Romualdez v. Regional Trial Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Philip G. Romualdez established his legal residence in Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte, in the early 1980s, constructing a house and serving as Barangay Captain, and acted as Campaign Manager for the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) in Leyte during the 1984 Batasan Election and the 1986 "snap" Presidential Election. Procedural History: Following the 1986 EDSA People's Power Revolution, Romualdez left the Philippines for the United States, fearing for his safety. He returned to the Philippines in December 1991, and on February 1, 1992, registered as a voter. Respondent Donato Advincula filed a petition for exclusion, alleging Romualdez lacked the required residence. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) denied the petition, finding Romualdez to be a qualified voter. Advincula appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTC decision, disqualifying Romualdez and ordering his name deleted from the voter's list. The Petition: Romualdez filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's decision. The Court issued a temporary restraining order, and the Solicitor General supported Romualdez's position.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquired jurisdiction over the case, considering the petitioner's alleged lack of locus standi. Whether the respondent court erred in finding that the petitioner voluntarily left the country and abandoned his residence in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.
Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit. The Supreme Court GRANTED due course to the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the respondent Regional Trial Court dated April 3, 1992, and REINSTATED the Decision of the Municipal Trial Court dated February 28, 1992. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court was made PERMANENT.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the petitioner was estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the MTC and RTC. While lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage, active participation in the proceedings, including seeking affirmative relief, precludes a party from later questioning such jurisdiction. Furthermore, the issue was considered more as one of locus standi, which was deemed foreclosed at that stage due to the petitioner's active participation and invocation of the court's jurisdiction. On Issue 2: The Court found for the petitioner, holding that he did not voluntarily abandon his residence in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. The Court reiterated that in election cases, "residence" is synonymous with "domicile," which requires not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence and conduct indicative of such intention. To acquire a new domicile by choice, there must be bodily presence in the new locality, an intention to remain there, and an intention to abandon the old domicile (animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi). The Court reasoned that the departure from the Philippines due to the political upheaval and fear for personal safety following the 1986 EDSA Revolution could not be described as "voluntary" or as "abandonment of residence" in the context of domicile by choice. The Court emphasized that the right to vote is a precious political right that must be safeguarded for those entitled to exercise it. The records did not sufficiently convince the Court that Romualdez had abandoned his Philippine residence and established domicile elsewhere.
Main Doctrine
The departure from the country due to political upheaval and fear for personal safety, without an intention to remain abroad indefinitely or abandon one's domicile, does not constitute voluntary abandonment of residence for purposes of election law.