SVETLANA JALOSJOS v. COMELEC G.R. No. 193314 : February 26 2!13 SVETLANA ". JALOSJOS "e#$#$o%er v. COMM&SS&ON ON ELECT&ONS E'(&N EL&M T)M"AG a%* RO'OLFO +. ESTRELLA'A Re,-o%*e%#,. SERENO J.:
FACTS: Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for mayor of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental for the 1 May !1 elections on ! "o#em$er !%& She indicated therein her 'lace of $irth and residence as BarangayTgas, Mnici'ality of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental (Brgy& Tgas)& Tgas)& o*e#er the 'ri#ate res'ondents filed a Petition to +eny +e Corse to or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy, in *hich they arged that she had falsely re'resented her 'lace of $irth and residence, $ecase she *as in fact $orn in San an, Metro Manila, and had not totally a$andoned her 're#ios domicile, +a'itan City& On her side the 'etitioner a#erred that she had esta$lished her residence in the said Barangay since +ecem$er !- *hen she 'rchased t*o 'arcels of land there, and that she had $een staying in the hose of a certain Mrs& .a' *hile the constrction of her hose *as still on going& She also asserted that the error in her 'lace of $irth *as committed $y her secretary and ne#ertheless, in a CoC, an error in the declaration of the 'lace of $irth is not a material misre'resentation that *old lead to dis/alification, $ecase it is not one of the /alifications 'ro#ided $y la*& 0lection day came and the 'etitioner garnered the highest nm$er of #otes and *on the 'ost of the mayor *hile the 'etition for the cancellation of the COC remained 'ending& On 1 May !1, the Mnici'al Board of Can#assers of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, 'roclaimed her as the dly elected mnici'al mayor& On ne !1, the COM020C Second +i#ision rled that res'ondent *as +3S45A23F30+ for the 'osition of mayor& The COM020C 0n Banc 'romlgated a 6esoltion on 1% Agst !1 denying the Motion for 6econsideration of 'etitioner for lac7 of merit and affirming the 6esoltion of the Second +i#ision denying de corse to or cancelling her CoC& 3SS50: 8hether the Petitioner com'lied *ith *ith the one9year residency re/irement for local electi#e officials&
02+: "e#$#$o%er a$/e* #o 0o-/y $# #e o%eyear re,$*e%0y re5u$ree%# or /o0a/ e/e0#$ve o$0$a/,. 8hen it comes to the /alifications for rnning for '$lic office, residence is synonymos *ith domicile& Accordingly, "#al #& ra held as follo*s: The term ;residence< as so sed, is synonymos *ith ;domicile< *hich im'orts not only intention to reside in a fi=ed 'lace, $t also 'ersonal 'resence in that 'lace, co'led *ith condct indicati#e of sch intention&
Tere are #ree re5u$,$#e, or a -er,o% #o a05u$re a %e *o$0$/e by 0o$0e. F$r,# re,$*e%0e or bo*$/y -re,e%0e $% #e %e /o0a/$#y. Se0o%* a% $%#e%#$o% #o rea$% #ere. T$r* a% $%#e%#$o% #o aba%*o% #e o/* *o$0$/e.
These circmstances mst $e esta$lished $y clear and 'ositi#e 'roof, as held in 6omalde>9Marcos #& COM020C and s$se/ently in +m'it Michelena #& Boado: 3n the a$sence of clear and 'ositi#e 'roof $ased on these criteria, the residence of origin shold $e deemed to contine& Only *ith e#idence sho*ing concrrence of all three re/irements can the 'resm'tion of continity or residence $e re$tted, for a change of residence re/ires an actal and deli$erate a$andonment, and one cannot ha#e t*o legal residences at the same time&
Moreo#er, e#en if these re/isites are esta$lished $y clear and 'ositi#e 'roof, the date of ac/isition of the domicile of choice, or the critical date, mst also $e esta$lished to $e *ithin at least one year 'rior to the elections sing the same standard of e#idence& 3n the instant case, *e find that 'etitioner failed to esta$lish $y clear and 'ositi#e 'roof that she had resided in Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, one year 'rior to the 1 May !1 elections& There *ere inconsistencies in the Affida#its of Acas9.a', .a' 333, ?illane#a, +haylngsod, 0strellada, ma*an, Medi@a, Bagndol, Colal@o, Tenorio, Analasan, Bation, Maghilm and a#ier& First, they stated that they 'ersonally 7ne* 'etitioner to $e an actal and 'hysical resident of Brgy& Tgas since !-& o*e#er, they declared in the same Affida#its that she stayed in Brgy& Pnta Miray *hile her hose *as $eing constrcted in Brgy& Tgas& Second, constrction *or7ers .a' 333, ?illane#a, +haylngsod and 0strellada asserted that in +ecem$er !%, constrction *as still ongoing& By their assertion, they *ere im'lying that si= months $efore the 1 May !1 elections, 'etitioner had not yet mo#ed into her hose at Brgy& Tgas& Third, the same constrction *or7ers admitted that 'etitioner only #isited Baliangao occasionally *hen they stated that at times *hen she ('etitioner) *as in Baliangao, she sed to stay at the hose of 2ordes .a' *hile her residential hose *as $eing constrcted& These discre'ancies $olster the statement of the Brgy& Tgas officials that 'etitioner *as not and ne#er had $een a resident of their $arangay& At most, the Affida#its of all the *itnesses only sho* that 'etitioner *as $ilding and de#elo'ing a
$each resort and a hose in Brgy& Tgas, and that she only stayed in Brgy& Pnta Miray *hene#er she *anted to o#ersee the constrction of the resort and the hose& Assming that the claim of 'ro'erty o*nershi' of 'etitioner is tre, Fernandez v. COMELEC has established that the ownership of a house or some other property does not establish domicile. This principle is especially true in this case as petitioner has failed to establish her bodily presence in the locality and her intent to stay there at least a year before the elections, to wit: To use ownership of property in the district as the determinative indicium of permanence of domicile or residence implies that the landed can establish compliance with the residency requirement. This Cort *old $e, in effect, im'osing a 'ro'erty re/irement to the right to hold '$lic office, *hich 'ro'erty re/irement *old $e nconstittional& (EREFORE -re$,e, 0o%,$*ere* #e "e#$#$o% $, 'EN&E'. Te S#a#u, 7uo A%#e Or*er $,,ue* by #$, Cour# o% !8 Se-#eber 2!1! $, ereby L&FTE'.
