GALLEGO V. VERRA 1940.

It is important to note, the government offered him a free house in the

November 24, 1941| Ozaeta J. | Sec 6 Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution chinchona plantation, and a parcel of ten hectares land within the
researvation of the chinchona plantation; the petitioner declined both of
PETITIONER: Pedro Gallego these properties. He and his wife own real property in Abuyog part of which
RESPONDENTS: Vicente Verra he acquired during his stay in Malaybalay.
SUMMARY: Petitioner won the municipal elections in Abuyog, Leyte. Respondent 6. On October 1, 1938, he registered himself as an elector in precinct no. 14 of
questioned his residence qualification enumerating the instances he left Abuyog. Lantapan, municipality of Malaybalay, Bukidnon and voter there in the
RTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondent stating that petitioner has lost his election for assemblymen held in December 1938. Though in his voter’s
domicile and his election is void. Gallego then brought the case before the Supreme affidavit, the Court noted that petitioner left a blank space to the length of
Court. The Court then ruled in his favor and reversed the decision of the appellate time he had resided in Malaybalay.
court. 7. January 20,1940 he obtained and paid for his residence certificate from the
municipal treasurer of Malaybalay. His certificate indicated that he had
DOCTRINE: No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless resided in the said municipality for one year and a half.
8. Given these facts, the respondent asserted that petitioner lost his right to run
he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at
in the municipality of Abuyog. He cited: 1) his registration as a voter; 2) his
least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list having actually voted in Malybalay in the 1938 election for assemblymen;
representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a 3) his residence certificate for 1940.
resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the
day of the election. (Sec. 6 Art VI of the 1987 Constitution). RTC and CA Ruling
With the enumeration in number 8, they ruled that petitioner lost his domicile in
Abuyog, Leyte and declared his election invalid and void.
FACTS:
1. Pedro Gallego was declared winner, with nearly 800 majority of the ISSUE:
Municipal Mayor election in the Municipality of Abuyog Leyte in the W/O petitioner lost his domicile residence after performing the above acts (No)
December 1940 elections. However, Verra questioned his qualifications
particularly his residence that made him unfit for the position before the RULING:
Court of First Instance which ruled in his favor. When the case was brought SC GRANTED the petition. REVERSED and SET ASIDE CA’s Decision
up to the Court of Appeals, the CA affirmed the results as illegal and void.
2. Pedro Gallego is a native of Abuyog Leyte. He studies in the Catarman RATIO:
Agicultural School in the Province of Samar and then later on was The Court held the following:
employed as a school teacher in the Municipality of Catarman, Samar, as 1. The term “residence” used in the election law is synonymous with
well as in the municipalities of Burawen, Dulag, and Abuyog, province of “domicile” which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place
Leyte, and also in the province of Agusan. but also a personal preference in that place, coupled with conduct
3. In 1937, after he resigned as a teacher in Abuyog, he presented his indicative of such intention.
candidacy for municipal mayor but was defeated. After his defeat, he went 2. To acquire domicile by choice, there must concur a) residence or bodily
to Mindanao in search of a job. First, he went to Oriental Misamis but he presence in the new locality; b) an intention to remain there; and 3) an
didn’t find a job so he moved to sitio of Kaato-an, municipality of intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words, there must be an
Malybalay, Bukidnon on June 20, 1938. There, he was employed as animus non revertendi and an animus manendi. The purpose to remain in or
nurseryman in the chinchona plantation of Bureau of Forestry. at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time. The act
4. On July 30, 1938, he returned to Abuyog because he had been offered an must conform to the purpose. The change of residence must be voluntary
employment as teacher I nthe public school of the bario of Union, the residence at the place chosen for the domicile must be actual and to the
municipality of Sogod, Leyte, however, he declined the offer and went fact of residence there must be added the animus manendi.
back to Kaato-an on August 23, 1938 to continue his work as nurseryman. 3. With these guidelines, the Court is not persuaded that petitioner has the
He stayed in that job until September, 1940 (resigned). intention to reside in Malaybalay indefinitely. He is a native of Abuyog and
5. During his entire stay in Kaato-an, his wife and children remained in has the very intention to return to Abuyog. In the past, he moved from
Abuyog and visited them in the month of August in the yers 1938, 1939 and places to places yet he always comes back to Abuyog. He even run for the
 municipal mayor in the same municipality after he resigned as a teacher. 10. Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner won with nearly 800 majority votes,
Him leaving after his lost was only temporary and only for the purposes of the Court has all the more reason to uphold the validity of the election as it
looking for work. After being hired in Malaybalay, he didn’t ask his wife was the voice of the people.
and children to come with him there. Moreover, his decline to the house and
parcel of land offered by the government manifest his intention of not
staying in Mulaybalay indefinitely. What he bought was a land in Abuyog.
Ultimately, during his stay in Malaybalay, he occasionally went back to
Abuyog.
4. Court cited jurisprudence. One of which is Taves, where the Court ruled
that certificate of residence is at most prima facie evidence of the fact of his
residence in the municipality of Bacong, which is required by law in order
that the corresponding officials could register him as an elector and
candidate, and not conclusive and may be attacked in a corresponding
judicial proceeding.
5. The Curt also ruled in Vivero v. Murillo, mere registration in a municipality
in order to be an elector therein does not make one a resident of said
municipality; if, according to constant rulings the word “residence” is
synonymous with “home or domicile”, and denotes a permanent dwelling
place, to which an absent person intends to return; if the right to vote in a
municipality requires the concurrence of two things: a) the act of residing
coupled with the intention to do so; and b) respondent has always lived with
his family in the municipality of Dumaguete and never in that of Bacong, he
has never lost his residence in Dumaguete.
6. And in the case of Yra v. Abano, the Court ruled that registration in the
list of voters is not one of the conditions prescribed by section 431 of the
Election Law in order to be an elector; neither does failure to register as
such constitute one of the disqualifications prescribed in section 432 of the
said law.
7. With this jurisprudence, the Court revokes the judgment of CA.
8. Moreover, petitioner’s argument that even he has lost his domicile, he was
able to reacquire it more than one year prior to December 10,1940. He
backed this with his letter or note addressed to “Varel” (Valeriano
Tupa, vice president of the political faction to which the petitioner belongs.
He sent him a letter expressing his intent to run for municipal mayor of
Abuyog as early as the month of May 1939. However, the Court thought
that this was not really necessary as the Court has already been satisfied
with jurisprudence and the facts of the case at bar. Indeed, petitioner has not
lost his domicile and qualified for the position.
9. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the manifest intent of the law in fixing a
residence qualification is to exclude stranger or newcomer, unacquainted
with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the
latter, form an elective office to serve that community; and when the
evidence on the alleged lack of residence qualification is weak or
inconclusive and it clearly appears, an in the instant case that the purpose of
the law would not be thwarted by upholding the right to the office, the will
of the electorate should be respected.