LUIS A. ASISTIO v. HON.

THELMA CANLAS
TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE
G.R. No. 191124, April 27, 2010

TOPIC: Personal Law - Domicile

FACTS:
On January 26, 2010, private respondent Enrico R. Echiverri filed against petitioner Luis A. Asistio a
Petition for Exclusion of Voter from the Permanent List of Voters of Caloocan City . In his
petition, Echiverri alleged that Asistio is not a resident of Caloocan City, specifically not of 123
Interior P. Zamora St., Barangay 15, Caloocan City , the address stated in his Certificate of Candidacy
(COC) for Mayor in the 2010 Automated National and Local Elections.

According to Echiverri, he found out that Asistios address is non-existent. To support this, Echiverri
attached to his petition a Certification dated December 29, 2009 issued by the Tanggapan ng
Punong Barangay of Barangay 15 Central, Zone 2, District II of Caloocan City. He mentioned that,
upon verification of the 2009 Computerized Voters List (CVL) for Barangay 15, Asistios name
appeared under voter number 8, with address at 109 Libis Gochuico, Barangay 15, Caloocan City.
Echiverri also claimed that Asistio was no longer residing in this address, since what appeared in
the latter’s COC for Mayor in the 2007 elections was No. 110 Unit 1, P. Zamora St., Barangay 15,
Caloocan City, but that the address used in Asistios current COC is situated in Barangay 17. He said
that, per his verification, the voters duly registered in the 2009 CVL using the address No. 123 P.
Zamora St., Barangay 17, Caloocan City did not include Asistio.

In defense, Asistio alleged that he is a resident of No. 116, P. Zamora St., Caloocan City, and a
registered voter of Precinct No. 1811A because he mistakenly relied on the address stated in the
contract of lease with Angelina dela Torre Tengco which was 123 Interior P. Zamora St., Barangay
15, Caloocan City.

MeTC: It ordered the Election Registration Board of Caloocan City to remove the name of
LUIS AQUINO ASISTIO from the list of permanent voters of Caloocan City.

Meanwhile, on January 26, 2010, Echiverri filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification.
The Petition was anchored on the grounds that Asistio is not a resident of Caloocan City and that he
had been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Asistio, in his Answer raised
the same arguments with respect to his residency and also argued that the President of the
Philippines granted him an absolute pardon. Echiverri filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, arguing
that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the Appeal on the ground of failure to file the
required appeal fees.

RTC: The RTC, thereafter, granted the Motion filed by Echiverri on the ground of non-
payment of docket fees essential for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. Hence,
this petition.

On March, 8, 2010, Echiverri filed his Comment to the Petition (with Motion to Quash Status Quo
Ante Order). Departing from Echiverris position against the Petition, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), on March 30, 2010, filed its Comment via registered mail. The OSG points out that
Asistios family is known to be one of the prominent political families in Caloocan City, and
that there is no indication whatsoever that Asistio has ever intended to abandon his
domicile, Caloocan City. Further, the OSG proposes that the issue at hand is better resolved by the
people of Caloocan City. In all, the OSG propounds that technicalities and procedural niceties should
bow to the sovereign will of the people of Caloocan City.

ISSUE/S: WON Asistio should be excluded from the permanent list of voters of [Precinct 1811A] of
Caloocan City for failure to comply with the residency required by law?

RULING:
NO. Section 117 of The Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Bilang 881) states:

SECTION 117. Qualifications of a voter.—Every citizen of the Philippines, not otherwise

Any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality or country solely by reason of
his occupation; profession; employment in private or public service; educational activities;
work in military or naval reservations; service in the army, navy or air force; the constabulary
or national police force; or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance
with law, shall be deemed not to have lost his original residence.

This provision is echoed in Section 9 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996 (Republic Act No.
8189), to wit:

SEC. 9. Who May Register.—All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law
who are at least eighteen (18) years of age and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at
least one (1) year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six (6) months
immediately preceding the election, may register as a voter.

Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely by reason
of his occupation, profession, employment in private or public service, educational activities,
work in the military or naval reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, the National Police Force, or confinement or detention in government
institutions in accordance with law, shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.

Any person who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age or period of
residence but who, on the day of election shall possess such qualifications, may register as a
voter.

The residency requirement of a voter is at least one (1) year residence in the Philippines and at
least six (6) months in the place where the person proposes or intends to vote. Residence, as used
in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, is doctrinally settled to
mean domicile, importing not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence
in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention inferable from a person’s acts,
activities, and utterances. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence where, when absent for
business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. In the consideration of
circumstances obtaining in each particular case, three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that
a person must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) once established, it remains until a new
one is acquired; and (3) that a person can have but one residence or domicile at a time.
Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a transfer thereof, one must demonstrate: (1) an
actual removal or change of domicile; (2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one; and (3) acts which correspond with that purpose. There
must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the
domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be
voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.

Asistio has always been a resident of Caloocan City since his birth or for more than 72 years. His
family is known to be among the prominent political families in Caloocan City. In fact, Asistio served
in public office as Caloocan City Second District representative in the House of Representatives,
having been elected as such in the 1992, 1995, 1998, and 2004 elections. In 2007, he also sought
election as City Mayor. In all of these occasions, Asistio cast his vote in the same city. Taking these
circumstances into consideration, gauged in the light of the doctrines above enunciated, it cannot
be denied that Asistio has qualified, and continues to qualify, as a voter of Caloocan City. There is no
showing that he has established domicile elsewhere, or that he had consciously and voluntarily
abandoned his residence in Caloocan City. He should, therefore, remain in the list of permanent
registered voters of Precinct No. 1811A, Barangay 15, Caloocan City.

That Asistio allegedly indicated in his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor, both for the 2007 and
2010 elections, a non-existent or false address, or that he could not be physically found in the
address he indicated when he registered as a voter, should not operate to exclude him as a voter of
Caloocan City. These purported misrepresentations in Asistios COC, if true, might serve as basis for
an election offense under the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), or an action to deny due course to the
COC. But to our mind, they do not serve as proof that Asistio has abandoned his domicile in
Caloocan City, or that he has established residence outside of Caloocan City.

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Order dated February 15, 2010 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 129, Caloocan City in SCA No. 997 and the decision dated February 5, 2010 of
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 52, Caloocan City in SCA No. 10-582 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioner Luis A. Asistio remains a registered voter of Precinct No. 1811A, Barangay 15,
Caloocan City. The Status Quo Ante Order issued by this Court on February 23, 2010 is MADE
PERMANENT.