DIGEST/ ALBERTINE DIN Caballero v COMELEC & Nanud/ 2015

 

Caballero v COMELEC & Nanud

G.R. No. 209835, September 22, 2015

 

Facts:

            Caballero and Nanud were mayoral candidates in the 2013 elections. Nanud filed for cancellation of Caballero’s certificate of candidacy alleging that Caballero is a Canadian citizen and a nonresident of Batanes.

            On May 3, the COMELEC cancelled Caballero’s COC, but on May 13, Caballero won the 2013 elections. On December 12, COMELEC issued a writ of execution and Nanud took oath of office.

            Caballero argued that prior to the filing of his COC in October 2012, he took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Philippine Consul General in Canada on September 13, 2012 and became a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003).

            Thereafter, he renounced his Canadian citizenship and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation before a Notary Public in Batanes on October 1, 2012 to conform with Section 5(2) of RA 9225. 

            Caballero also argued that he did not lose his domicile of origin in Batanes as he merely left Uyugan temporarily to pursue a brighter future for him and his family; and that he went back to Uyugan during his vacation while working abroad. 

 

Issue: W/N Caballero was a resident of Uyugan at least one year before the elections. 

 

Held: Caballero failed to comply with the one-year residency requirement as provided in Section 39 of RA 7160 or LGC.

            

            RA 9255 treats citizenship independently of residence. It declares that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country, can re-acquire or retain his Philippine citizenship under the conditions

            RA 9225 does not provide for residency requirement for the reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino. 

            Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of which he is also a citizen.

            However, when a natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship seeks for an elective public office, residency in the Philippines becomes material. 

            Caballero’s naturalization in a foreign country may resulted in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines as permanent resident status in Canada is required for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.  Moreover, Caballero’s reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his residence/domicile.

 

Doctrine:

            “Residence” required in LGC refers to “domicile” or legal residence, that 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. It is usually the place where the child's parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile (domicile of choice). It consists not only in the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.