Jalosjos vs. COMELEC

A reinstated Filipino citizen who abandons their domicile of origin and domicile of choice, reacquires Philippine citizenship, renounces foreign citizenship, and establishes actual physical presence in a new locality with intent to remain satisfies the one-year residency requirement for local elective office.

Petitioner Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City but migrated to Australia at age eight, acquiring Australian citizenship. He returned to the Philippines in November 2008, reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, and renounced his Australian citizenship. Respondent Dan Erasmo, Sr. is the Barangay Captain of Barangay Veteran’s Village in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, where Jalosjos resided with his brother. The Local Government Code requires a candidate for provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at least one year before the election.

Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City on October 26, 1973, and migrated to Australia in 1981, where he acquired Australian citizenship. On November 22, 2008, at age 35, he returned to the Philippines and lived with his brother, Romeo, Jr., in Barangay Veteran’s Village, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. Four days after his return, he took an oath of allegiance to the Republic, resulting in the issuance of a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration. On September 1, 2009, he executed a sworn renunciation of his Australian citizenship in compliance with Republic Act No. 9225.

From the time of his return, Jalosjos acquired a residential property in the same village and a fishpond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay. He applied for voter registration in Ipil, but Barangay Captain Dan Erasmo, Sr. opposed it. The Election Registration Board approved the application, prompting Erasmo to file a petition for exclusion before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). The MCTC denied the petition, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the denial on appeal, with the RTC decision becoming final.

On November 28, 2009, Jalosjos filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay for the May 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a petition to cancel the COC, alleging material misrepresentation regarding Jalosjos's compliance with Republic Act No. 9225 and the one-year residency requirement of the Local Government Code. The COMELEC Second Division ruled that while Jalosjos had regained Philippine citizenship, he failed to prove the residency requirement, a ruling affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc which deemed him a mere transient in his brother's house. The Supreme Court issued a status quo ante order, and Jalosjos subsequently won and was proclaimed governor.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Yes. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in holding that Jalosjos failed to establish his domicile in Zamboanga Sibugay, given his abandonment of prior domiciles and substantial evidence of intent to reside in the province.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Local Government Code requires a candidate for provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at least one year before the election, with residence synonymous to domicile. Domicile requires personal presence coupled with conduct indicative of an intention to reside. Jalosjos effectively abandoned his domicile of origin (Quezon City) and domicile of choice (Australia) by migrating, acquiring Australian citizenship, living there for 26 years, and later leaving, renouncing his Australian citizenship, and reacquiring Philippine citizenship. By forfeiting his legal right to live in Australia and living nowhere else but Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, he established a new domicile. The COMELEC's conclusion that he was a mere transient because he lived in his brother's house was erroneous, as ownership of a house is not required to establish domicile. Jalosjos presented affidavits from next-door neighbors attesting to his physical presence, purchased properties in the province, and was a registered voter by final judgment. The Court also deferred to the will of the electorate, which had already proclaimed him the winner.

• Domicile in Election Law — Residence for purposes of election laws is synonymous with domicile, requiring personal presence in a place coupled with conduct indicative of an intention to reside. Guidelines include: (a) every person has a domicile somewhere; (b) once established, it remains until a new one is acquired; and (c) a person can have but one domicile at a time. The Court applied these guidelines to find that Jalosjos abandoned his domiciles of origin and choice and established a new one in Zamboanga Sibugay.
• Property Ownership Not Required for Domicile — A candidate is not required to own a house in a community to establish residence or domicile. Living in a rented house or in the house of a friend or relative is sufficient, provided there is actual physical presence and intent to make it a domicile. The Court relied on this to reject the COMELEC's finding that Jalosjos was a mere transient in his brother's house.

• "To hold that Jalosjos has not establish a new domicile in Zamboanga Sibugay despite the loss of his domicile of origin (Quezon City) and his domicile of choice and by operation of law (Australia) would violate the settled maxim that a man must have a domicile or residence somewhere." — This passage emphasizes the principle that a person must always have a domicile, and the abandonment of all prior domiciles compels the recognition of a new one where the person resides with intent to stay.
• "Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that a candidate is not required to have a house in a community to establish his residence or domicile in a particular place. It is sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented house or in the house of a friend or relative." — This articulates the doctrine that property ownership is not a requisite for establishing domicile, rejecting any implication that wealth is a qualification for public office.

• Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179851 — Cited for the classification of domicile into domicile of origin, domicile of choice, and domicile by operation of law.
• Limbona vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 181097 — Cited for the rule that residence in election laws is synonymous with domicile, requiring personal presence and intent to reside.
• Pundaodaya vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179313 — Cited for the guidelines on domicile: every person has a domicile, it remains until a new one is acquired, and a person can have but one at a time.
• Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 and 92202-03 — Cited for the principle that a candidate need not own a house to establish domicile; living in a rented house or that of a relative is sufficient.
• Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 191938 — Cited for the rule that the Court may exercise review powers over factual findings of administrative bodies to correct palpable misappreciation of evidence.

• Section 39, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Requires a candidate seeking the position of provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at least one year before the election. The Court applied this to assess Jalosjos's qualification.
• Republic Act No. 9225 — An Act making the citizenship of Filipinos who acquire foreign citizenship permanent. Jalosjos complied with its requirements by taking an oath of allegiance and executing a sworn renunciation of his Australian citizenship.

RENATO C. CORONA (Chief Justice), ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR., TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, ARTURO D. BRION, DIOSDADO M. PERALTA, LUCAS P. BERSAMIN, MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO, MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR., JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ, JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA, MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO, BIENVENIDO L. REYES, ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE.