree in Education. Thereafter, she taught in the Leyte Chinese High School, still in Tacloban City. In 1952 she went to Manila to work with her cousin, the late Speaker Daniel Z. Romualdez in his office in the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married ex-president Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a congressman of Ilocos Norte. She lived with him in Batac, Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. When her husband was elected Senator of the Republic in 1959, she and her husband lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965 when her husband was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines, she lived with him in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila.

During the Marcos presidency, respondent served as a Member of the Batasang Pambansa, Minister of Human Settlements and Governor of Metro Manila. She claimed that in February 1986, she and her family were abducted and kidnapped to Honolulu, Hawaii. In November 1991, she came home to Manila. In 1992 respondent ran for election as President of the Philippines and filed her Certificate of Candidacy wherein she indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of San Juan, Metro Manila. On August 24, 1994, respondent filed a letter with the election officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, requesting for cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters in Precinct No. 157 of San Juan, Metro Manila, in order that she may be re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. (Annex 2-B, Answer). On August 31, 1994, respondent filed her Sworn Application for Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration (Annex 2-C, Answer) stating that she is a duly registered voter in 157-A, Brgy. Maytunas, San Juan, Metro that she intends to register at Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.

On January 28, 1995 respondent registered as a voter at Precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte. She filed with the Board of Election Inspectors CE Form No. 1, Voter Registration Record No. 94-3349772, wherein she alleged that she has resided in the municipality of Tolosa for a period of 6 months (Annex A, Petition).

On March 8, 1995, respondent filed with the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor, Leyte, a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte wherein she also alleged that she has been a resident in the constituency where she seeks to be elected for a period of 7 months. The pertinent entries therein are as follows:

7. PROFESSION OR OCCUPATION: House-wife/ Teacher/ Social Worker

8. RESIDENCE (complete address): Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte

Post Office Address for election purposes: Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte

9. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHEREIN I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION: ________ Years Seven Months

10. I AM NOT A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF, OR IMMIGRANT TO, A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

THAT I AM ELIGIBLE for said office; That I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; That I will obey the laws, legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly-constituted authorities; That the obligation imposed by my oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and That the facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge.

(Sgd.) Imelda Romualdez-Marcos

(Signature of Candidate) 2

Petitioner's aforestated certificate of candidacy filed on 8 March 1995 contains the decisive component or seed of her disqualification. It is contained in her answer under oath of "seven months" to the query of "residence in the constituency wherein I seek to be elected immediately preceding the election."

It follows from all the above that the Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in holding that petitioner is disqualified from the position of representative for the 1st congressional district of Leyte in the elections of 8 May 1995, for failure to meet the "not less than one-year residence in the constituency (1st district, Leyte) immediately preceding the day of election (8 May 1995)."

Having arrived at petitioner's disqualification to be a representative of the first district of Leyte, the next important issue to resolve is whether or not the Comelec can order the Board of Canvassers to determine and proclaim the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates for representative in said district.

I am not unaware of the pronouncement made by this Court in the case of Labo vs. Comelec, G.R. 86564, August 1, 1989, 176 SCRA 1 which gave the rationale as laid down in the early 1912 case of Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238 that:

. . . . Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. (20 Corpus Juris 2nd, S 243, p. 676)

The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. The votes cast for a dead, disqualified, or non-eligible person may not be valid to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. However, in the absence of a statute which clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was alive, qualified, or eligible, they should not be treated as stray, void or meaningless.

Under Sec. 6 RA 6646, (An Act Introducing Additional Reforms in the Electoral System and for other purposes) (84 O.G. 905, 22 February 1988) it is provided that:

. . . — Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may, during the pendency thereof

order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

There is no need to indulge in legal hermeneutics to sense the plain and unambiguous meaning of the provision quoted above. As the law now stands, the legislative policy does not limit its concern with the effect of a final judgement of disqualification only before the election, but even during or after the election. The law is clear that in all situations, the votes cast for a disqualified candidate SHALL NOT BE COUNTED. The law has also validated the jurisdiction of the Court or Commission on Election to continue hearing the petition for disqualification in case a candidate is voted for and receives the highest number of votes, if for any reason, he is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified.

Since the present case is an after election scenario, the power to suspend proclamation (when evidence of his guilt is strong) is also explicit under the law. What happens then when after the elections are over, one is declared disqualified? Then, votes cast for him "shall not be counted" and in legal contemplation, he no longer received the highest number of votes.

It stands to reason that Section 6 of RA 6646 does not make the second placer the winner simply because a "winning candidate is disqualified," but that the law considers him as the candidate who had obtained the highest number of votes as a result of the votes cast for the disqualified candidate not being counted or considered.

As this law clearly reflects the legislative policy on the matter, then there is no reason why this Court should not re-examine and consequently abandon the doctrine in the Jun Labo case. It has been stated that "the qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility" most especially when it is mandated by no less than the Constitution.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte to proclaim the candidate receiving the highest number of votes, from among the qualified candidates, as the duly elected representative of the 1st district of Leyte.

Hermosisima, Jr. J., dissent.

REGALADO, J., dissenting:

While I agree with same of the factual bases of the majority opinion, I cannot arrive conjointly at the same conclusion drawn therefrom Hence, this dissent which assuredly is not formulated "on the basis of the personality of a petitioner in a case."

I go along with the majority in their narration of antecedent facts, insofar as the same are pertinent to this case, and which I have simplified as follows:

1. Petitioner, although born in Manila, resided during her childhood in the present Tacloban City, she being a legitimate daughter of parents who appear to have taken up permanent residence therein. She also went to school there and, for a time, taught in one of the schools in that city.

2. When she married then Rep. Ferdinand E. Marcos who was then domiciled in Batac, Ilocos Norte, by operation of law she acquired a new domicile in that place in 1954.

3. In the successive years and during the events that happened thereafter, her husband having been elected as a Senator and then as President, she lived with him and their family in San Juan, Rizal and then in Malacanang Palace in San Miguel, Manila.

4. Over those years, she registered as a voter and actually voted in Batac, Ilocos Norte, then in San Juan, Rizal, and also in San Miguel, Manila, all these merely in the exercise of the right of suffrage.

5. It does not appear that her husband, even after he had assumed those lofty positions successively, ever abandoned his domicile of origin in Batac, Ilocos Norte where he maintained his residence and invariably voted in all elections.

6. After the ouster of her husband from the presidency in 1986 and the sojourn of the Marcos family in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A., she eventually returned to the Philippines in 1991 and resided in different places which she claimed to have been merely temporary residences.

7. In 1992, petitioner ran for election as President of the Philippines and in her certificate of candidacy she indicated that she was then a registered voter and resident of San Juan, Metro Manila.

8. On August 24, 1994, she filed a letter for the cancellation of her registration in the Permanent List of Voters in Precinct No. 157 of San Juan, Metro Manila in order that she may "be re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte." On August 31, 1994, she followed this up with her Sworn Application for Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration wherein she stated that she was a registered voter in Precinct No. 157-A, Brgy. Maytunas, San Juan, Metro Manila and that she intended to register in Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.

9. On January 28, 1995, petitioner registered as a voter at Precinct No. 18-A of Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, for which purpose she filed with the therein Board of Election Inspectors a voter's registration record form alleging that she had resided in that municipality for six months.

10. On March 8, 1995, petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte wherein she alleged that she had been a resident for "Seven Months" of the constituency where she sought to be elected.

11. On March 29, 1995, she filed an "Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy" wherein her answer in the original certificate of candidacy to item "8. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK, TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION:" was changed or replaced with a new entry reading "SINCE CHILDHOOD."

The sole issue for resolution is whether, for purposes of her candidacy, petitioner had complied with the residency requirement of one year as mandated by no less than Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

I do not intend to impose upon the time of my colleagues with a dissertation on the difference between residence and domicile. We have had enough of that and I understand that for purposes of political law and, for that matter of international law, residence is understood to be synonymous with domicile. That is so understood in our jurisprudence and in American Law, in contradistinction to the concept of residence for purposes of civil, commercial and procedural laws whenever an issue thereon is relevant or controlling.

Consequently, since in the present case the question of petitioner's residence is integrated in and inseparable from her domicile, I am addressing the issue from the standpoint of the concept of the latter term, specifically its permutations into the domicile of origin, domicile of choice and domicile by operation

of law, as understood in American law from which for this case we have taken our jurisprudential bearings.

My readings inform me that the domicile of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the "domicile of origin," constitutes the domicile of an infant until abandoned, or until the acquisition of a new domicile in a different place. 1 In the instant case, we may grant that petitioner's domicile of origin, 2 at least as of 1938, was what is now Tacloban City.

Now, as I have observed earlier, domicile is said to be of three kinds, that is, domicile by birth, domicile by choice, and domicile by operation of law. The first is the common case of the place of birth or domicilium originis, the second is that which is voluntarily acquired by a party or domicilium propio motu; the last which is consequential, as that of a wife arising from marriage, 3 is sometimes called domicilium necesarium. There is no debate that the domicile of origin can be lost or replaced by a domicile of choice or a domicile by operation of law subsequently acquired by the party.

When petitioner contracted marriage in 1954 with then Rep. Marcos, by operation of law, not only international or American but of our own enactment, 4 she acquired her husband's domicile of origin in Batac, Ilocos Norte and correspondingly lost her own domicile of origin in Tacloban City.

Her subsequent changes of residence — to San Juan, Rizal, then to San Miguel, Manila, thereafter to Honolulu, Hawaii, and back to now San Juan, Metro Manila — do not appear to have resulted in her thereby acquiring new domiciles of choice. In fact, it appears that her having resided in those places was by reason of the fortunes or misfortunes of her husband and his peregrinations in the assumption of new official positions or the loss of them. Her residence in Honolulu and, of course, those after her return to the Philippines were, as she claimed, against her will or only for transient purposes which could not have invested them with the status of domiciles of choice. 5

After petitioner's return to the Philippines in 1991 and up to the present imbroglio over her requisite residency in Tacloban City or Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, there is no showing that she ever attempted to acquire any other domicile of choice which could have resulted in the abandonment of her legal domicile in Batac, Ilocos Norte. On that score, we note the majority's own submission 6 that, to successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate (a) an actual removal or an actual change of domicile, (b) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one, and (c) acts which correspond with the purpose.

We consequently have to also note that these requirements for the acquisition of a domicile of choice apply whether what is sought to be changed or substituted is a domicile of origin (domicilium originis) or a domicile by operation of law (domicilium necesarium). Since petitioner had lost her domicilium originis which had been replaced by her domicilium necesarium, it is therefore her continuing domicile in Batac, Ilocos Norte which, if at all, can be the object of legal change under the contingencies of the case at bar.

To get out of this quandary, the majority decision echoes the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong in SPA 95-009 of the Commission on Elections, 7 and advances this novel proposition.

It may be said that petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952 (sic, 1954). By operation of law (domicilium necesarium), her legal domicile at the time of her marriage became Batac, Ilocos Norte although there were no indications of an intention on her part to abandon her domicile of origin. Because of her husband's subsequent death and through the operation of the provisions of the New Family Code already in force at the time, however, her legal domicile automatically reverted to her domicile of origin. . . . (Emphasis supplied).

Firstly, I am puzzled why although it is conceded that petitioner had acquired a domicilium necesarium in Batac, Ilocos Norte, the majority insists on making a qualification that she did not intend to abandon her domicile of origin. I find this bewildering since, in this situation, it is the law that declares where petitioner's domicile is at any given time, and not her self-serving or putative intent to hold on to her former domicile. Otherwise, contrary to their own admission that one cannot have more than one domicile at a time, 8 the majority would be suggesting that petitioner retained Tacloban City as (for lack of a term in law since it does not exist therein) the equivalent of what is fancied as a reserved, dormant, potential, or residual domicile.

Secondly, domicile once lost in accordance with law can only be recovered likewise in accordance with law. However, we are here being titillated with the possibility of an automatic reversion to or reacquisition of a domicile of origin after the termination of the cause for its loss by operation of law. The majority agrees that since petitioner lost her domicile of origin by her marriage, the termination of the marriage also terminates that effect thereof. I am impressed by the ingeniousness of this theory which proves that, indeed, necessity is the mother of inventions. Regretfully, I find some difficulty in accepting either the logic or the validity of this argument.

If a party loses his domicile of origin by obtaining a new domicile of choice, he thereby voluntarily abandons the former in favor of the latter. If, thereafter, he abandons that chosen domicile, he does not per se recover his original domicile unless, by subsequent acts legally indicative thereof, he evinces his intent and desire to establish the same as his new domicile, which is precisely what petitioner belatedly and, evidently just for purposes of her candidacy, unsuccessfully tried to do.

One's subsequent abandonment of his domicile of choice cannot automatically restore his domicile of origin, not only because there is no legal authority therefor but because it would be absurd Pursued to its logical consequence, that theory of ipso jure reversion would rule out the fact that said party could already very well have obtained another domicile, either of choice or by operation of law, other than his domicile of origin. Significantly and obviously for this reason, the Family Code, which the majority inexplicably invokes, advisedly does not regulate this contingency since it would impinge on one's freedom of choice.

Now, in the instant case, petitioner not only voluntarily abandoned her domicile of choice (unless we assume that she entered into the marital state against her will) but, on top of that, such abandonment was further affirmed through her acquisition of a new domicile by operation of law. In fact, this is even a case of both voluntary and legal abandonment of a domicile of origin. With much more reason, therefore, should we reject the proposition that with the termination of her marriage in 1989, petitioner had supposedly per se and ipso facto reacquired her domicile of origin which she lost in 1954. Otherwise, this would be tantamount to saying that during the period of marital coverture, she was simultaneously in possession and enjoyment of a domicile of origin which was only in a state of suspended animation.

Thus, the American rule is likewise to the effect that while after the husband's death the wife has the right to elect her own domicile, 9 she nevertheless retains the last domicile of her deceased husband until she makes an actual change. 10 In the absence of affirmative evidence, to the contrary, the presumption is that a wife's domicile or legal residence follows that of her husband and will continue after his death. 11

I cannot appreciate the premises advanced in support of the majority's theory based on Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code. All that is of any relevance therein is that under this new code, the right and power to fix the family domicile is now shared by the spouses. I cannot perceive how that joint right, which in the first place was never exercised by the spouses, could affect the domicile fixed by the law for petitioner in 1954 and, for her husband, long prior thereto. It is true that a wife now has the coordinate power to determine the conjugal or family domicile, but that has no bearing on this case. With the death of her husband, and each of her children having gotten married and established their own respective domiciles, the exercise of that joint power was and is no longer called for or material in the present factual setting of this controversy. Instead, what is of concern in petitioner's case was the matter of her having acquired or not her own domicile of choice.

I agree with the majority's discourse on the virtues of the growing and expanded participation of women in the affairs of the nation, with equal rights and recognition by Constitution and statutory conferment. However, I have searched in vain for a specific law or judicial pronouncement which either expressly or by necessary implication supports the majority's desired theory of automatic reacquisition of or reversion to the domicilium originis of petitioner. Definitely, as between the settled and desirable legal norms that should govern this issue, there is a world of difference; and, unquestionably, this should be resolved by legislative articulation but not by the eloquence of the well-turned phrase.

In sum, petitioner having lost Tacloban City as her domicile of origin since 1954 and not having automatically reacquired any domicile therein, she cannot legally claim that her residency in the political constituency of which it is a part continued since her birth up to the present. Respondent commission was, therefore, correct in rejecting her pretension to that effect in her amended/corrected certificate of candidacy, and in holding her to her admission in the original certificate that she had actually resided in that constituency for only seven months prior to the election. These considerations render it unnecessary to further pass upon the procedural issues raised by petitioner.

ON THE FOREGOING PREMISES, I vote to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.

DAVIDE, JR., J., dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority written by Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, more particularly on the issue of the petitioner's qualification.

Under Section 7, Subdivision A, Article IX of the Constitution, decisions, orders, or rulings of the COMELEC may be brought to this Court only by the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Aratuc vs. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251 [1979]; Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84 [1989]).

Accordingly, a writ of certiorari may be granted only if the COMELEC has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion (Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court). Since the COMELEC has, undoubtedly, jurisdiction over the private respondent's petition, the only issue left is whether it acted with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the petitioner.

My careful and meticulous perusal of the challenged resolution of 24 April 1995 of the COMELEC Second Division and the En Banc resolution of 7 May 1995 discloses total absence of abuse of discretion, much less grave abuse thereof. The resolution of the Second Division dispassionately and objectively discussed in minute details the facts which established beyond cavil that herein petitioner was disqualified as a candidate on the ground of lack of residence in the First Congressional District of Leyte. It has not misapplied, miscomprehended, or misunderstood facts or circumstances of substance pertinent to the issue of her residence.

The majority opinion, however, overturned the COMELEC's findings of fact for lack of proof that the petitioner has abandoned Tolosa as her domicile of origin, which is allegedly within the First Congressional District of Leyte.

I respectfully submit that the petitioner herself has provided the COMELEC, either by admission or by documentary evidence, overwhelming proof of the loss or abandonment of her domicile of origin, which is Tacloban City and not Tolosa, Leyte. Assuming that she decided to live again in her domicile of origin, that became her second domicile of choice, where her stay, unfortunately, was for only seven months before the day of the election. She was then disqualified to be a candidate for the position of Representative of the First Congressional District of Leyte. A holding to the contrary would be arbitrary.

It may indeed be conceded that the petitioner's domicile of choice was either Tacloban City or Tolosa, Leyte. Nevertheless, she lost it by operation of law sometime in May 1954 upon her marriage to the then Congressman (later, President) Ferdinand E. Marcos. A domicile by operation of law is that domicile

which the law attributes to a person, independently of his own intention or actual residence, as results from legal domestic relations as that of the wife arising from marriage (28 C.J.S. Domicile § 7, 11). Under the governing law then, Article 110 of the Civil Code, her new domicile or her domicile of choice was the domicile of her husband, which was Batac, Ilocos Norte. Said Article reads as follows:

Art. 110. The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.

Commenting thereon, civilist Arturo M. Tolentino states:

Although the duty of the spouses to live together is mutual, the husband has a predominant right because he is empowered by law to fix the family residence. This right even predominates over some rights recognized by law in the wife. For instance, under article 117 the wife may engage in business or practice a profession or occupation. But because of the power of the husband to fix the family domicile he may fix it at such a place as would make it impossible for the wife to continue in business or in her profession. For justifiable reasons, however, the wife may be exempted from living in the residence chosen by the husband. The husband cannot validly allege desertion by the wife who refuses to follow him to a new place of residence, when it appears that they have lived for years in a suitable home belonging to the wife, and that his choice of a different home is not made in good faith. (Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, vol. 1, 1985 ed., 339).

Under common law, a woman upon her marriage loses her own domicile and, by operation of law, acquires that of her husband, no matter where the wife actually lives or what she believes or intends. Her domicile is fixed in the sense that it is declared to be the same as his, and subject to certain limitations, he can change her domicile by changing his own (25 Am Jur 2d Domicile § 48, 37).

It must, however, be pointed out that under Article 69 of the Family Code, the fixing of the family domicile is no longer the sole prerogative of the husband, but is now a joint decision of the spouses, and in case of disagreement the court shall decide. The said article uses the term "family domicile," and not family residence, as "the spouses may have multiple residences, and the wife may elect to remain in one of such residences, which may destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits" (ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, [1988], 102).

The theory of automatic restoration of a woman's domicile of origin upon the death of her husband, which the majority opinion adopts to overcome the legal effect of the petitioner's marriage on her domicile, is unsupported by law and by jurisprudence. The settled doctrine is that after the husband's death the wife has a right to elect her own domicile, but she retains the last domicile of her husband until she makes an actual change (28 C.J.S. Domicile § 12, 27). Or, on the death of the husband, the power of the wife to acquire her own domicile is revived, but until she exercises the power her domicile remains that of the husband at the time of his death (25 Am Jur 2d Domicile § 62, 45). Note that what is revived is not her domicile of origin but her power to acquire her own domicile.

Clearly, even after the death of her husband, the petitioner's domicile was that of her husband at the time of his death — which was Batac, Ilocos Norte, since their residences in San Juan, Metro Manila, and San Miguel, Manila, were their residences for convenience to enable her husband to effectively perform his official duties. Their residence in San Juan was a conjugal home, and it was there to which she returned in 1991 when she was already a widow. In her sworn certificate of candidacy for the Office of the President in the synchronized elections of May 1992, she indicated therein that she was a resident of San Juan, Metro Manila. She also voted in the said elections in that place.

On the basis of her evidence, it was only on 24 August 1994 when she exercised her right as a widow to acquire her own domicile in Tolosa, Leyte, through her sworn statement requesting the Election Officer of San Juan, Metro Manila, to cancel her registration in the permanent list of voters in Precinct 157 thereat and praying that she be "re-registered or transferred to Brgy. Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, the place of [her] birth and permanent residence" (photocopy of Exhibit "B," attached as Annex "2" of private respondent Montejo's Comment). Notably, she contradicted this sworn statement regarding her place of birth when, in her Voter's Affidavit sworn to on 15 March 1992 (photocopy of Exhibit "C," attached as Annex "3," Id.), her Voter Registration Record sworn to on 28 January 1995 (photocopy of Exhibit "E," attached as Annex "5," Id.), and her Certificate of Candidacy sworn to on 8 March 1995 (photocopy of Exhibit "A," attached as Annex "1," Id.), she solemnly declared that she was born in Manila.

The petitioner is even uncertain as to her domicile of origin. Is it Tacloban City or Tolosa, Leyte? In the affidavit attached to her Answer to the petition for disqualification (Annex "I" of Petition), she declared under oath that her "domicile or residence is Tacloban City." If she did intend to return to such domicile or residence of origin why did she inform the Election Officer of San Juan that she would transfer to Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, and indicate in her Voter's Registration Record and in her certificate of candidacy that her residence is Olot, Tolosa, Leyte? While this uncertainty is not important insofar as residence in the congressional district is concerned, it nevertheless proves that forty-one years had already lapsed since she had lost or abandoned her domicile of origin by virtue of marriage and that such length of time diminished her power of recollection or blurred her memory.

I find to be misplaced the reliance by the majority opinion on Faypon vs. Quirino (96 Phil. 294 [1954]), and the subsequent cases which established the principle that absence from original residence or domicile of origin to pursue studies, practice one's profession, or engage in business in other states does not constitute loss of such residence or domicile. So is the reliance on Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that transfer of residence to any other place by reason of one's "occupation; profession; employment in private and public service; educational activities; work in military or naval reservations; service in the army, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police force; or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law" is not deemed as loss of original residence. Those cases and legal provision do not include marriage of a woman. The reason for the exclusion is, of course, Article 110 of the Civil Code. If it were the intention of this Court or of the legislature to consider the marriage of a woman as a circumstance which would not operate as an abandonment of domicile (of origin or of choice), then such cases and legal provision should have expressly mentioned the same.

This Court should not accept as gospel truth the self-serving claim of the petitioner in her affidavit (Annex "A" of her Answer in COMELEC SPA No. 95-009; Annex "I" of Petition) that her "domicile or residence of origin is Tacloban City," and that she "never intended to abandon this domicile or residence of origin to which [she] always intended to return whenever absent." Such a claim of intention cannot prevail over the effect of Article 110 of the Civil Code. Besides, the facts and circumstances or the vicissitudes of the petitioner's life after her marriage in 1954 conclusively establish that she had indeed abandoned her domicile of origin and had acquired a new one animo et facto (KOSSUTH KENT KENNAN, A Treatise on Residence and Domicile, [1934], 214, 326).

Neither should this Court place complete trust on the petitioner's claim that she "merely committed an honest mistake" in writing down the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification requirement in the certificate of candidacy. Such a claim is self-serving and, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, would be all sound and fury signifying nothing. To me, she did not commit any mistake, honest or otherwise; what she stated was the truth.

The majority opinion also disregards a basic rule in evidence that he who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it (Imperial Victory Shipping Agency vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 178 [1991]; P.T. Cerna Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 19 [1993]). Having admitted marriage to the then Congressman Marcos, the petitioner could not deny the legal consequence thereof on the change of her domicile to that of her husband. The majority opinion rules or at least concludes that "[b]y operation of

law (domicilium necesarium), her legal domicile at the time of her marriage automatically became Batac, Ilocos Norte." That conclusion is consistent with Article 110 of the Civil Code. Since she is presumed to retain her deceased husband's domicile until she exercises her revived power to acquire her own domicile, the burden is upon her to prove that she has exercised her right to acquire her own domicile. She miserably failed to discharge that burden.

I vote to deny the petition.

Footnotes

1 Jarrolt v. Mabberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1881).

2 CONST, art. VI, states:

Sec. 6. No person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.

See, Jarrolt v. Mabberly, supra, note 1.

3 Gallego vs. Vera, 73 Phil. 453 (1941).

4 Rollo, p. 114, Annex "D".

5 Rollo, p. 110, Annex "D".

6 Rollo, p. 113.

7 Rollo, p. 111.

8 Rollo, p. 115, Annex "E".

9 Signed by Virgilo S. Oledan, Provincial Election Supervisor IV, Leyte; Rollo,p. 116, Annex "F".

10 Rollo, p. 117, Annex "G". Petitioner explained the circumstances surrounding the filling up of the original certificate thus:

1. On March 8, 1995, I filed my certificate of candidacy for Member of the House of Representatives (Congresswoman) of the First Legislative District of the province of Leyte, which was drafted by Mr. Filomeno A. Zeta.

2. I learned lately that Congressman Cirilo Montejo wants to disqualify me as I allegedly lack residence in the constituency because of the entry of the word "SEVEN" in Item No. 8 of my certificate of candidacy.

3. I read my certificate of candidacy before signing it and thought of the word "RESIDENCE" to mean actual or physical residence, and the word "SEVEN"

merely reflected my actual and physical residence in Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.

3.1. The word "SEVEN" was placed on my certificate of candidacy to indicate that at lease one (1) month had passed from my registration as voter of Tolosa, Leyte, on January 28, 1995, when I wrote "06" months under "PERIOD OF RESIDENCE" as my actual or physical residence in the town.

4. I thought then that the sense in Item No. 10 of my certificate of candidacy stating "THAT I AM eligible for said Office" was sufficient to affirm that I possess all the qualifications, including my residence, for Member of the House of Representatives for which I am aspiring in the May 8, 1995 elections.

5. The fact, however, is that my domicile or residence of origin is Tacloban City, a component city of the First Legislative District of Leyte I never intended to abandon this domicile or residence of origin to which I always intended to return whenever absent; indeed in 1992, I returned to Tacloban City to live and stay there. On November 5, 1992; I bought my Residence Certificate No. 15226186L there, which is made an integral part hereof as Annex "I" (Annex "2" hereof).

11 Id., at p. 120. See also, Rollo, p. 130-133, Annex "I", petitioner's Affidavit explaining her residence:

13. I established my domicile, however in Tacloban, Leyte (Tacloban City in 1938, when was little over eight (8) years old. Shortly after my mother died on April 7, 1938, my widowed father, Vicente Orestes Romualdez, brought me and my brothers. . .and my sisters to Tacloban, Leyte (now Tacloban City) his hometown.

xxx xxx xxx

18. I have always considered Tacloban City as my permanent residence or residence of origin have not abandoned and have never intended to abandon my permanent residence or residence of origin there. To it I always intend to return whenever absent.

19. In 1952, I went to Manila to work with my cousin, the late speakerDaniel Z. Romualdez in his office in the House of Representatives.

20. In May, 1954, I married President Ferdinand E. Marcos when he was still the congressman of Ilocos, Norte.

21. As a dutiful wife who loved him deeply, I lived with him in Batac, Ilocos Norte and registered as a voter there.

22. In 1965, my husband was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines. Together, we lived in Malacañang Palace and I registered as a voter in San Miguel, Manila.

23. My registration as voter in Batac, Ilocos Norte; San Juan, Rizal (now San Juan, Metro Manila); and San Miguel, Manila, was for convenience because I had to live with my husband to serve him when he was congressman, Senator and President of the Republic of the Philippines. During those years however, I

never intended nor desired to abandon my domicile or residence of origin in Tacloban City, which I established since I was a child.

xxx xxx xxx

33. Throughout the Marcos Presidency, I spent most of my birthday anniversaries and attended the Sto. Nini Fiesta in Tacloban City. I regularly visited my domicile or residence of origin in Leyte and even held important functions and entertained guests and foreign dignitaries there.

34. After President Ferdinand E. Marcos and I, together with our children and innocent grandchildren were abducted and kidnapped to Honolulu, Hawaii, in February, 1986, my Leyte properties were sequestered by the PCGG, and were destroyed and cannibalized.

xxx xxx xxx

38. Upon my return to the country, I wanted to immediately live and reside in Tacloban City or in Olot, Tolosa, Leyte even if my residences there were not livable as they had been destroyed and cannibalized. The PCGG, however, did not permit and allow me.

xxx xxx xxx

40. After the 1992 Presidential Elections, I lived and resided in the residence of my brother in San Jose, Tacloban City, and pursued my negotiations with PCGG to recover my sequestered residences in Tacloban City and Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte.

12 Rollo, p. 122.

13 Commissioners Manolo B. Gorospe and Teresita Dy-Liaco Flores formed the majority opinion. Commissioner Remedies A. Salazar-Fernando dissented.

14 Rollo, p. 64.

15 Rollo, p. 57-64.

16 Petitioner filed a "Motion to Recall Resolution Promulgated on April 24, 1995 and to Dismiss the Petition Because of Lapse of Jurisdiction; Alternatively, Motion for Reconsideration." The Commission's May 7, 1995 Resolution treated the same simply as a Motion for Reconsideration.

17 Commissioners Regalado E. Maambong, Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Julio F. Desamito dissented. All filed separate dissenting opinions. In disqualifying petitioner, the majority held:

As it stands now, only the Certificate of Candidacy respondent filed on March 8, 1995, stands, and on the basis of the entries therein, she is disqualified to run for failure to meet the constitutional requirement of one (1) year of residence in the place where she wanted to be elected.

18 Rollo, p. 78, Annex "B".

19 Rollo, Annex "D".

20 19 SCRA 966 (1967). See also, Corre v. Corre, 100 Phil. 221 (1956).

21 Id. at 969.

22 Uytengsu v. Republic, 95 Phil. 890 (1954).

23 Id.

24 52 Phil. 645 (1928).

25 Citing People v. Bender 144 N.Y.S., 145.

26 61 Phil. 36 (1934).

27 96 Phil. 294 (1954).

28 Id, see also Ujano v. Republic, 17 SCRA 147 (1966); Nuval v. Guray, supra

note 22.

29 II RECORD OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 110 (July 22, 1986).

30 Id.

31 199 SCRA 692 (1991).

32 Id, at 714.

33 61 Phil. 36 (1934).

34 96 Phil. 294, 299-300 (1954).

35 B.P. 881, sec. 117 states:

xxx xxx xxx

Any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation; profession; employment in private or public service; educational activities; work in military or naval reservations; service in the army, navy or air force; the constabulary or national police force; or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.

36 Rollo, p. 38.

37 18 Am Jur 219-220.

38 20 Am Jur 71.

39 TOLENTINO 1 COMMENTARIES & JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE, 220 (1987).

40 Id.

41 TOLENTINO, 1 COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON CIVIL CODE, 220 (1987).

42 Under modern laws, it is clear that many exceptions to the rule that the domicile of the wife is determined by that of her husband must obtain. Accordingly, the wife may acquire another and separate domicile from that of her husband where the theoretical unity of the husband and wife is dissolved, as it is by the institution of divorce proceedings; or where the husband has given cause for divorce; or where there is a separation of the parties by agreement, or a permanent separation due to desertion of the wife by the husband or attributable to cruel treatment on the part of the husband; or where there has been a forfeiture by the wife of the benefit of the husband's domicile. 9 R.C.L., 545, cited in De La Vina, supra. If the law allows the wife to automatically revert to her original domicile or acquire a new domicile under these situations, all the more should it sanction a reversion — or the acquisition of a new domicile by the wife — upon the death of her husband.

43 41 Phi. 13 (1920).

44 The rule that the wife automatically acquires or follows her husband's domicile is not an absolute one. A specific situation recognized in Spanish jurisprudence involves the one in which husband acquiesces (1 Manresa 223) or gives his tacit consent (Scaevola, Civil Code; 354.)

45 42 Phil. 54 (1921).

46 Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy recognizes the same Civil Code distinction. However, taking another approach, she writes:

(6) The above Article (Article 69, FC) uses the term "family domicile" instead of family residence because the spouses may have multiple residences, and the wife may elect to remain in one of such residences, which may destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits. SEMPIO-DIY, HANDBOOK ON THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 102 (1988).

47 Rollo, pp. 132-133.

48 The provision reads: Section 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. — A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required underSection 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

49 Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983).

50 American Tupe Founders Co. v. Justice's Court, 133 Cal. 819, 65 Pac. 742; Heillen v. Phillipps, 88 Cal. 557, 26 Pac. 366; Drake v. Bagley, 69 Mo. App. 39; State v. Davis, 194 Mo. 585.

51 Supra, note 39, citing Huffines v. Gold 154 Tenn. 583, 588; 288 S.W. 353, 354.

52 Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

Sec. 7 Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel a Certificate Candidacy.The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.

53 CONST., art. VI, sec. 11 states:

The Senate and the House of Representatives shall have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all questions relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. . . .

PUNO, J., concurring:

1 Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea, bk., v. 3, 1131 (a) (W. Ross translation, 1925 ed).

2 It provides: "No person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines and on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and except the party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election." (Emphasis supplied)

3 There are two (2) other instances when a married woman may have a domicile different from the husband: (1) if they are legally separated pursuant to par. 1, Art. 106 of the Civil Code, and (2) if the husband forcibly ejects the wife from the conjugal home to have illicit relations with another. (De la Viña v. Villareal and Geopano, 41 Phil. 13 [1920]).

4 Op cit.

5 Id., at pp. 16-17.

6 Id., at p. 20, citing 1 Manresa 223.

7 25 AM JUR 2nd S. 48, p. 37.

8 28 CJS on Domicile, S. 12, 27; 25 AM JUR 2nd on Domicile S. 62, 46.

9 28 CJS, S. 12, p. 24.

10 Restatement of the Law, 2d, Conflict of Laws 2d., S. 21, p. 84.

11 Ibid.

12 83 U.S. 442; 21 Law Ed. 442; S.C. 16 Wall 130.

13 Supra.

14 Supra.

15 In re Green's Estate, 191 N.Y.S. 757, 117 Misc. 800, 165 N.Y.S. 1063, 99 Misc. 582.

16 Clark et al. v. Baker et al., 196 SE 750, 186 Ga 65.

17 Lefcourt, Women and The Law, 1990 ed.

18 404 US 71.

19 28 CJS S. 12, p. 25 citing Shute v. Sargent, 36 A 282, 67 N.H. 305.

20 Op cit., p. 84.

21 Women's Status in Philippine Society, UP Law Center, 1979, pp. 4-6.

22 In submitting the draft of the Family Code to President Corazon Aquino, the Civil Code Revision Committee stated:

Close to forty years of experience under the Civil Code adopted in 1949 and changes and developments in all aspects of Filipino Life since then have revealed the unsuitability of certain provisions of that Code, implanted from foreign sources, to Philippine culture; the unfairness, unjustness, and gaps or inadequacies of others; and the need to attune them to contemporary developments and trends.

In particular — to cite only a few instances — (1) the property regime of conjugal partnership of gains is not in accord with Filipino custom, especially in the rural areas, which is more congenial to absolute community of property; (2) there have considerably been more grounds for annulment of marriage by the Church than those provided by the Code, thus giving rise to the absurd situation of several marriages already annulled under Canon Law but still considered subsisting under the Civil Law and making it necessary to make the grounds for annulment under both laws to coincide; (3) unequal treatment of husband and wife as to rights and responsibilities, which necessitates a response to the long-standing clamor for equality between men and women now mandated as a policy to be implemented under the New Constitution; (4) the inadequacy of the safeguards for strengthening marriage and the family as basic social institutions recognized as such by the New Constitution; (5) recent developments have shown the

absurdity of limiting the grounds for legal separation to the antiquated two grounds provided under the Civil Code; (6) the need for additional safeguards to protect our children in the matter of adoption by foreigners; and (7) to bring our law on paternity and filiation in step with or abreast of the latest scientific discoveries." (Emphasis supplied)

23 Article 96, Family Code.

24 Article 225, Family Code.

25 Article 70, Family Code.

26 Article 71, Family Code.

27 Article 73, Family Code.

28 Op cit., Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, pp. 98-99.

29 As cited in Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, pp. 184-185.

30 Section 1, Article III of the Constitution provides: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."

31 Exhibit "E"; see also Exhibit "B" in SPA No. 95-001.

32 Exhibit "A" in SPA No. 95-009.

33 Exhibit "2" in SPA No. 95-009.

34 2 SCRA 957, 960 (1961); See Canceran v. COMELEC, 107 Phil. 607 (1960); Gabaldon v. COMELEC, 99 Phil. 898 (1956).

35 Section 26, Article II of the Constitution also provides: "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service . . . ."

36 Annex "G," Petition.

37 Petition, Annex "B-1" pp. 6-7.

38 73 Phil. 453, 459 (1951).

FRANCISCO, J., concurring:

1 See Articles 68-73 of E.O. 209, as amended, otherwise known as The Family Code of the Philippines.

2 Residence Certificate No. 15226186L, dated Nov. 5, 1992.

3 PCGG Chairman Gunigundo's letter addressed to Col. Kempis.

ROMERO, J., separate opinion:

1 Art. VI, Sec. 6, Const.: "No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election."

2 Art. 110: "The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.

3 Art. 110, Civil Code.

4 Art. 111, Civil Code.

5 Art. 112, Civil Code.

6 Art. 171, Civil Code.

7 Art. 172, Civil Code.

8 Art. 320, Civil Code.

9 Art. 114, Civil Code.

10 Art. 117, Civil Code.

11 Art. 84, Civil Code.

12 Art. 328, Civil Code.

13 Art. II, Sec. 2, Const.

14 Part IV, Art. 15, Paragraph 4, CEDAW.

15 Executive Order No. 209, July 6, 1987, as amended by Executive Order No. 227, July 17,1987, which took effect on August 3, 1988.

16 Art. II Sec. 11, Const.

17 Art. II, Sec. 14, Const.

18 Art. 69, Family Code.

19 Art. 71, Family Code.

20 Art. 96, Family Code.

21 Art. 225, Family Code.

22 Republic Act No. 7192 approved February 12, 1992.

23 Ibid., Sec. 5.

MENDOZA, J., separate opinion:

1 Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 297 (1992) (for mayor).

2 Loong v. COMELEC, 216 SCRA 760 (1992) (for regional vice governor).

3 Abella v. Larrazabal, 180 SCRA 509 (1989); Abella v. COMELEC, 201 SCRA 253 (1991) (for provincial governor).

4 Co. v. HRET, 199 SCRA 692 (1991) (election protest against a Congressman).

5 Faypon v. Quirino, 96 Phil. 294 (1954) (quo warranto against a governor); Gallego v. Verra, 73 Phil. 453 (1941) (quo warranto against a mayor); Larena v. Teves, 61 Phil. 36 (1934) (quo warranto against a provincial board member); Tanseco v. Arteche, 57 Phil. 227 (1932) (quo warranto against a governor): Yra v. Abaño, 52 Phil. 380 (1928) (quo warranto against a municipal president); Vivero v. Murillo, 52 Phil. 694 (1929) (quo warranto against a municipal president). Cf. Aznar v. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703 (1990) (quo warranto although prematurely filed, against a governor-elect).

6 R.A. No. 6646, § 6; Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC, supra note 1.

7 OEC, § 76.

8 Lagumbay v. COMELEC, 16 SCRA 175 (1966).

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

1 Nuval vs. Guray, G.R. No. 30241, December 29, 1928; Larena vs. Teves, G.R.No. 42439, December 10, 1934; Gallego vs. Verra, G.R. No. 48641, November 24, 1941; De los Reyes vs. Solidum, G.R. No. 42798. August 31, 1935; but see Romualdez vs. RTC, Br. 7 Tacloban City, where a sudden departure from the country was not deemed "voluntary" so as to constitute abandonment of domicile both in fact and in law.

2 Annex "A" Petition, pp. 2-4.

REGALADO, J., dissenting:

1 Struble vs. Struble, Tex. Civ. App., 177 S.W. 2d, 279, 283.

2 This is also referred to as natural domicile or domicile by birth (Johnson vs. Twenty-One Bales, 13 Fed. Cas. 863).

3 Story, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 46; Railroad Co. vs. Kimbrough, 115 Ky 512, 74 S.W. 229; and Johnson vs. Harvey, 261 Ky. 522, 88 S.W. 2d 42, 46, 47, as cited in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed.

4 Article 110, Civil Code.

5 Towson vs. Towson, 126 Va. 640, 102 S.E. 48, 52; Fisher vs. Jordan, C.C.A. Tex., 116 F. 2d. 183, 186; Minick vs. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483, 488; Hartzler vs. Radeka, 265 Mich. 451, 251 N.W. 554.

6 Citing 18 Am. Jur. 219-220.

7 Montejo vs. Marcos, En Banc, May 10, 1995.

8 Citing 20 Am. Jur. 71.

9 Cheely vs. Clayton, D.C., 110 U.S. 701, L. Ed. 298.

10 In re Gates' Estate, 191 N.Y.S. 757, 117 Misc. 800 — In re Green's Estate, 164 N.Y.S. 1063, 99 Misc. 582, affirmed 165 N.Y.S. 1088, 179 App. Div. 890, as reported in 28 C.J.S. 27.

11 Clark vs. Baker, 196 S.E. 750, 186 Ga. 65, op. cit. 37

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 174689             October 22, 2007

ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; He created them male and female. (Genesis 5:1-2)

Amihan gazed upon the bamboo reed planted by Bathala and she heard voices coming from inside the bamboo. "Oh North Wind! North Wind! Please let us out!," the voices said. She pecked the reed once, then twice. All of a sudden, the bamboo cracked and slit open. Out came two human beings; one was a male and the other was a female. Amihan named the man "Malakas" (Strong) and the woman "Maganda" (Beautiful). (The Legend of Malakas and Maganda)

When is a man a man and when is a woman a woman? In particular, does the law recognize the changes made by a physician using scalpel, drugs and counseling with regard to a person’s sex? May a person successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery?

On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8. The petition, docketed as SP Case No. 02-105207, impleaded the civil registrar of Manila as respondent.

Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the spouses Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live birth (birth certificate). His sex was registered as "male."

He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a female" and that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood.1 Feeling trapped in a man’s body, he consulted several doctors in the United States. He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment and breast augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a "woman" culminated on January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment surgery2 in Bangkok, Thailand. He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic and reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical certificate attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact undergone the procedure.

From then on, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female."

An order setting the case for initial hearing was published in the People’s Journal Tonight, a newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila, for three consecutive weeks.3 Copies of the order were sent to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the civil registrar of Manila.

On the scheduled initial hearing, jurisdictional requirements were established. No opposition to the petition was made.

During trial, petitioner testified for himself. He also presented Dr. Reysio-Cruz, Jr. and his American fiancé, Richard P. Edel, as witnesses.

On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered a decision4 in favor of petitioner. Its relevant portions read:

Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making his birth records compatible with his present sex.

The sole issue here is whether or not petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for.

The [c]ourt rules in the affirmative.

Firstly, the [c]ourt is of the opinion that granting the petition would be more in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual [re-assignment], petitioner, who has always felt, thought and acted like a woman, now possesses the physique of a female. Petitioner’s misfortune to be trapped in a man’s body is not his own doing and should not be in any way taken against him.

Likewise, the [c]ourt believes that no harm, injury [or] prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in granting the petition. On the contrary, granting the

petition would bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner and her [fiancé] and the realization of their dreams.

Finally, no evidence was presented to show any cause or ground to deny the present petition despite due notice and publication thereof. Even the State, through the [OSG] has not seen fit to interpose any [o]pposition.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition and ordering the Civil Registrar of Manila to change the entries appearing in the Certificate of Birth of [p]etitioner, specifically for petitioner’s first name from "Rommel Jacinto" to MELY and petitioner’s gender from "Male" to FEMALE. 5

On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals.6 It alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration.

On February 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals7 rendered a decision8 in favor of the Republic. It ruled that the trial court’s decision lacked legal basis. There is no law allowing the change of either name or sex in the certificate of birth on the ground of sex reassignment through surgery. Thus, the Court of Appeals granted the Republic’s petition, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the dismissal of SP Case No. 02-105207. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied.9 Hence, this petition.

Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth certificate is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048.10

The petition lacks merit.

A Person’s First Name Cannot Be Changed On the Ground of Sex Reassignment

Petitioner invoked his sex reassignment as the ground for his petition for change of name and sex. As found by the trial court:

Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making his birth records compatible with his present sex. (emphasis supplied)

Petitioner believes that after having acquired the physical features of a female, he became entitled to the civil registry changes sought. We disagree.

The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification.11 A change of name is a privilege, not a right.12 Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes.13 In this connection, Article 376 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.

This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law). In particular, Section 1 of RA 9048 provides:

SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected

without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

RA 9048 now governs the change of first name.14 It vests the power and authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied.15 It likewise lays down the corresponding venue,16 form17 and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial.

RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed:

SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. – The petition for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:

(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or

(3) The change will avoid confusion.

Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through surgery. However, a change of name does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil status.18 RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest.

Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change.19 In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name.20 In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name.

In sum, the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed for the change of petitioner’s first name was not within that court’s primary jurisdiction as the petition should have been filed with the local civil registrar concerned, assuming it could be legally done. It was an improper remedy because the proper remedy was administrative, that is, that provided under RA 9048. It was also filed in the wrong venue as the proper venue was in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila where his birth certificate is kept. More importantly, it had no merit since the use of his true and official name does not prejudice him at all. For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition in so far as the change of his first name was concerned.

No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On the Ground of Sex Reassignment

The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the statutes.21 In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 412. No entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.

Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by RA 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors.22 Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.23

Section 2(c) of RA 9048 defines what a "clerical or typographical error" is:

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

xxx       xxx       xxx

(3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner. (emphasis supplied)

Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code:24

ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.

ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:

(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name.

The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code include even those that occur after birth.25 However, no reasonable interpretation of the provision can justify the conclusion that it covers the correction on the ground of sex reassignment.

To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from" while to change means "to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute."26 The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary.

Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the entry in the civil registry of certain acts (such as legitimations, acknowledgments of illegitimate children and naturalization), events (such as births, marriages, naturalization and deaths) and judicial decrees (such as legal separations, annulments of marriage, declarations of nullity of marriages, adoptions, naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial determination of filiation and changes of name). These acts, events and judicial decrees produce legal consequences that touch upon the legal capacity, status and nationality of a person. Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast, sex reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 407. Neither is it recognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly.

"Status" refers to the circumstances affecting the legal situation (that is, the sum total of capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of his age, nationality and his family membership.27

The status of a person in law includes all his personal qualities and relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will, such as his being legitimate or illegitimate, or his being married or not. The comprehensive term status… include such matters as the beginning and end of legal personality, capacity to have rights in general, family relations, and its various aspects, such as birth, legitimation, adoption, emancipation, marriage, divorce, and sometimes even succession.28 (emphasis supplied)

A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part of a person’s legal capacity and civil status. In this connection, Article 413 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governed by special laws.

But there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects. This is fatal to petitioner’s cause.

Moreover, Section 5 of Act 3753 (the Civil Register Law) provides:

SEC. 5. Registration and certification of births. – The declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of either parent of the newborn child, shall be sufficient for the registration of a birth in the civil register. Such declaration shall be exempt from documentary stamp tax and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than thirty days after the birth, by the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or by either parent of the newborn child.

In such declaration, the person above mentioned shall certify to the following facts: (a) date and hour of birth; (b) sex and nationality of infant; (c) names, citizenship

and religion of parents or, in case the father is not known, of the mother alone; (d) civil status of parents; (e) place where the infant was born; and (f) such other data as may be required in the regulations to be issued.

xxx       xxx       xxx (emphasis supplied)

Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth.29 Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error,30 is immutable.31

When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their common and ordinary meaning in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. The words "sex," "male" and "female" as used in the Civil Register Law and laws concerning the civil registry (and even all other laws) should therefore be understood in their common and ordinary usage, there being no legislative intent to the contrary. In this connection, sex is defined as "the sum of peculiarities of structure and function that distinguish a male from a female"32 or "the distinction between male and female."33 Female is "the sex that produces ova or bears young"34 and male is "the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova."35 Thus, the words "male" and "female" in everyday understanding do not include persons who have undergone sex reassignment. Furthermore, "words that are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary."36 Since the statutory language of the Civil Register Law was enacted in the early 1900s and remains unchanged, it cannot be argued that the term "sex" as used then is something alterable through surgery or something that allows a post-operative male-to-female transsexual to be included in the category "female."

For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and appearance through the intervention of modern surgery, no law authorizes the change of entry as to sex in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no legal basis for his petition for the correction or change of the entries in his birth certificate.

Neither May Entries in the Birth Certificate As to First Name or Sex Be Changed on the Ground of Equity

The trial court opined that its grant of the petition was in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. It believed that allowing the petition would cause no harm, injury or prejudice to anyone. This is wrong.

The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences. First, even the trial court itself found that the petition was but petitioner’s first step towards his eventual marriage to his male fiancé. However, marriage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.37 One of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female.38 To grant the changes sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual). Second, there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of the Labor Code on employment of women,39 certain felonies under the Revised Penal Code40 and the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,41 among others. These laws underscore the public policy in relation to women which could be substantially affected if petitioner’s petition were to be granted.

It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "[n]o judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law." However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation. The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it.

In our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex reassignment. The need for legislative guidelines becomes particularly important in this case where the claims asserted are statute-based.

To reiterate, the statutes define who may file petitions for change of first name and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry, where they may be filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof must be presented and what procedures shall be observed. If the legislature intends to confer on a person who has undergone sex reassignment the privilege to change his name and sex to conform with his reassigned sex, it has to enact legislation laying down the guidelines in turn governing the conferment of that privilege.

It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a person may be recognized as having successfully changed his sex. However, this Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter, or on anything else. The Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. It can only apply or interpret the written word of its co-equal branch of government, Congress.

Petitioner pleads that "[t]he unfortunates are also entitled to a life of happiness, contentment and [the] realization of their dreams." No argument about that. The Court recognizes that there are people whose preferences and orientation do not fit neatly into the commonly recognized parameters of social convention and that, at least for them, life is indeed an ordeal. However, the remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna, Garcia, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Petitioner went for his elementary and high school, as well as his Bachelor of Science in Statistics and Master of Arts, in the University of the Philippines. He took up Population Studies Program, Master of Arts in Sociology and Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology at the University of Hawaii, in Manoa, Hawaii, U.S.A. Rollo, p. 48.

2 This consisted of "penectomy [surgical removal of penis] bilateral oschiectomy [or orchiectomy which is the surgical excision of the testes] penile skin inversion vaginoplasty [plastic surgery of the vagina] clitoral hood reconstruction and augmentation mammoplasty [surgical enhancement of the size and shape of the breasts]." Id.

3 On January 23, 2003, January 30, 2003 and February 6, 2003.

4 Penned by Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr. Rollo, pp. 51-53.

5 Id., pp. 52-53 (citations omitted).

6 Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 78824.

7 Special Sixth Division.

8 Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Aurora Santiago-Lagman concurring. Rollo, pp. 25-33.

9 Resolution dated September 14, 2006, id., pp. 45-46.

10 An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for the Purpose Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

11 Wang v. Cebu City Civil Registrar, G.R. No. 159966, 30 March 2005, 454 SCRA 155.

12 Id.

13 K v. Health Division, Department of Human Resources, 277 Or. 371, 560 P.2d 1070 (1977).

14 Under Section 2 (6) of RA 9048, "first name" refers to a name or nickname given to a person which may consist of one or more names in addition to the middle names and last names. Thus, the term "first name" will be used here to refer both to first name and nickname.

15 The last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 9048 provides:

SECTION 7. Duties and Powers of the Civil Registrar General. – xxx xxx xxx

Where the petition is denied by the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general, the petitioner may either appeal the decision to the civil registrar general or file the appropriate petition with the proper court.

16 SECTION 3. Who May File the Petition and Where. – Any person having direct and personal interest in the correction of a clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change of first name or nickname in the civil register may file, in person, a verified petition with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept.

In case the petitioner has already migrated to another place in the country and it would not be practical for such party, in terms of transportation expenses, time and effort to appear in person before the local civil registrar keeping the documents to be corrected or changed, the petition may be filed, in person, with the local civil registrar

of the place where the interested party is presently residing or domiciled. The two (2) local civil registrars concerned will then communicate to facilitate the processing of the petition.

Citizens of the Philippines who are presently residing or domiciled in foreign countries may file their petition, in person, with the nearest Philippine Consulates.

The petitions filed with the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be processed in accordance with this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

All petitions for the clerical or typographical errors and/or change of first names or nicknames may be availed of only once.

17 SECTION 5. Form and Contents of the Petition. – The petition shall be in the form of an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized by the law to administer oaths. The affidavit shall set forth facts necessary to establish the merits of the petition and shall show affirmatively that the petitioner is competent to testify to the matters stated. The petitioner shall state the particular erroneous entry or entries, which are sought to be corrected and/or the change sought to be made.

The petition shall be supported with the following documents:

(1) A certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page of the registry book containing the entry or entries sought to be corrected or changed;

(2) At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct entry or entries upon which the correction or change shall be based; and

(3) Other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general may consider relevant and necessary for the approval of the petition.

In case of change of first name or nickname, the petition shall likewise be supported with the documents mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph. In addition, the petition shall be published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Furthermore, the petitioner shall submit a certification from the appropriate law enforcement agencies that he has no pending case or no criminal record.

18 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906, 21 May 1992, 209 SCRA 189.

19 Supra note 11.

20 Id.

21 In re Ladrach, 32 Ohio Misc.2d 6, 513 N.E.2d 828 (1987).

22 Lee v. Court of Appeals, 419 Phil. 392 (2001).

23 Id.

24 Co v. Civil Register of Manila, G.R. No. 138496, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 420.

25 Id.

26 Id.

27 Beduya v. Republic of the Philippines, 120 Phil. 114 (1964).

28 Salonga, Jovito, Private International Law, 1995 Edition, Rex Bookstore, p. 238.

29 This, of course, should be taken in conjunction with Articles 407 and 412 of the Civil Code which authorizes the recording of acts, events and judicial decrees or the correction or change of errors including those that occur after birth. Nonetheless, in such cases, the entries in the certificates of birth are not be corrected or changed. The decision of the court granting the petition shall be annotated in the certificates of birth and shall form part of the civil register in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar. (Co v. Civil Register of Manila, supra note 24)

30 The error pertains to one where the birth attendant writes "male" or "female" but the genitals of the child are that of the opposite sex.

31 Moreover, petitioner’s female anatomy is all man-made. The body that he inhabits is a male body in all aspects other than what the physicians have supplied.

32 Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition (2004), p.1406.

33 Words and Phrases, volume 39, Permanent Edition, p. 106.

34 In re Application for Marriage License for Nash, 2003-Ohio-7221 (No. 2002-T-0149, slip op., Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2003 WL 23097095 (Ohio App. 11 Dist., December 31, 2003), citing Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1999).

35 Id.

36 Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), 31 S.Ct. 502, 55 L.Ed. 619.

37 Article 1, Family Code.

38 Article 2(1), Id.

39 These are Articles 130 to 138 of the Labor Code which include nightwork prohibition, facilities for women, prohibition on discrimination and stipulation against marriage, among others.

40 These include Article 333 on adultery, Articles 337 to 339 on qualified seduction, simple seduction and acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party and Articles 342 and 343 on forcible and consented abduction, among others.

41 Section 3(jj)(4).

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising purely questions of law and seeking a reversal of the Decision[1] dated January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, which granted the Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate filed by Jennifer B. Cagandahan and ordered the following changes of entries in Cagandahan's birth certificate: (1) the name "Jennifer Cagandahan" changed to "Jeff Cagandahan" and (2) gender from "female" to "male."

The facts are as follows.

On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate[2] before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna.

In her petition, she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. She further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early years and at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized, she has stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development. She then alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male person. Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.

The petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation for three (3) consecutive weeks and was posted in conspicuous places by the sheriff of the court. The Solicitor General entered his appearance and authorized the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor to appear in his behalf.

To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that respondent's condition is known as CAH. He explained that genetically respondent is female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally and she has two sex organs - female and male. He testified that this condition is very rare, that respondent's uterus is not fully developed because of lack of female hormones, and that she has no monthly period. He further testified that

respondent's condition is permanent and recommended the change of gender because respondent has made up her mind, adjusted to her chosen role as male, and the gender change would be advantageous to her.

The RTC granted respondent's petition in a Decision dated January 12, 2005 which reads:The Court is convinced that petitioner has satisfactorily shown that he is entitled to the reliefs prayed [for]. Petitioner has adequately presented to the Court very clear and convincing proofs for the granting of his petition. It was medically proven that petitioner's body produces male hormones, and first his body as well as his action and feelings are that of a male. He has chosen to be male. He is a normal person and wants to be acknowledged and identified as a male.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Civil Register of Pakil, Laguna is hereby ordered to make the following corrections in the birth [c]ertificate of Jennifer Cagandahan upon payment of the prescribed fees:

a) By changing the name from Jennifer Cagandahan to JEFF CAGANDAHAN; and

b) By changing the gender from female to MALE.

It is likewise ordered that petitioner's school records, voter's registry, baptismal certificate, and other pertinent records are hereby amended to conform with the foregoing corrected data.

SO ORDERED.[3]

Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal of the abovementioned ruling.

The issues raised by petitioner are:THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION CONSIDERING THAT:

I.

THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULES 103 AND 108 OF THE RULES OF COURT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND,

II.

CORRECTION OF ENTRY UNDER RULE 108 DOES NOT ALLOW CHANGE OF "SEX" OR "GENDER" IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, WHILE RESPONDENT'S MEDICAL CONDITION, i.e., CONGENITAL ADRENAL HYPERPLASIA DOES NOT MAKE HER A "MALE."[4]

Simply stated, the issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition known as CAH, and her name from "Jennifer" to "Jeff," under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.

The OSG contends that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because while the local civil registrar is an indispensable party in a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court,

respondent's petition before the court a quo did not implead the local civil registrar.[5] The OSG further contends respondent's petition is fatally defective since it failed to state that respondent is a bona fide resident of the province where the petition was filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing as mandated under Section 2(b), Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.[6] The OSG argues that Rule 108 does not allow change of sex or gender in the birth certificate and respondent's claimed medical condition known as CAH does not make her a male.[7]

On the other hand, respondent counters that although the Local Civil Registrar of Pakil, Laguna was not formally named a party in the Petition for Correction of Birth Certificate, nonetheless the Local Civil Registrar was furnished a copy of the Petition, the Order to publish on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the proceedings,[8] respondent is actually a male person and hence his birth certificate has to be corrected to reflect his true sex/gender,[9] change of sex or gender is allowed under Rule 108,[10] and respondent substantially complied with the requirements of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.[11]

Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court provide:Rule 103

CHANGE OF NAME

SECTION 1. Venue. - A person desiring to change his name shall present the petition to the Regional Trial Court of the province in which he resides, [or, in the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court].

SEC. 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shall set forth:

(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing;

(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;

(c) The name asked for.

SEC. 3. Order for hearing. - If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within four (4) months after the last publication of the notice.

SEC. 4. Hearing. - Any interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the Government of the Republic.

SEC. 5. Judgment. - Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order that such order has been published as directed and that the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge

that such name be changed in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

SEC. 6. Service of judgment. - Judgments or orders rendered in connection with this rule shall be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the court issuing the same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the same in the civil register.

Rule 108CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES

IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY

SECTION 1. Who may file petition. - Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.

SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. - Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.

SEC. 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.

SEC. 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.

SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. - The court in which the proceedings is brought may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings.

SEC. 7. Order. - After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotate the same in his record.The OSG argues that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because respondent's petition did not implead the local civil registrar. Section 3, Rule 108 provides that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceedings. Likewise,

the local civil registrar is required to be made a party in a proceeding for the correction of name in the civil registry. He is an indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be had.[12] Unless all possible indispensable parties were duly notified of the proceedings, the same shall be considered as falling much too short of the requirements of the rules.[13] The corresponding petition should also implead as respondents the civil registrar and all other persons who may have or may claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby.[14] Respondent, however, invokes Section 6,[15] Rule 1 of the Rules of Court which states that courts shall construe the Rules liberally to promote their objectives of securing to the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the matters brought before it. We agree that there is substantial compliance with Rule 108 when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil registrar.

The determination of a person's sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.Together with Article 376[16] of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by Republic Act No. 9048[17] in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.[18]

Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.[19]

The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code:ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.

ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:

(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name.The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code include even those that occur after birth.[20]

Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This condition causes the early or "inappropriate" appearance of male characteristics. A person, like respondent, with this condition produces too much androgen, a male hormone. A newborn who has XX chromosomes coupled with CAH usually has a (1) swollen clitoris with the urethral opening at the base, an ambiguous genitalia often appearing more male than female; (2) normal internal structures of the female reproductive

tract such as the ovaries, uterus and fallopian tubes; as the child grows older, some features start to appear male, such as deepening of the voice, facial hair, and failure to menstruate at puberty. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with CAH.

CAH is one of many conditions[21] that involve intersex anatomy. During the twentieth century, medicine adopted the term "intersexuality" to apply to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female.[22] The term is now of widespread use. According to Wikipedia, intersexuality "is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An organism with intersex may have biological characteristics of both male and female sexes."

Intersex individuals are treated in different ways by different cultures. In most societies, intersex individuals have been expected to conform to either a male or female gender role.[23] Since the rise of modern medical science in Western societies, some intersex people with ambiguous external genitalia have had their genitalia surgically modified to resemble either male or female genitals.[24] More commonly, an intersex individual is considered as suffering from a "disorder" which is almost always recommended to be treated, whether by surgery and/or by taking lifetime medication in order to mold the individual as neatly as possible into the category of either male or female.

In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. "It has been suggested that there is some middle ground between the sexes, a `no-man's land' for those individuals who are neither truly `male' nor truly `female'."[25] The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification.

In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based on medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the

subject's birth certificate entry is in order.

Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently and categorically female nor consistently and categorically male) composition. Respondent has female (XX) chromosomes. However, respondent's body system naturally produces high levels of male hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic features of a male.

Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It

is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.

Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong medication,[26] to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondent's development to reveal more fully his male characteristics.

In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private as one's sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH. The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as society commonly currently knows this gender of the human species. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence of evidence that respondent is an "incompetent"[27] and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent's position and his personal judgment of being a male.

In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we respect respondent's congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus help make his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this case.

As for respondent's change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow.[28] The trial court's grant of respondent's change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering the consequence that respondent's change of name merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent's change of name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male.

WHEREFORE, the Republic's petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., and Brion, JJ., concur.

[1] Rollo, pp. 29-32. Penned by Judge Florenio P. Bueser.

[2] Id. at 33-37.

[3] Id. at 31-32.

[4] Id. at 97.

[5] Id. at 99.

[6] Id. at 103.

[7] Id. at 104.

[8] Id. at 136.

[9] Id. at 127.

[10] Id. at 134.

[11] Id. at 136.

[12] Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103695, March 15, 1996, 255 SCRA 99, 106.

[13] Ceruila v. Delantar, G.R. No. 140305, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 134, 147.

[14] Republic v. Benemerito, G.R. No. 146963, March 15, 2004, 425 SCRA 488, 492.

[15] SEC. 6. Construction.- These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

[16] Art. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.

[17] AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTRAR WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. APPROVED, MARCH 22, 2001.

[18] Silverio v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 174689, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 373, 388.

[19] Id. at 389.

[20] Id. at 389.

[21] (1) 5-alpha reductase deficiency; (2) androgen insensitivity syndrome; (3) aphallia; (4) clitoromegaly; (5) congenital adrenal hyperplasia; (6) gonadal dysgenesis (partial & complete); (7) hypospadias; (8) Kallmann syndrome; (9) Klinefelter syndrome; (10) micropenis; (11) mosaicism involving sex chromosomes; (12) MRKH (mullerian agenesis; vaginal agenesis; congenital absence of vagina); (13) ovo-testes (formerly called "true hermaphroditism"); (14) partial androgen insensitivity syndrome; (15) progestin induced virilization; (16) Swyer syndrome; (17) Turner syndrome. [Intersexuality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual> (visited August 15, 2008).]

[22] Intersexuality<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual> (visited August 15, 2008).

[23] Intersexuality<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual> visited August 15, 2008), citing Gagnon and Simon 1973.

[24] Intersexuality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual> (visited August 15, 2008).

[25] M.T. v. J.T. 140 N.J. Super 77 355 A. 2d 204.

[26] The goal of treatment is to return hormone levels to normal. This is done by taking a form of cortisol (dexamethasone), fludrocortisone, or hydrocortisone) every day. Additional doses of medicine are needed during times of stress, such as severe illness or surgery.

x x x x

Parents of children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia should be aware of the side effects of steroid therapy. They should report signs of infection and stress to their health care provider because increases in medication may be required. In additional, steroid medications cannot be stopped suddenly, or adrenal insufficiency will result.

x x x x

The outcome is usually associated with good health, but short stature may result even with treatment. Males have normal fertility. Females may have a smaller opening of the vagina and lower fertility. Medication to treat this disorder must be continued for life. (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia )

[27] The word "incompetent" includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind, even though they have lucid intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their property, becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation. (See Sec. 2 of Rule 92 of the Rules of Court)

[28] Yu v. Republic of the Philippines, 123 Phil. 1106, 1110 (1966).

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

 

A.M. No. MTJ-92-721 September 30, 1994

JUVY N. COSCA, EDMUNDO B. PERALTA, RAMON C. SAMBO, and APOLLO A. VILLAMORA, complainants, vs.HON. LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON, JR., Presiding Judge, and NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY, Clerk of Court II, both of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, respondents.

Esteban R. Abonal for complainants.

Haide B. Vista-Gumba for respondents.

 

PER CURIAM, J.:

Complainants Juvy N. Cosca, Edmundo B. Peralta, Ramon C. Sambo, and Apollo Villamora, are Stenographer I, Interpreter I, Clerk II, and Process Server, respectively, of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Respondents Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. and Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy are respectively the Presiding Judge and Clerk of Court II of the same court.

In an administrative complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator on October 5, 1992, herein respondents were charged with the following offenses, to wit: (1) illegal solemnization of marriage; (2) falsification of the monthly reports of cases; (3) bribery in consideration of an appointment in the court; (4) non-issuance of receipt for cash bond received; (5) infidelity in the custody of detained prisoners; and (6) requiring payment of filing fees from exempted entities. 1

Pursuant to a resolution issued by this Court respondents filed their respective Comments. 2 A Reply to Answers of Respondents was filed by complainants. 3 The case was thereafter referred to Executive Judge David C. Naval of the Regional Trial Court, Naga City, for investigation report and recommendation. The case was however transferred to First Assistant Executive Judge Antonio N. Gerona when Judge Naval inhibited himself for the reason that his wife is a cousin of respondent Judge Palaypayon, Jr. 4

The contending versions of the parties regarding the factual antecedents of this administrative matter, as culled from the records thereof, are set out under each particular charge against respondents.

1. Illegal solemnization of marriage

Complainants allege that respondent judge solemnized marriages even without the requisite marriage license. Thus, the following couples were able to get married by the simple expedient of paying the marriage fees to respondent Baroy, despite the absence of a marriage license, viz.: Alano

P. Abellano and Nelly Edralin, Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido, Eddie Terrobias and Maria Gacer, Renato Gamay and Maricris Belga, Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario, and Sammy Bocaya and Gina Bismonte. As a consequence, their marriage contracts (Exhibits B, C, D, F, G, and A, respectively) did not reflect any marriage license number. In addition, respondent judge did not sign their marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of solemnization, the reason being that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be submitted by the parties which was usually several days after the ceremony. Indubitably, the marriage contracts were not filed with the local civil registrar. Complainant Ramon Sambo, who prepares the marriage contracts, called the attention of respondents to the lack of marriage licenses and its effect on the marriages involved, but the latter opted to proceed with the celebration of said marriages.

Respondent Nelia Baroy claims that when she was appointed Clerk of Court II, the employees of the court were already hostile to her, especially complainant Ramon Sambo who told her that he was filing a protest against her appointment. She avers that it was only lately when she discovered that the court had a marriage Register which is in the custody of Sambo; that it was Sambo who failed to furnish the parties copies of the marriage contract and to register these with the local civil registrar; and that apparently Sambo kept these marriage contracts in preparation for this administrative case. Complainant Sambo, however, claims that all file copies of the marriage contracts were kept by respondent Baroy, but the latter insists that she had instructed Sambo to follow up the submission by the contracting parties of their marriage licenses as part of his duties but he failed to do so.

Respondent Judge Palaypayon, Jr. contends that the marriage between Alano P. Abellano and Nelly Edralin falls under Article 34 of the Civil Code, hence it is exempt from the marriage license requirement; that he gave strict instructions to complainant Sambo to furnish the couple a copy of the marriage contract and to file the same with the civil registrar, but the latter failed to do so; that in order to solve the problem, the spouses subsequently formalized their marriage by securing a marriage license and executing their marriage contract, a copy of which was filed with the civil registrar; that the other five marriages alluded to in the administrative complaint were not illegally solemnized because the marriage contracts were not signed by him and they did not contain the date and place of marriage; that copies of these marriage contracts are in the custody of complainant Sambo; that the alleged marriage of Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido, Eddie Terrobias and Maria Emma Gaor, Renato Gamay and Maricris Belga, and of Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario were not celebrated by him since he refused to solemnize them in the absence of a marriage license; that the marriage of Samy Bocaya and Gina Bismonte was celebrated even without the requisite license due to the insistence of the parties in order to avoid embarrassment to their guests but that, at any rate, he did not sign their marriage contract which remains unsigned up to the present.

2. Falsification of monthly report for July, 1991 regarding the number of marriages solemnized and the number of documents notarized.

It is alleged that respondent judge made it appear that he solemnized seven (7) marriages in the month of July, 1992, when in truth he did not do so or at most those marriages were null and void; that respondents likewise made it appear that they have notarized only six (6) documents for July, 1992, but the Notarial Register will show that there were one hundred thirteen (113) documents which were notarized during that month; and that respondents reported a notarial fee of only P18.50 for each document, although in fact they collected P20.00 therefor and failed to account for the difference.

Respondent Baroy contends, however, that the marriage registry where all marriages celebrated by respondent judge are entered is under the exclusive control and custody of complainant Ramon Sambo, hence he is the only one who should be held responsible for the entries made therein; that

the reported marriages are merely based on the payments made as solemnization fees which are in the custody of respondent Baroy. She further avers that it is Sambo who is likewise the custodian of the Notarial Register; that she cannot be held accountable for whatever alleged difference there is in the notarial fees because she is liable only for those payments tendered to her by Sambo himself; that the notarial fees she collects are duly covered by receipts; that of the P20.00 charged, P18.50 is remitted directly to the Supreme Court as part of the Judiciary Development Fund and P150 goes to the general fund of the Supreme Court which is paid to the Municipal Treasurer of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Respondent theorizes that the discrepancies in the monthly report were manipulated by complainant Sambo considering that he is the one in charge of the preparation of the monthly report.

Respondent Judge Palaypayon avers that the erroneous number of marriages celebrated was intentionally placed by complainant Sambo; that the number of marriages solemnized should not be based on solemnization fees paid for that month since not all the marriages paid for are solemnized in the same month. He claims that there were actually only six (6) documents notarized in the month of July, 1992 which tallied with the official receipts issued by the clerk of court; that it is Sambo who should be held accountable for any unreceipted payment for notarial fees because he is the one in charge of the Notarial Register; and that this case filed by complainant Sambo is merely in retaliation for his failure to be appointed as the clerk of court. Furthermore, respondent judge contends that he is not the one supervising or preparing the monthly report, and that he merely has the ministerial duty to sign the same.

3. Bribery in consideration of an appointment in the court

Complainants allege that because of the retirement of the clerk of court, respondent judge forwarded to the Supreme Court the applications of Rodel Abogado, Ramon Sambo, and Jessell Abiog. However, they were surprised when respondent Baroy reported for duty as clerk of court on October 21, 1991. They later found out that respondent Baroy was the one appointed because she gave a brand-new air-conditioning unit to respondent judge.

Respondent Baroy claims that when she was still in Naga City she purchased an air-conditioning unit but when she was appointed clerk of court she had to transfer to Tinambac and, since she no longer needed the air conditioner, she decided to sell the same to respondent judge. The installation and use thereof by the latter in his office was with the consent of the Mayor of Tinambac.

Respondent judge contends that he endorsed all the applications for the position of clerk of court to the Supreme Court which has the sole authority over such appointments and that he had no hand in the appointment of respondent Baroy. He contends that the air-conditioning unit was bought from hisco-respondent on installment basis on May 29, 1992, eight (8) months after Baroy had been appointed clerk of court. He claims that he would not be that naive to exhibit to the public as item which could not be defended as a matter of honor and prestige.

4. Cash bond issued without a receipt

It is alleged that in Criminal Case No. 5438, entitled "People vs. Mendeza, et al., "bondswoman Januaria Dacara was allowed by respondent judge to change her property bond to cash bond; that she paid the amount of P1,000.00 but was never issued a receipt therefor nor was it made to appear in the records that the bond has been paid; that despite the lapse of two years, the money was never returned to the bondswoman; and that it has not been shown that the money was turned over to the Municipal Treasurer of Tinambac.

Respondent Baroy counters that the cash bond was deposited with the former clerk of court, then turned over to the acting clerk of court and, later, given to her under a corresponding receipt; that the cash bond is deposited with the bank; and that should the bondswoman desire to withdraw the same, she should follow the proper procedure therefor.

Respondent judge contends that Criminal Case No. 5438 was archieved for failure of the bondsman to deliver the body of the accused in court despite notice; and that he has nothing to do with the payment of the cash bond as this is the duty of the clerk of court.

5. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners

Complainants contend that respondent judge usually got detention prisoners to work in his house, one of whom was Alex Alano, who is accused in Criminal Case No. 5647 for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act; that while Alano was in the custody of respondent judge, the former escaped and was never recaptured; that in order to conceal this fact, the case was archived pursuant to an order issued by respondent judge dated April 6, 1992.

Respondent judge denied the accusation and claims that he never employed detention prisoners and that he has adequate household help; and that he had to order the case archived because it had been pending for more than six (6) months and the accused therein remained at large.

6. Unlawful collection of docket fees

Finally, respondents are charged with collecting docket fees from the Rural Bank of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, Inc. although such entity is exempt by law from the payment of said fees, and that while the corresponding receipt was issued, respondent Baroy failed to remit the amount to the Supreme Court and, instead, she deposited the same in her personal account.

Respondents Baroy contends that it was Judge-Designate Felimon Montenegro (because respondent judge was on sick leave) who instructed her to demand payment of docket fees from said rural bank; that the bank issued a check for P800.00; that she was not allowed by the Philippine National Bank to encash the check and, instead, was instructed to deposit the same in any bank account for clearing; that respondent deposited the same in her account; and that after the check was cleared, she remitted P400.00 to the Supreme Court and the other P400.00 was paid to the Municipal Treasurer of Tinambac.

On the basis of the foregoing contentions, First Vice-Executive Judge Antonio N. Gerona prepared and submitted to us his Report and Recommendations dated May 20, 1994, together with the administrative matter. We have perspicaciously reviewed the same and we are favorably impressed by the thorough and exhaustive presentation and analysis of the facts and evidence in said report. We commend the investigating judge for his industry and perspicacity reflected by his findings in said report which, being amply substantiated by the evidence and supported by logical illations, we hereby approve and hereunder reproduce at length the material portions thereof.

xxx xxx xxx

The first charge against the respondents is illegal solemnization of marriage. Judge Palaypayon is charged with having solemnized without a marriage license the marriage of Sammy Bocaya and Gina Besmonte (Exh. A). Alano Abellano and Nelly Edralin (Exh. B), Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido (Exh. C), Eddie Terrobias and Maria Emma Gaor (Exh. D), Renato Gamay

and Maricris Belga (Exh. F) and Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario (Exh. G).

In all these aforementioned marriages, the blank space in the marriage contracts to show the number of the marriage was solemnized as required by Article 22 of the Family Code were not filled up. While the contracting parties and their witnesses signed their marriage contracts, Judge Palaypayon did not affix his signature in the marriage contracts, except that of Abellano and Edralin when Judge Palaypayon signed their marriage certificate as he claims that he solemnized this marriage under Article 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines. In said marriages the contracting parties were not furnished a copy of their marriage contract and the Local Civil Registrar was not sent either a copy of the marriage certificate as required by Article 23 of the Family Code.

The marriage of Bocaya and Besmonte is shown to have been solemnized by Judge Palaypayon without a marriage license. The testimonies of Bocay himself and Pompeo Ariola, one of the witnesses of the marriage of Bocaya and Besmonte, and the photographs taken when Judge Palaypayon solemnized their marriage (Exhs. K-3 to K-9) sufficiently show that Judge Palaypayon really solemnized their marriage. Bocaya declared that they were advised by Judge Palaypayon to return after ten (10) days after their marriage was solemnized and bring with them their marriage license. In the meantime, they already started living together as husband and wife believing that the formal requisites of marriage were complied with.

Judge Palaypayon denied that he solemnized the marriage of Bocaya and Besmonte because the parties allegedly did not have a marriage license. He declared that in fact he did not sign the marriage certificate, there was no date stated on it and both the parties and the Local Civil Registrar did not have a copy of the marriage certificate.

With respect to the photographs which show that he solemnized the marriage of Bocaya and Besmonte, Judge Palaypayon explains that they merely show as if he was solemnizing the marriage. It was actually a simulated solemnization of marriage and not a real one. This happened because of the pleading of the mother of one of the contracting parties that he consent to be photographed to show that as if he was solemnizing the marriage as he was told that the food for the wedding reception was already prepared, visitors were already invited and the place of the parties where the reception would be held was more than twenty (20) kilometers away from the poblacion of Tinambac.

The denial made by Judge Palaypayon is difficult to believe. The fact alone that he did not sign the marriage certificate or contract, the same did not bear a date and the parties and the Local Civil Registrar were not furnished a copy of the marriage certificate, do not by themselves show that he did not solemnize the marriage. His uncorroborated testimony cannot prevail over the testimony of Bocaya and Ariola who also declared, among others, that Bocaya and his bride were advised by Judge Palaypayon to return after ten (10) days with their marriage license and whose credibility had not been impeached.

The pictures taken also from the start of the wedding ceremony up to the signing of the marriage certificate in front of Judge Palaypayon and on his table (Exhs. K-3, K-3-a, K-3-b, K-3-c, K-4, K-4-a, K-4-b, K-4-c,K-4-d, K-5, K-5-a, K-5-b, K-6, K-7, K-8, K-8-a and K-9), cannot possibly be just to show a simulated solemnization of marriage. One or two pictures may convince a person of the explanation of Judge Palaypayon, but not all those pictures.

Besides, as a judge it is very difficult to believe that Judge Palaypayon would allows himself to be photographed as if he was solemnizing a marriage on a mere pleading of a person whom he did not even know for the alleged reasons given. It would be highly improper and unbecoming of him to allow himself to be used as an instrument of deceit by making it appear that Bocaya and Besmonte were married by him when in truth and in fact he did not solemnize their marriage.

With respect to the marriage of Abellano and Edralin (Exh. B), Judge Palaypayon admitted that he solemnized their marriage, but he claims that it was under Article 34 of the Family Code, so a marriage license was not required. The contracting parties here executed a joint affidavit that they have been living together as husband and wife for almost six (6) years already (Exh. 12; Exh. AA).

In their marriage contract which did not bear any date either when it was solemnized, it was stated that Abellano was only eighteen (18) years, two (2) months and seven (7) days old. If he and Edralin had been living together as husband and wife for almost six (6) years already before they got married as they stated in their joint affidavit, Abellano must ha(ve) been less than thirteen (13) years old when he started living with Edralin as his wife and this is hard to believe. Judge Palaypayon should ha(ve) been aware of this when he solemnized their marriage as it was his duty to ascertain the qualification of the contracting parties who might ha(ve) executed a false joint affidavit in order to have an instant marriage by avoiding the marriage license requirement.

On May 23, 1992, however, after this case was already filed, Judge Palaypayon married again Abellano and Edralin, this time with a marriage license (Exh. BB). The explanation given by Judge Palaypayon why he solemnized the marriage of the same couple for the second time is that he did not consider the first marriage he solemnized under Article 34 of the Family Code as (a) marriage at all because complainant Ramon Sambo did not follow his instruction that the date should be placed in the marriage certificate to show when he solemnized the marriage and that the contracting parties were not furnished a copy of their marriage certificate.

This act of Judge Palaypayon of solemnizing the marriage of Abellano and Edralin for the second time with a marriage license already only gave rise to the suspicion that the first time he solemnized the marriage it was only made to appear that it was solemnized under exceptional character as there was not marriage license and Judge Palaypayon had already signed the marriage certificate. If it was true that he solemnized the first marriage under exceptional character where a marriage license was not required, why did he

already require the parties to have a marriage license when he solemnized their marriage for the second time?

The explanation of Judge Palaypayon that the first marriage of Abellano and Edralin was not a marriage at all as the marriage certificate did not state the date when the marriage was solemnized and that the contracting parties were not furnished a copy of their marriage certificate, is not well taken as they are not any of those grounds under Article(s) 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Family Code which declare a marriage void from the beginning. Even if no one, however, received a copy of the marriage certificate, the marriage is still valid (Jones vs. H(o)rtiguela, 64 Phil. 179). Judge Palaypayon cannot just absolve himself from responsibility by blaming his personnel. They are not the guardian(s) of his official function and under Article 23 of the Family Code it is his duty to furnish the contracting parties (a) copy of their marriage contract.

With respect to the marriage of Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido (Exh. C), and Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario (Exh. G), Selpo and Carrido and Sabater and Nacarcio executed joint affidavits that Judge Palaypayon did not solemnize their marriage (Exh. 13-A and Exh. 1). Both Carrido and Nacario testified for the respondents that actually Judge Palaypayon did not solemnize their marriage as they did not have a marriage license. On cross-examination, however, both admitted that they did not know who prepared their affidavits. They were just told, Carrido by a certain Charito Palaypayon, and Nacario by a certain Kagawad Encinas, to just go to the Municipal building and sign their joint affidavits there which were already prepared before the Municipal Mayor of Tinambac, Camarines Sur.

With respect to the marriage of Renato Gamay and Maricris Belga (Exh. f), their marriage contract was signed by them and by their two (2) witnesses, Atty. Elmer Brioso and respondent Baroy (Exhs. F-1 and F-2). Like the other aforementioned marriages, the solemnization fee was also paid as shown by a receipt dated June 7, 1992 and signed by respondent Baroy (Exh. F-4).

Judge Palaypayon also denied having solemnized the marriage of Gamay and Belga allegedly because there was no marriage license. On her part, respondent Baroy at first denied that the marriage was solemnized. When she was asked, however, why did she sign the marriage contract as a witness she answered that she thought the marriage was already solemnized (TSN, p. 14; 10-28-93).

Respondent Baroy was, and is, the clerk of court of Judge Palaypayon. She signed the marriage contract of Gamay and Belga as one of the two principal sponsors. Yet, she wanted to give the impression that she did not even know that the marriage was solemnized by Judge Palaypayon. This is found very difficult to believe.

Judge Palaypayon made the same denial of having solemnized also the marriage of Terrobias and Gaor (Exh. D). The contracting parties and their witnesses also signed the marriage contract and paid the solemnization fee, but Judge Palaypayon allegedly did not solemnize their marriage due to lack of marriage license. Judge Palaypayon submitted the affidavit of William

Medina, Vice-Mayor of Tinambac, to corroborate his testimony (Exh. 14). Medina, however, did not testify in this case and so his affidavit has no probative value.

Judge Palaypayon testified that his procedure and practice have been that before the contracting parties and their witnesses enter his chamber in order to get married, he already required complainant Ramon Sambo to whom he assigned the task of preparing the marriage contract, to already let the parties and their witnesses sign their marriage contracts, as what happened to Gamay and Belga, and Terrobias and Gaor, among others. His purpose was to save his precious time as he has been solemnizing marriages at the rate of three (3) to four (4) times everyday (TSN, p. 12;2-1-94).

This alleged practice and procedure, if true, is highly improper and irregular, if not illegal, because the contracting parties are supposed to be first asked by the solemnizing officer and declare that they take each other as husband and wife before the solemnizing officer in the presence of at least two (2) witnesses before they are supposed to sign their marriage contracts (Art. 6, Family Code).

The uncorroborated testimony, however, of Judge Palaypayon as to his alleged practice and procedure before solemnizing a marriage, is not true as shown by the picture taken during the wedding of Bocaya and Besmonte (Exhs. K-3 to K-9) and by the testimony of respondent Baroy herself who declared that the practice of Judge Palaypayon ha(s) been to let the contracting parties and their witnesses sign the marriage contract only after Judge Palaypayon has solemnized their marriage (TSN, p. 53;10-28-93).

Judge Palaypayon did not present any evidence to show also that he was really solemnizing three (3) to four (4) marriages everyday. On the contrary his monthly report of cases for July, 1992 shows that his court had only twenty-seven (27) pending cases and he solemnized only seven (7) marriages for the whole month (Exh. E). His monthly report of cases for September, 1992 shows also that he solemnized only four (4) marriages during the whole month (Exh. 7).

In this first charge of having illegally solemnized marriages, respondent Judge Palaypayon has presented and marked in evidence several marriage contracts of other persons, affidavits of persons and certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar (Exhs. 12-B to 12-H). These persons who executed affidavits, however, did not testify in this case. Besides, the marriage contracts and certification mentioned are immaterial as Judge Palaypayon is not charged of having solemnized these marriages illegally also. He is not charged that the marriages he solemnized were all illegal.

The second charge against herein respondents, that of having falsified the monthly report of cases submitted to the Supreme Court and not stating in the monthly report the actual number of documents notarized and issuing the corresponding receipts of the notarial fees, have been sufficiently proven by

the complainants insofar as the monthly report of cases for July and September, 1992 are concerned.

The monthly report of cases of the MTC of Tinambac, Camarines Sur for July, 1992 both signed by the respondents, show that for said month there were six (6) documents notarized by Judge Palaypayon in his capacity as Ex-Officio Notary Public (Exhs. H to H-1-b). The notarial register of the MTC of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, however, shows that there were actually one hundred thirteen (113) documents notarized by Judge Palaypayon for the said month (Exhs. Q to Q-45).

Judge Palaypayon claims that there was no falsification of the monthly report of cases for July, 1992 because there were only six (6) notarized documents that were paid (for) as shown by official receipts. He did not, however, present evidence of the alleged official receipts showing that the notarial fee for the six (6) documetns were paid. Besides, the monthly report of cases with respect to the number of documents notarized should not be based on how many notarized documents were paid of the notarial fees, but the number of documents placed or recorded in the notarial register.

Judge Palaypayon admitted that he was not personally verifying and checking anymore the correctness of the monthly reports because he relies on his co-respondent who is the Clerk of Court and whom he has assumed to have checked and verified the records. He merely signs the monthly report when it is already signed by respondent Baroy.

The explanation of Judge Palaypayon is not well taken because he is required to have close supervision in the preparation of the monthly report of cases of which he certifies as to their correctness. As a judge he is personally responsible for the proper discharge of his functions (The Phil. Trial Lawyer's Asso. Inc. vs. Agana, Sr., 102 SCRA 517). In Nidera vs. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581, it was held that "A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel."

On the part of respondent Baroy, she puts the blame of the falsification of the monthly report of cases on complainant Sambo whom she allegedly assigned to prepare not only the monthly report of cases, but the preparation and custody of marriage contracts, notarized documents and the notarial register. By her own admission she has assigned to complainant Sambo duties she was supposed to perform, yet according to her she never bother(ed) to check the notarial register of the court to find out the number of documents notarized in a month (TSN, p. 30; 11-23-93).

Assuming that respondent Baroy assigned the preparation of the monthly report of cases to Sambo, which was denied by the latter as he claims that he only typed the monthly report based on the data given to him by her, still it is her duty to verify and check whether the report is correct.

The explanation of respondent Baroy that Sambo was the one in custody of marriage contracts, notarized documents and notarial register, among other things, is not acceptable not only because as clerk of court she was supposed to be in custody, control and supervision of all court records

including documents and other properties of the court (p. 32, Manual for Clerks of Court), but she herself admitted that from January, 1992 she was already in full control of all the records of the court including receipts (TSN, p. 11; 11-23-93).

The evidence adduced in this cases in connection with the charge of falsification, however, also shows that respondent Baroy did not account for what happened to the notarial fees received for those documents notarized during the month of July and September, 1992. The evidence adduced in this case also sufficiently show that she received cash bond deposits and she did not deposit them to a bank or to the Municipal Treasurer; and that she only issued temporary receipts for said cash bond deposits.

For July, 1992 there were only six (6) documents reported to have been notarized by Judge Palaypayon although the documents notarized for said month were actually one hundred thirteen (113) as recorded in the notarial register. For September, 1992, there were only five (5) documents reported as notarized for that month, though the notarial register show(s) that there were fifty-six (56) documents actually notarized. The fee for each document notarized as appearing in the notarial register was P18.50. Respondent Baroy and Sambo declared that what was actually being charged was P20.00. Respondent Baroy declared that P18.50 went to the Supreme Court and P1.50 was being turned over to the Municipal Treasurer.

Baroy, however, did not present any evidence to show that she really sent to the Supreme Court the notarial fees of P18.50 for each document notarized and to the Municipal Treasurer the additional notarial fee of P1.50. This should be fully accounted for considering that Baroy herself declared that some notarial fees were allowed by her at her own discretion to be paid later. Similarly, the solemnization fees have not been accounted for by Baroy considering that she admitted that even (i)n those instances where the marriages were not solemnized due to lack of marriage license the solemnization fees were not returned anymore, unless the contracting parties made a demand for their return. Judge Palaypayon declared that he did not know of any instance when solemnization fee was returned when the marriage was not solemnized due to lack of marriage license.

Respondent Baroy also claims that Ramon Sambo did not turn over to her some of the notarial fees. This is difficult to believe. It was not only because Sambo vehemently denied it, but the minutes of the conference of the personnel of the MTC of Tinambac dated January 20, 1992 shows that on that date Baroy informed the personnel of the court that she was taking over the functions she assigned to Sambo, particularly the collection of legal fees (Exh. 7). The notarial fees she claims that Sambo did not turn over to her were for those documents notarized (i)n July and September, 1992 already. Besides there never was any demand she made for Sambo to turn over some notarial fees supposedly in his possession. Neither was there any memorandum she issued on this matter, in spite of the fact that she has been holding meetings and issuing memoranda to the personnel of the court (Exhs. V, W, FF, FF-1, FF-2, FF-3; Exhs. 4-A (supplement(s), 5-8, 6-S, 7-S and 8-S).

It is admitted by respondent Baroy that on October 29, 1991 a cash bond deposit of a certain Dacara in the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos was turned over to her after she assumed office and for this cash bond she issued only a temporary receipt (Exh. Y). She did not deposit this cash bond in any bank or to the Municipal Treasurer. She just kept it in her own cash box on the alleged ground that the parties in that case where the cash bond was deposited informed her that they would settle the case amicably.

Respondent Baroy declared that she finally deposited the aforementioned cash bond of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in February, 1993, after this administrative case was already filed (TSN, pp. 27-28; 12-22-93). The Pass Book, however, shows that actually Baroy opened an account with the LBP, Naga Branch, only on March 26, 1993 when she deposited an amount of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos (Exhs. 8 to 8-1-a). She claims that One Thousand (P1,000.000) Pesos of the initial deposit was the cash bond of Dacara. If it were true, it was only after keeping to herself the cash bond of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos for around one year and five months when she finally deposited it because of the filing of this case.

On April 29, 1993, or only one month and two days after she finally deposited the One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos cash bond of Dacara, she withdrew it from the bank without any authority or order from the court. It was only on July 23, 1993, or after almost three (3) months after she withdrew it, when she redeposited said cash bond (TSN, p. 6; 1-4-94).

The evidence presented in this case also show that on February 28, 1993 respondent Baroy received also a cash bond of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos from a certain Alfredo Seprones in Crim. Case No. 5180. For this cash bond deposit, respondent Baroy issued only an annumbered temporary receipt (Exh. X and X-1). Again Baroy just kept this Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos cash bond to herself. She did not deposit it either (in) a bank or (with) the Municipal Treasurer. Her explanation was that the parties in Crim. Case No. 5180 informed her that they would settle the case amicably. It was on April 26, 1993, or almost two months later when Judge Palaypayon issued an order for the release of said cash bond (Exh. 7).

Respondent Baroy also admitted that since she assumed office on October 21, 1991 she used to issue temporary receipt only for cash bond deposits and other payments and collections she received. She further admitted that some of these temporary receipts she issued she failed to place the number of the receipts such as that receipt marked Exhibit X (TSN, p. 35; 11-23-93). Baroy claims that she did not know that she had to use the official receipts of the Supreme Court. It was only from February, 1993, after this case was already filed, when she only started issuing official receipts.

The next charge against the respondents is that in order to be appointed Clerk of Court, Baroy gave Judge Palaypayon an air conditioner as a gift. The evidence adduced with respect to this charge, show that on August 24, 1991 Baroy bought an air conditioner for the sum of Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred (P17,600.00) Pesos (Exhs. I and I-1). The same was paid partly in

cash and in check (Exhs. I-2 and I-3). When the air conditioner was brought to court in order to be installed in the chamber of Judge Palaypayon, it was still placed in the same box when it was bought and was not used yet.

The respondents claim that Baroy sold it to Judge Palaypayon for Twenty Thousand (P20,00.00) Pesos on installment basis with a down payment of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos and as proof thereof the respondents presented a typewritten receipt dated May 29, 1993 (Exh. 22). The receipt was signed by both respondents and by the Municipal Mayor of Tinambac, Camarines Sur and another person as witness.

The alleged sale between respondents is not beyond suspicion. It was bought by Baroy at a time when she was applying for the vacant position of Clerk of Court (to) which she was eventually appointed in October, 1991. From the time she bought the air conditioner on August 24, 1991 until it was installed in the office of Judge Palaypayon it was not used yet. The sale to Judge Palaypayon was only evidenced by a mere typewritten receipt dated May 29, 1992 when this case was already filed. The receipt could have been easily prepared. The Municipal Mayor of Tinambac who signed in the receipt as a witness did not testify in this case. The sale is between the Clerk of Court and the Judge of the same court. All these circumstances give rise to suspicion of at least impropriety. Judges should avoid such action as would subject (them) to suspicion and (their) conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety (Jaagueta vs. Boncasos, 60 SCRA 27).

With respect to the charge that Judge Palaypayon received a cash bond deposit of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos from Januaria Dacara without issuing a receipt, Dacara executed an affidavit regarding this charge that Judge Palaypayon did not give her a receipt for the P1,000.00 cash bond she deposited (Exh. N). Her affidavit, however, has no probative value as she did not show that this cash bond of P1,000.00 found its way into the hands of respondent Baroy who issued only a temporary receipt for it and this has been discussed earlier.

Another charge against Judge Palaypayon is the getting of detention prisoners to work in his house and one of them escaped while in his custody and was never found again. To hide this fact, the case against said accused was ordered archived by Judge Palaypayon. The evidence adduced with respect to this particular charge, show that in Crim. Case No. 5647 entitled People vs. Stephen Kalaw, Alex Alano and Allan Adupe, accused Alex Alano and Allan Adupe were arrested on April 12, 1991 and placed in the municipal jail of Tinambac, Camarines Sur (Exhs. 0, 0-1, 0-2 and 0-3; Exh. 25). The evidence presented that Alex Alano was taken by Judge Palaypayon from the municipal jail where said accused was confined and that he escaped while in custody of Judge Palaypayon is solely testimonial, particularly that of David Ortiz, a former utility worker of the MTC of Tinambac.

Herein investigator finds said evidence not sufficient. The complainants should have presented records from the police of Tinambac to show that Judge Palaypayon took out from the municipal jail Alex Alano where he was under detention and said accused escaped while in the custody of Judge Palaypayon.

The order, however, of Judge Palaypayon dated April 6, 1992 in Crim. Case No. 5047 archiving said case appears to be without basis. The order states: "this case was filed on April 12, 1991 and the records show that the warrant of arrest (was) issued against the accused, but up to this moment there is no return of service for the warrant of arrest issued against said accused" (Exh. 0-4). The records of said case, however, show that in fact there was a return of the service of the warrant of arrest dated April 12, 1991 showing that Alano and Adupe were arrested (Exh. 0-3).

Judge Palaypayon explained that his order dated April 6, 1992 archiving Crim. Case No. 5047 referred only to one of the accused who remained at large. The explanation cannot be accepted because the two other accused, Alano and Adupe, were arrested. Judge Palaypayon should have issued an order for the arrest of Adupe who allegedly jumped bail, but Alano was supposed to be confined in the municipal jail if his claim is true that he did not take custody of Alano.

The explanation also of Judge Palaypayon why he ordered the case archived was because he heard from the police that Alano escaped. This explanation is not acceptable either. He should ha(ve) set the case and if the police failed to bring to court Alano, the former should have been required to explain in writing why Alano was not brought to court. If the explanation was that Alano escaped from jail, he should have issued an order for his arrest. It is only later on when he could not be arrested when the case should have been ordered archived. The order archiving this case for the reason that he only heard that Alano escaped is another circumstance which gave rise to a suspicion that Alano might have really escaped while in his custody only that the complainants could not present records or other documentary evidence to prove the same.

The last charge against the respondents is that they collected filing fees on collection cases filed by the Rural Bank of Tinambac, Camarines Sur which was supposed to be exempted in paying filing fees under existing laws and that the filing fees received was deposited by respondent Baroy in her personal account in the bank. The evidence presented show that on February 4, 1992 the Rural Bank of Tinambac filed ten (10) civil cases for collection against farmers and it paid the total amount of Four Hundred (P400.00) Pesos representing filing fees. The complainants cited Section 14 of Republic Act 720, as amended, which exempts Rural Banks (from) the payment of filing fees on collection of sums of money cases filed against farmers on loans they obtained.

Judge Palaypayon, however, had nothing to do with the payment of the filing fees of the Rural Bank of Tinambac as it was respondent Baroy who received them and besides, on February 4, 1992, he was on sick leave. On her part Baroy claims that the bank paid voluntarily the filing fees. The records, however, shows that respondent Baroy sent a letter to the manager of the bank dated January 28, 1992 to the effect that if the bank would not pay she would submit all Rural Bank cases for dismissal (Annex 6, comment by respondent Baroy).

Respondent Baroy should have checked whether the Rural Bank of Tinambac was really exempt from the payment of filing fees pursuant to Republic Act 720, as amended, instead of threatening the bank to have its cases be submitted to the court in order to have them dismissed. Here the payment of the filing fees was made on February 4, 1992, but the Four Hundred (P400.00) Pesos was only turned over to the Municipal Treasurer on March 12, 1992. Here, there is an undue delay again in complying with her obligation as accountable officer.

In view of the foregoing findings that the evidence presented by the complainants sufficiently show that respondent Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. had solemnized marriages, particularly that of Sammy Bocaya and Gina Besmonte, without a marriage license, and that it having been shown that he did not comply with his duty in closely supervising his clerk of court in the preparation of the monthly report of cases being submitted to the Supreme Court, particularly for the months of July and September, 1992 where it has been proven that the reports for said two (2) months were falsified with respect to the number of documents notarized, it is respectfully recommended that he be imposed a fine of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning that the same or similar offenses will be more severely dealt with.

The fact that Judge Palaypayon did not sign the marriage contracts or certificates of those marriages he solemnized without a marriage license, there were no dates placed in the marriage contracts to show when they were solemnized, the contracting parties were not furnished their marriage contracts and the Local Civil Registrar was not being sent any copy of the marriage contract, will not absolve him from liability. By solemnizing alone a marriage without a marriage license he as the solemnizing officer is the one responsible for the irregularity in not complying (with) the formal requ(i)sites of marriage and under Article 4(3) of the Family Code of the Philippines, he shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.

Judge Palaypayon is likewise liable for his negligence or failure to comply with his duty of closely supervising his clerk of court in the performance of the latter's duties and functions, particularly the preparation of the monthly report of cases (Bendesula vs. Laya, 58 SCRA 16). His explanation that he only signed the monthly report of cases only when his clerk of court already signed the same, cannot be accepted. It is his duty to closely supervise her, to check and verify the records if the monthly reports prepared by his clerk of court do not contain false statements. It was held that "A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or incompetence of court personnel (Nidua vs. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 158).

In view also of the foregoing finding that respondent Nelia Esmeralda-Baroy, the clerk of court of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, has been found to have falsified the monthly report of cases for the months of July and September, 1992 with respect to the number of documents notarized, for having failed to account (for) the notarial fees she received for said two (2) months period; for having failed to account (for) the solemnization fees of those marriages allegedly not solemnized, but the solemnization fees were not returned; for unauthorized issuance of

temporary receipts, some of which were issued unnumbered; for receiving the cash bond of Dacara on October 29, 1991 in the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos for which she issued only a temporary receipt (Exh. Y) and for depositing it with the Land Bank of the Philippines only on March 26, 1993, or after one year and five months in her possession and after this case was already filed; for withdrawing said cash bond of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos on April 29, 1993 without any court order or authority and redepositing it only on July 23, 1993; for receiving a cash bond of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos from Alfredo Seprones in Crim. Case No. 5180, MTC, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, for which she issued only an unnumbered temporary receipt (Exhs. X and X-1) and for not depositing it with a bank or with the Municipal Treasurer until it was ordered released; and for requiring the Rural Bank of Tinambac, Camarines Sur to pay filing fees on February 4, 1992 for collection cases filed against farmers in the amount of Four Hundred (P400.00) Pesos, but turning over said amount to the Municipal Treasurer only on March 12, 1992, it is respectfully recommended that said respondent clerk of court Nelia Esmeralda-Baroy be dismissed from the service.

It is provided that "Withdrawal of court deposits shall be by the clerk of court who shall issue official receipt to the provincial, city or municipal treasurer for the amount withdrawn. Court deposits cannot be withdrawn except by order of the court, . . . ." (Revised Manual of Instructions for Treasurers, Sec. 183, 184 and 626; p. 127, Manual for Clerks of Court). A circular also provides that the Clerks of Court shall immediately issue an official receipt upon receipt of deposits from party litigants and thereafter deposit intact the collection with the municipal, city or provincial treasurer and their deposits, can only be withdrawn upon proper receipt and order of the Court (DOJ Circular No. 52, 26 April 1968; p. 136, Manual for Clerks of Court). Supreme Court Memorandum Circular No. 5, 25 November 1982, also provides that "all collections of funds of fiduciary character including rental deposits, shall be deposited immediately by the clerk of court concerned upon receipt thereof with City, Municipal or Provincial Treasurer where his court is located" and that "no withdrawal of any of such deposits shall be made except upon lawful order of the court exercising jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Respondent Baroy had either failed to comply with the foregoing circulars, or deliberately disregarded, or even intentionally violated them. By her conduct, she demonstrated her callous unconcern for the obligations and responsibility of her duties and functions as a clerk of court and accountable officer. The gross neglect of her duties shown by her constitute(s) a serious misconduct which warrant(s) her removal from office. In the case of Belen P. Ferriola vs. Norma Hiam, Clerk of Court, MTCC, Branch I, Batangas City; A.M. No. P-90-414; August 9, 1993, it was held that "The clerk of court is not authorized to keep funds in his/her custody; monies received by him/her shall be deposited immediately upon receipt thereof with the City, Municipal or Provincial Treasurer. Supreme Court Circular Nos. 5 dated November 25, 1982 and 5-A dated December 3, 1982. Respondent Hiam's failure to remit the cash bail bonds and fine she collected constitutes serious misconduct and her misappropriation of said funds constitutes dishonesty. "Respondent Norma Hiam was found guilty of dishonesty and serious misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and (the Court) ordered her immediate dismissal (from) the service.

xxx xxx xxx

We here emphasize once again our adjuration that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be beyond suspicion. Every employee should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. 5 Integrity in a judicial office is more than a virtue, it is a necessity. 6 It applies, without qualification as to rank or position, from the judge to the least of its personnel, they being standard-bearers of the exacting norms of ethics and morality imposed upon a Court of justice.

On the charge regarding illegal marriages the Family Code pertinently provides that the formal requisites of marriage are, inter alia, a valid marriage license except in the cases provided for therein. 7 Complementarily, it declares that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall generally render the marriage void ab initio and that, while an irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. 8

The civil aspect is addressed to the contracting parties and those affected by the illegal marriages, and what we are providing for herein pertains to the administrative liability of respondents, all without prejudice to their criminal responsibility. The Revised Penal Code provides that "(p)riests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law." 9 This is of course, within the province of the prosecutorial agencies of the Government.

The recommendation with respect to the administrative sanction to be imposed on respondent judge should, therefore, be modified. For one, with respect to the charge of illegal solemnization of marriages, it does appear that he had not taken to heart, but actually trifled with, the law's concern for the institution of marriage and the legal effects flowing from civil status. This, and his undeniable participation in the other offenses charged as hereinbefore narrated in detail, approximate such serious degree of misconduct and of gross negligence in the performance of judicial duties as to ineludibly require a higher penalty.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby imposes a FINE of P20,000.00 on respondent Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon. Jr., with a stern warning that any repetition of the same or similar offenses in the future will definitely be severely dealt with. Respondent Nelia Esmeralda-Baroy is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Let copies of this decision be spread on their records and furnished to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., took no part.

Bidin, J., is on leave.

 

#Footnotes

1 Original Record, 1.

2 Ibid., 9 and 23.

3 Ibid., 86.

4 Ibid., 134.

5 Annong vs. Vda. de Blas, A.M. No. P-91-602, October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 635.

6 Capuno, et al. vs. Jaramillo, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, July 20, 1994.

7 Article 3(2), Executive Order No. 209, as amended.

8 Article 4, id.

9 Article 352, Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 39, Act No. 3613.