Dangwa Transportation Co. Vs Sarmiento - Fulltext
Dangwa Transportation Co. Vs Sarmiento - Fulltext
coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one
domicile for one and the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous places of
residence. His place of residence generally is his place of domicile, but is not any means,
necessarily so since no length of residence without intention of remaining will constitute
domicile. (Emphasis Supplied)
We note that the law on venue in Courts of First Instance (Section 2, of Rule 4, Rules of Court) in referring
to the parties utilizes the words "resides or may be found," and not "is domiciled," thus:
Sec. 2(b) Personal actions All other actions may be commenced and tried where the
defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of
the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.' (Emphasis Supplied)
Applying the foregoing observation to the present case, We are fully convinced that private respondent
Coloma's protestations of domicile in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, based on his manifested intention to return
there after the retirement of his wife from government service to justify his bringing of an action for
damages against petitioner in the C.F.I. if Ilocos Norte, is entirely of no moment since what is of paramount
importance is where he actually resided or where he may be found at the time he brought the action, to
comply substantially with the requirements of Sec. 2 (b) of Rule 4, Rules of court, on venue of personal
actions. (Koh v. Court of Appeals, supra, pp. 304-305.)
The same construction of the word "resides" as used in Section 1, Rule 73, of the Revised Rules of Court, was enunciated
in Fule v. Court of Appeals, et. al. (G.R. No. L-40502) and Fule v. Hon. Ernani C. Pao, et al.(G. R. No. L-42670), decided on
November 29, 1976. Thus, this Court, in the aforecited cases, stated:
2. But, the far-ranging question is this: What does the term "resides" mean? Does it refer to the actual
residence or domicile of the decedent at the time of his death? We lay down the doctrinal rule that the term
"resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This
term "resides," like the terms "residing" and "residence" is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of
the object or purposes of the statute or in which it is employed. In the application of venue statutes and
rules-Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature-residence rather than domicile is the
significant factor. Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence
and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence" and
"domicile" but generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey the same
meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular
sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode
at signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means
merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires
bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and
also an intention to make it one's domicile. No particular length of time of residence is required though;
however, the residence must be more than temporary.
Respondent court having found that private respondent Lawrence Heller had his actual residence at Clark Air Base, Angeles
(now a City), Pampanga, at the time he filed his personal action against the petitioners, it did not, therefore, gravely abuse
its discretion in refusing to dismiss the case.
WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is hereby DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioners.