Vivero v. Murillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mateo G. Murillo, the defendant-appellee, was born and raised in La Paz, Leyte. He left La Paz to pursue studies in Tacloban, Calbayog, and Manila, returning annually for vacations. While studying in Manila, he served as private secretary to Senator Veloso. In 1925, he registered as a voter in Burauen, Leyte, while campaigning for Senator Veloso. He returned to Manila to continue his law studies. In December 1926, he announced his candidacy for municipal president of La Paz for the 1928 elections and ordered materials for a house. He frequently visited La Paz, brought his family there in February 1927, and lived there with them from July to November 1927, before returning to Manila. He finally returned to La Paz in November 1927 and remained there until the June 1928 elections. On April 4, 1928, he filed a petition to cancel his voter registration in Burauen. On April 14, 1928, he presented a copy of this cancellation petition when registering as a voter in La Paz. Procedural History: The plaintiff-appellant, Nicasio Vivero, filed a quo warranto proceeding challenging Murillo's eligibility. The Court of First Instance of Leyte denied the remedy, dismissed the proceeding, and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, assigning eight alleged errors.
Issue(s)
Whether Mateo G. Murillo had a legal residence in the municipality of La Paz before the general elections of 1928 to be eligible for the office of municipal president. Whether the failure to formally cancel his voter registration in Burauen rendered him ineligible.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, finding that Mateo G. Murillo was eligible for the office of municipal president of La Paz. The Court held that he retained his legal residence in La Paz despite his studies elsewhere and that his eligibility was not affected by the uncancelled voter registration in Burauen.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of legal residence: The Court held that Mateo G. Murillo did not lose his legal residence in La Paz by merely studying in other municipalities or provinces. As he was single and supported by his parents while studying, his residence was considered that of his parents. His annual returns to his parents' home in La Paz during vacations, and his eventual establishment of residence there with his family and subsequent continuous presence until the elections, solidified his legal residence in La Paz. The Court emphasized that temporary absences for studies, especially when financially dependent on parents whose residence is in the municipality, do not automatically sever legal ties to the original domicile. On the issue of voter registration: The Court ruled that the failure to have his voter registration in Burauen formally cancelled did not render Murillo ineligible. Citing its own doctrine in Yra vs. Abano, the Court clarified that being a "qualified voter" does not strictly require being a registered voter. Eligibility hinges on possessing the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law. Registration is a condition precedent to the exercise of the right to vote, not a qualification for the right itself. Therefore, Murillo's act of registering as a voter in La Paz and petitioning for the cancellation of his Burauen registration, coupled with his actual residence and intent to remain, satisfied the requirements for eligibility to the office of municipal president.
Main Doctrine
A student living with parents in a municipality, who pursues studies elsewhere supported by parents and returns for vacations, does not lose residence in said municipality. Eligibility for municipal president is maintained even if voter registration in the former municipality has not been cancelled, provided the candidate possesses the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the Election Law.