Romualdez vs RTC Tacloban226 SCRA 408Facts:Petitioner Philip Romuadez is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, also the son of the former Governor of Leyte and nephew of then First Lady Imelda Marcos.In the early 1980s, he established his legal residence in Brgy. Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte by causing the cinstruction of his residential house therein. He also served as Brgy. Captain in the 1980s and had also acted as Campaign Manager of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan in Leyte, where he voted in the 1984 Batasan Election and in the 1986 Snap Presidential Election.During the People Power Revolution in 1986, petitioner and his immediate family fled to the US, and on December 23, 1991, he was able to return to the Philippines and immediately went back to his residence in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. On February 1, 1992, petitioner registered himself anew as a voter of Precinct #9 of said place. The Chairman of the BOI, who had known him to be a resident of the place, allowed his registration.On February 21, 1992, respondent Donato Advincula filed a petition with the MTC of Tolosa praying that Romualdez be excluded from the list of voters in Precinct #9 alleging that:a. Romualdez was a resident of Massachusetts, USA;b. Romualdezs profession & occupation was in the USA; andc. Romualdez does not have the required 1-year residence in the Philippines and the 6 months residence in the city/municipality to qualify as registered voter.Romualdez contended that he has been a resident of Tolosa since early 1980s and that he has not abandoned his residence from his physical absence from 1986-1991.After hearing, the court decided in favor of Romualdez. Thus, Advincual appealed to the RTC which reversed the decision of the lower court thereby ordering the COMELEC of Tolosa, Leyte to delete and cancel the name of petitioner from the list of qualified voters.ISSUES:W/N The MTC or RTC acquired jurisdiction over the petitions. YESW/N Romualdez is qualified to be registered as a voter. YESHeld:Section 142 of the Omnibus Election Coe provides that any registered voter in the city or municipality may petition for the exclusion of voter from the list. However, in the case at bar, Romualdez was estopped from assailing lack of jurisdiction by reason of his active participation in the proceedings before a court without jurisdiction. Romualdez has sought an affirmative relief when the appeal was made to the RTC whose jurisdiction, he, in effect invoked.In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous terms, thus: "(t)he term "residence" as used in the election law is synonymous with "domicile", which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention." "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. That residence, in the case of the petitioner, was established during the early 1980's to be at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. Residence thus acquired, however, may be lost by adopting another choice of domicile. In order, in turn, to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words, there must basically 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. The political situation brought about by the "People's Power Revolution" must have truly caused great apprehension to the Romualdezes, as well as a serious concern over the safety and welfare of the members of their families. Their going into self-exile until conditions favorable to them would have somehow stabilized is understandable. Certainly, their sudden departure from the country cannot be described as "voluntary," or as "abandonment of residence" at least in the context that these terms are used in applying the concept of "domicile by choice."We have closely examined the records, and we find not that much to convince us that the petitioner had, in fact, abandoned his residence in the Philippines and established his domicile elsewhere.It must be emphasized that the right to vote is a most precious political right, as well as a bounden duty of every citizen, enabling and requiring him to participate in the process of government so as to ensure that the government can truly be said to derive its power solely from the consent of the governed.

Lacson vs Posadas72 SCRA 168Facts:Municipal Judge Ramon Posadas of Talisay, Negros Occidental is charged in a complaint filed by Lacson for ignorance of the law, partiality and violation of Lection Code 1971.Judge Posadas was found to have failed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 136 of the Election Code of 1971 which states:Any person who has been refused registration or whose name has been stricken out from the permanent list of voters may at any time except sixty (60) days before a regular election or twenty-five (25) days before a special election, apply to the proper court for an order directing the election registration board or the board of inspectors as the case may be, to include or reinstate his name in the permanent list of voters, attaching to his application for inclusion the certificate of the Electron registration board or the board of inspectors regarding his case and proof of service of a copy of his application and of the notice of hearing thereof upon a member of the said board.ISSUE: W/N Judge Posadas violated the right to Suffrage of Lacson. YESHeld: In our republican system of government, the exercise by the people of their right of suffrage is the expression of their sovereign will. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the free and voluntary use of this right be effectively protected by the law and by governmental authority. As stated in an earlier case:* * * The people in clothing a citizen with the elective franchise for the purpose of securing a consistent and perpetual administration of the government they ordain, charge him with the performance of a duty in the nature of a public trust, and in that respect constitute him a representative of the whole people. This duty requires that the privilege thus bestowed should be exercise, not exclusively for the benefit of the citizen or class of citizens professing it, but in good faith and with an intelligent zeal for the general benefit and welfare of the state. In the last analysis, therefore, the inclusion in or exclusion from the permanent electoral list of any voter concerns not only the latter in his individual capacity but the public in general.