JALOSJOS v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 191970; 24 April 2012

FACTS:
Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City on 26 October 1973. He migrated to Australia in
1981 and acquired Australian citizenship. On 22 November 2008, he returned to the
Philippines and lived with his brother in Brgy. Veteran’s Village, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
Four (4) days upon his return, he took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, resulting in his being issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine
Citizenship. On 1 September 2009, he renounced his Australian citizenship by executing a
sworn renunciation of the same in compliance with RA 9225.

From the time of his return, Jalosjos acquired a residential property in the same village and
a fishpond. He applied for registration as a voter of Ipil which was opposed by Dan Erasmo,
the barangay captain of said village. Jalosjo’s name was included in Comelec’s voters list. On
November 28, Jalosjos filed his COC for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay for the May 2010
elections. Erasmo promptly filed a petition to cancel the COC on the ground that Jalosjos
failed to comply with the requirements of RA 9225 and the one-year residency
requirement of the LGC. The 2nd Division of Comelec ruled that, while Jalosjos had regained
citizenship by complying with the requirements of RA 9225, he failed to prove the
residency requirement for a gubernatorial candidate. Further, he failed to present ample
proof of a bona fide intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. The En
Banc, on reconsideration, ruled as well that Jalosjos had been a mere guest or transient
visitor in his brother’s house and for this reason, he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile.

ISSUE:
Did Jalosjos fail to present ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish his domicile in
Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay?

HELD:
NO. The requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile, meaning that a person
must not only intend to reside in a particular place but must also have personal presence in
such place coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Jurisprudence has laid down
the following guidelines: (a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere; (b)
where once established, that domicile remains until he acquires a new one; and (c) a
person can have but one domicile at a time.

When he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his brother in Zamboanga,
it is evidence that Jalosjos did so with intent to change his domicile for good. He left
Australia, gave up his Australian citizenship and renounced his allegiance to that country.
In addition, he reacquired his old citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly
proving that he gave up his domicile there. And he has since lived nowhere else except in
Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. It is sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented
house or in the house of a friend or relative. What matters is that Jalosjos has proved two
(2) things: actual physical presence in the Philippines and an intention of making it his
domicile.