Coquilla v. COMELEC - Digest

Case Name TEODULO M. COQUILLA, petitioner, vs . THE HON.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and MR. NEIL M. ALVAREZ, respondents.
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 151914 | July 31, 2002
Ponente MENDOZA, J.
TOPIC: Loss of Citizenship

Const. Art. Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
FACTS:
 Petitioner was born on February 17, 1938 to Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern Samar.
 He grew up and resided there until 1965, when he joined the US Navy and was subsequently naturalized as
U.S. citizen.
 From 1970 to 1973, he visited the Philippines thrice while on leave from the US Navy; otherwise, he
remained in the US even after his retirement in 1985.
 He then came to PH in Oct. 15 1998 and took a residence certificate although he continued making several
trips to the US. Then, he applied for repatriation and consequently took his oath as a citizen of the
Philippines.
 On Nov. 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter and was approved. Subsequently, he then filed his
certificate of candidacy (COC) stating therein that he had been a resident of Oras for “two years.”
 Respondent (Alvarez), then incumbent Mayor of Oras and who was running for reelection, sought the
cancellation of petitioner's COC on the ground that the latter had made a material misrepresentation by
stating that he had been a resident of Oras for two years when in truth he had resided therein for only six
months since he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines.
 COMELEC was unable to render judgment before elections, and so petitioner won against Alvarez, was then
proclaimed, and took his oath of office.
 Two months later, the Second Division of the COMELEC granted Alvarez’ petition and ordered the
cancellation of petitioner's COC on the ground that his frequent trips to the Philippines after his retirement
do not constitute residency. Hence, he did not meet the residency requirement. MFR denied by COMELEC en
banc.
Procedural Issues:
1. W/N the 30-day period for appealing the resolution of the COMELEC was suspended by the filing of a motion
for reconsideration by petitioner pursuant to Rule 19, §4 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure i
YES. The motion for reconsideration was not pro forma ii and its filing did suspend the period for filing the
petition for certiorari in this case. The mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the issues raised
by the parties and passed upon by the court does not make a motion pro forma;
2. W/N the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to decide this case notwithstanding the proclamation of petitioner
YES. Proceedings for disqualification of candidates or for the cancellation or denial of certificates of
candidacy, which have been begun before the elections, should continue even after such elections and
proclamation of the winners as provided in Sec. 6 of RA 6646.
(Main) Substantive Issue:

1. W/N petitioner had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar at least one (1) year before the elections held on
May 14, 2001 – NO.
The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or
"habitation," 21 but rather to "domicile" or legal residence, that is, "the place where a party actually or
constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time,
eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi)." A domicile of origin is acquired by every person
at birth. It is usually the place where the child's parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by
acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice).
In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in
the U.S. Navy in 1965. From then on and until November 10, 2000 when he reacquired Philippine
citizenship, petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in the Philippines save as our immigration
laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien.
Sub-issues:
• W/N he reestablished residence in this country in 1998 when he came back to prepare for the mayoralty
elections of Oras by securing a Community Tax Certificate in that year and by "constantly declaring" to his
townmates of his intention to seek repatriation and run for mayor
- No. The status of being an alien and a non-resident can be waived either separately, when one
acquires the status of a resident alien before acquiring Philippine citizenship, or at the same time
when one acquires Philippine citizenship. Petitioner can only be held to have waived his status as an
alien and as a non-resident only on November 10, 2000 upon taking his oath as a citizen of the
Philippines.
• W/N he can invoke the ruling in Frivaldo v. COMELEC or Bengzon III v. HRep Electoral Tribunal
- No. Different facts/doctrines. Residency was not an issue in Frivaldo and this Court did not make any
ruling on the issue now at bar. In Bengzon, what the Court held was that upon repatriation, a former
natural-born Filipino is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen.
 W/N his registration as a voter of Butnga, Oras, Eastern Samar in January 2001 is conclusive of his
residency
- No. As held in Nuval v. Guray, registration as a voter does not bar the filing of a subsequent case
questioning a candidate's lack of residency.
 W/N he was denied due process because the COMELEC failed to act on his motion to be allowed to
present evidence.
- No. Proceedings for denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy are summary in nature. The
holding of a formal hearing is thus not de rigeur.iii In any event, he submitted complete and intact
documents where his arguments relied.
 W/N the COMELEC was justified in ordering the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy
- YES. Misrepresentation of a material fact justifies the cancellation of petitioner's certi􀀽cate of
candidacy
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the resolution of the Second Division of the Commission on
Elections, dated July 19, 2001, and the order, dated January 30, 2002 of the Commission on Elections en banc
are AFFIRMED.
i
Sec. 4.— A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling, when not pro-forma, suspends the running of the period
to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court
ii
Pro forma: Latin for "as a matter of form" or "for the sake of form"
iii
"out of strictness" or "according to strict etiquette"

Coquilla v. COMELEC - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coquilla v. COMELEC - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coquilla v. COMELEC - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Name TEODULO M. COQUILLA, petitioner, vs . THE HON.

TOPIC: Loss of Citizenship

(Main) Substantive Issue:

You might also like