Aquino vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995

CONFLICT OF LAWS-CASE DIGEST

Aquino vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995

Agapito A. Aquino, Petitioner

Commission on Elections, Move Makati, Mateo Bedon and JuanitoIcaro, Respondents

Ponente: KAPUNAN, J.:

The sanctity of the people's will must be observed at all times if our nascent democracy is to be preserved. In any challenge having the effect of reversing a democratic choice, expressed through the ballot, this Court should be ever so vigilant in finding solutions which would give effect to the will of the majority, for sound public policy dictates that all elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in an election. When a challenge to a winning candidate's qualifications however becomes inevitable, the ineligibility ought to be so noxious to the Constitution that giving effect to the apparent will of the people would ultimately do harm to our democratic institutions.

FACTS:

Petitioner Agapito Aquino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative for the Second District of Makati City. Private respondents Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and Mateo Bedon,Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Brgy.Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify petitioner on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which, under Sec. 6, Art. VI of the Constitution, should be for a period not less than 1 year immediately preceding the elections.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman as mandated by Sec. 6, Art.VI of the Constitution.

HELD:

In order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City, he must prove that he has established not just residence but domicile of choice.

Petitioner, in his certificate of candidacy for the 1992 elections, indicated not only that he was a resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he was a resident of the same for 52 years immediately preceding that elections. At that time, his certificate indicated that he was also a registered voter of the same district. His birth certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of his parents. What stands consistently clear and unassailable is that his domicile of origin of record up to the time of filing of his most recent certificate of candidacy for the 1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac.

The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. While a lease contract maybe indicative of petitioner’s intention to reside in Makati City, it does notengender the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of one’soriginal domicile.

Petitioner’s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makatiis a bare assertion which is hardly supported by the facts. To successfully effecta change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actualchange of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond withthe purpose. In the absence of clear and positive proof, the domicile of originshould be deemed to continue.

Submitted by:

JENE J. CADUNGOG

9/14/2012