Ang Kek Chen v. Calasan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ang Kek Chen filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' (CA) resolution that set aside the trial court's dismissal of a complaint for damages filed by respondents, Spouses Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan and Leticia B. Calasan. The respondents filed the complaint for damages against petitioner and his spouse in Aparri, Cagayan, alleging malicious imputations made by petitioner. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and improper venue. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, dismissed the complaint, finding that the venue was improperly laid. The CA, in its initial decision, affirmed this dismissal. However, upon respondents' motion for reconsideration, the CA set aside its earlier decision and ordered the trial court to proceed with the trial, ruling that the venue was properly laid. The CA's reversal was based on its finding that respondents' residence was in Aparri, Cagayan, and that absence from legal residence to pursue a profession does not constitute loss of residence. The Petition: Petitioner Ang Kek Chen filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in reversing its initial decision and reinstating the trial court's dismissal, thereby upholding the improper venue of the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its initial decision and ordering the trial court to proceed with the trial, thereby upholding the improper venue of the complaint for damages, considering the distinction between 'actual residence' and 'domicile'. Whether the venue for the complaint for damages was properly laid in Aparri, Cagayan, or whether it should have been laid in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, based on the 'actual residence' of the offended parties at the time of the commission of the alleged libelous acts.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals, reinstating and affirming its August 12, 2002 Decision. Consequently, the February 26, 2002 Order of the Aparri, Cagayan RTC, Branch 8, dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 08-418, was likewise affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of venue and the distinction between 'actual residence' and 'domicile': The Court held that the venue for libel cases, as provided in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, is determined by where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. The Court emphasized that 'actual residence' is distinct from 'domicile.' 'Actual residence' signifies physical presence and actual stay in a place, meaning bodily presence as an inhabitant, which must be more than temporary. Domicile, on the other hand, requires bodily presence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. The Court found that the CA erred in its resolution when it equated 'residence' with 'domicile' and disregarded the trial court's factual finding of actual residence in Las Piñas. The trial court found that while respondents were domiciled in Aparri, Cagayan, they habitually resided in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, due to their profession and occupation. This finding of 'actual residence' in Las Piñas was supported by evidence such as Community Tax Certificates. The Court reiterated that one may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another, and for venue purposes, 'actual residence' is the controlling factor. Therefore, the complaint for damages, which stemmed from alleged libelous acts committed in 2000, should have been filed in the place where the offended parties actually resided at that time, which the trial court found to be Las Piñas, not Aparri, Cagayan. The Court concluded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint due to improper venue.
Main Doctrine
For purposes of determining venue in libel cases under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, 'actual residence' refers to the physical habitation or abode of a person, which may not necessarily be their legal residence or domicile, and requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, more than temporary. Domicile, conversely, requires bodily presence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time.