8/19/2019 Case Readings Domicile Rights

1/3

Imelda was a resident of the First District of Leyte

for election purposes, and therefore possessed the

necessary residence qualications to run in Leyte as a

candidate for a seat in the House of Representatives forthe following reasons:

a !inor follows the domicile of his parents "s domicile,

once acquired is retained until a new one is gained, it

follows that in spite of the fact of petitioner#s $eing

$orn in !anila, %aclo$an, Leyte was her domicile of 

origin $y operation of law %his domicile wasesta$lished when her father $rought his family $ac& to

Leyte

$ Domicile of origin is not easily lost %o successfully

e'ect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate:

( "n actual removal or an actual change of domicile)

* " $ona de intention of a$andoning the former place

of residence and esta$lishing a new one) and

+ "cts which correspond with the purpose

In the a$sence of clear and positive proof $ased on

these criteria, the residence of origin should $e deemed

to continue nly with evidence showing concurrence of 

all three requirements can the presumption of 

continuity or residence $e re$utted, for a change of residence requires an actual and deli$erate

8/19/2019 Case Readings Domicile Rights

2/3

a$andonment, and one cannot have two legal

residences at the same time -etitioner held various

residences for di'erent purposes during the last four

decades .one of these purposes unequivocally point toan intention to a$andon her domicile of origin in

 %aclo$an, Leyte

c It cannot $e correctly argued that petitioner lost her

domicile of origin $y operation of law as a result of her

marriage to the late -resident Ferdinand / !arcos in

(01* " wife does not automatically gain the hus$and2sdomicile 3hat petitioner gained upon marriage was

actual residence 4he did not lose her domicile of 

origin %he term residence may mean one thing in civil

law 5or under the 6ivil 6ode7 and quite another thing in

political law 3hat stands clear is that insofar as the

6ivil 6ode is concerned8a'ecting the rights and

o$ligations of hus$and and wife 9 the term residenceshould only $e interpreted to mean actual residence

 %he inescapa$le conclusion derived from this

unam$iguous civil law delineation therefore, is that

when petitioner married the former -resident in (01;,

she &ept her domicile of origin and merely gained a

new home, not a domicilium necessarium

d /ven assuming for the sa&e of argument that

petitioner gained a new domicile after her marriage

and only acquired a right to choose a new one after her

hus$and died, petitioner#s acts following her return to

the country clearly indicate that she not only impliedly

$ut e

8/19/2019 Case Readings Domicile Rights

3/3

the 6hairman of the -6== when petitioner sought the

-6==#s permission to reha$ilitate 5our7 ancestral

house in %aclo$an and Farm in lot, Leyte to ma&e

them liva$le for the !arcos family to have a home inour homeland Furthermore, petitioner o$tained her

residence certicate in (00* in %aclo$an, Leyte, while

living in her $rother#s house, an act which supports the

domiciliary intention clearly manifested in her letters to

the -6== 6hairman