View full case

MANUEL B. JAPZON v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The case involves two separate petitions filed against respondent Jaime S. Ty in relation to his candidacy for public office. In the first petition, petitioner Manuel B. Japzon sought to disqualify and/or cancel Ty's Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar. Japzon claimed that Ty falsely represented his residency and failed to meet the residency requirement. However, the COMELEC First Division ruled in favor of Ty, stating that he complied with the dual citizenship requirements under Republic Act No. 9225.

In the second petition, petitioner Joel Japzon challenged Ty's candidacy for the position of Mayor before the Court of Appeals. Japzon argued that Ty did not meet the residency requirement and therefore should be disqualified. He also claimed that he, as the second placer, should be declared the rightful winner in the local elections. Ty, on the other hand, asserted that he met the residency requirement and that the COMELEC's rulings were based on the evidence presented and consistent with jurisprudence.

The Office of the Solicitor General agreed that Ty failed to meet the residency requirement, but still requested the dismissal of Japzon's petition. The OSG argued that even if Ty was disqualified, Japzon, as the second placer, could not assume the position of Mayor. The OSG also sought permission for the COMELEC to file its own Comment on Japzon's petition.

These are the pertinent facts of the case involving the petitions against respondent Jaime S. Ty's candidacy for public office.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Ty meets the residency requirement to qualify as a mayoralty candidate in the 2007 local elections.

  2. Whether Japzon, as the second placer in the elections, can take Ty's place if Ty is disqualified.

  3. Whether the petitioner, Ty, meets the one-year residency requirement to run as a candidate for the Office of Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar.

  4. How to establish that Ty established a new domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines.

  5. Whether petitioner Larrazabal established her residence in Ormoc City, not in Kananga, Leyte.

  6. Whether respondent Ty complied with the one-year residency requirement for running for public office.

  7. Whether or not the trips abroad made by Ty indicate that he had no intention to permanently reside in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines.

  8. Whether or not Ty's absence from residence prior to the elections constitutes loss of residence.

RULING:

  1. The Court found that Ty meets the residency requirement. The Court ruled that Republic Act No. 9225, which governs the reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship by a natural-born Filipino, does not impose a residency requirement. It treats citizenship independently of residence. Therefore, Ty, who had reacquired his Philippine citizenship, is qualified to run as a mayoralty candidate.

  2. The Court ruled that Japzon, as the second placer in the elections, cannot take Ty's place even if Ty is disqualified. The Court held that the COMELEC's findings of fact are binding on the Court, and the COMELEC had already found sufficient evidence to prove Ty's residency prior to the elections.

  3. The Court held that Ty does not meet the residency requirement to run as a candidate for the Office of Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar. The Court acknowledged that for an individual to acquire American citizenship, he must establish residence in the USA. Since Ty himself admitted that he became a naturalized American citizen, he must have abandoned the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, as his domicile of origin and transferred to the USA as his domicile of choice. His reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 did not automatically impact his residence or domicile. Therefore, Ty did not regain his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines.

  4. The Court stated that the determination of a person's legal residence or domicile largely depends upon the intention that may be inferred from his acts, activities, and utterances. To establish that Ty established a new domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, the length of his residence there shall be determined from the time he made it his domicile of choice, and it shall not retroact to the time of his birth.

  5. The Court affirmed the ruling of the COMELEC that petitioner Larrazabal had established her residence in Ormoc City, not in Kananga, Leyte. The Court held that there was no evidence to show that she and her husband maintained separate residences and that her occasional visits to Kananga, Leyte did not signify an intention to continue her residence there.

  6. The COMELEC found that respondent Ty was a resident of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, one year prior to the local elections. The Court upheld the findings of the COMELEC and held that the factual findings of administrative agencies, especially the COMELEC, are binding and conclusive on the Court. The Court also emphasized that the rule of respecting factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies applies with greater force when it concerns the COMELEC.

  7. The fact that Ty came back to the Municipality of General Macarthur after his trips abroad is a manifestation of his intention to establish residence there. The trips abroad do not negate his animus manendi and animus revertendi.

  8. The Court has previously ruled that absence from residence for reasons such as pursuing studies or practicing a profession does not constitute loss of residence. Even with his trips abroad, Ty was actually present in the Municipality of General Macarthur for at least nine months preceding the elections.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Findings of fact of the COMELEC are binding on the Court.

  • Republic Act No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence.

  • Residency becomes relevant for a natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship when he or she decides to run for public office.

  • A mayoralty candidate must meet the qualifications required by the Constitution and existing laws, but Republic Act No. 9225 does not impose a residency requirement for reacquired Philippine citizens.

  • The term "residence" in the context of qualifications for local elective officials refers to "domicile" or legal residence, which is the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi).

  • A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth, usually the place where the child's parents reside, and continues until abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile (domicile of choice).

  • The reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 does not automatically impact an individual's residence or domicile. The individual may retain their domicile in another country and choose to establish a new domicile in the Philippines.

  • Domicile and residence are synonymous.

  • Residence, as used in election laws, requires an intention to reside in a fixed place and personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.

  • In order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must be residence or bodily presence in the new locality, an intention to remain there, and an intention to abandon the old domicile.

  • Factual findings of administrative agencies are binding and conclusive on the Court, especially when it concerns the COMELEC.

  • Only substantial evidence is necessary to establish a fact in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.

  • Absence from residence for purposes other than serving the elected position does not constitute loss of residence.

  • Length of actual stay in a place is not determinative of residence but is strong support of the intent to establish residence.

  • Changing residences to run for an elective post is allowed as long as the candidate can prove a change of residence for the period required by law.

  • When evidence of a candidate's lack of residence qualification is weak or inconclusive and upholding the victor's right to the office does not frustrate the purpose of the law, the will of the electorate should be respected.