Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC and Montejo

Facts:

Roy Montejo questioned Marcos’ candidacy as representative of the 1st district of Leyte on the ground that she is not a resident thereof as required by the Constitution. Montejo contended that Tacloban was Marcos’ domicile of origin because she did not live there until she was eight (8) years old. Moreover, Marcos resided and used to be a registered voter in San Juan and in Manila.

Issue:

Whether or not Mrs. Marcos meets the residency requirement to run as representative in Leyte

Held:

Yes. Marcos is domiciled in Tacloban, hence she meets the Constitutional requirement on residency. Residence and domicile are synonymous in election law. Mere absence of an individual from his/her permanent residence without the intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile. Also, when she married the former President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium. The Supreme Court held that even the matter of a common residence between the husband and the wife during the marriage is not an iron-clad principle. In cases applying the Civil Code on the question of common matrimonial residence, our jurisprudence has recognize certain situations where the spouses could not be compelled to live with each other such that the wife is either allowed to maintain a residence different from that of her husband or, for obviously practical reasons, revert to her original domicile (apart from being allowed to opt for a new one).

In De La Vina v. Villareal, a married woman may acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her husband during the existence of the marriage when the husband has given cause for divorce. The Supreme Court also allowed the wife to either obtain a new residence or to choose a new domicile in such an event. In the instances where the wife actually opts, under the Civil Code, to live separately from her husband either by taking new residence or reverting to her domicile of origin, the wife could not be compelled to live with her husband on pain of contempt. In Arroyo v. Vazquez-Arroyo, the Court held that it is not within the province of the courts at this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to the other.