G.R. No. 179851 April 18, 2008 MAYOR JOSE UGDORACION JR.

vs COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and EPHRAIM M. TUNGOL

Facts:

Ugdoracion and private respondent, Ephraim Tungol, were rival mayoralty candidates in the
Municipality of Albuquerque, Province of Bohol in the May 14, 2007 elections. Both filed their
respective Certificates of Candidacy (COC).

On April 11, 2007, Tungol filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel the Certificate of
Candidacy of Jose Ugdoracion, Jr., contending that Ugdoracion's declaration of eligibility for
Mayor constituted material misrepresentation because Ugdoracion is actually a "green card"
holder or a permanent resident of the United States of America (USA). Specifically, Ugdoracion
stated in his COC that he had resided in Albuquerque, Bohol, Philippines for forty-one years
before May 14, 2007 and he is not a permanent resident or an immigrant to a foreign country.

It appears that Ugdoracion became a permanent resident of the USA on September 26, 2001.
Accordingly, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Services2 (USINS) issued him
Alien Number 047-894-254.3

For his part, Ugdoracion argued that, in our jurisdiction, domicile is equivalent to residence, and
he retained his domicile of origin (Albuquerque, Bohol) notwithstanding his ostensible
acquisition of permanent residency in the USA. Ugdoracion then pointed to the following
documents as proof of his substantial compliance with the residency requirement: (1) a
residence certificate dated May 5, 2006; (2) an application for a new voter's registration dated
October 12, 2006; and (3) a photocopy of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status
dated October 18, 2006.

On May 8, 2007, the COMELEC First Division promulgated one of the herein questioned
resolutions canceling Ugdoracion's COC and removing his name from the certified list of
candidates for the position of Mayor of Albuquerque, Bohol. Posthaste, on May 11, 2007,
Ugdoracion filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution arguing in the main that
his status as a "green card" holder was not of his own making but a mere offshoot of a petition
filed by his sister. He admitted his intermittent travels to the USA, but only to visit his siblings,
and short working stint thereat to cover his subsistence for the duration of his stay.

Issue: The sole issue for our resolution is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in canceling Ugdoracion's COC for material misrepresentation. Essentially, the issue
hinges on whether the representations contained in Ugdoracion's COC, specifically, that he
complied with the residency requirement and that he does not have "green card" holder status,
are false.
Ruling:

We find no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's cancellation of Ugdoracion's COC for
material misrepresentation. Accordingly, the petition must fail.

Viewed in this light, the question posed by Ugdoracion is hardly a novel one.

Ugdoracion urges us, however, that he did not lose his domicile of origin because his acquisition
of a "green card" was brought about merely by his sister's petition. He maintains that, except for
this unfortunate detail, all other facts demonstrate his retention of residence in Albuquerque,
Bohol. Believing in the truth of these circumstances, he simply echoed in his COC a truthful
statement that he is a resident of Albuquerque, Bohol, and, therefore, eligible and qualified to
run for Mayor thereof.

We are not convinced. Ugdoracion's assertions miss the mark completely. The dust had long
settled over the implications of a "green card" holder status on an elective official's qualification
for public office. We ruled in Caasi v. Court of Appeals10 that a Filipino citizen's acquisition of a
permanent resident status abroad constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and residence in
the Philippines. In short, the "green card" status in the USA is a renunciation of one's status as a
resident of the Philippines.

We agree with Ugdoracion that residence, in contemplation of election laws, is synonymous to

domicile. Domicile is the place where one actually or constructively has his permanent home,
where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return
(animus revertendi) and remain (animus manendi).12 It consists not only in the intention to
reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative
of such intention.

Domicile is classified into (1) domicile of origin, which is acquired by every person at birth; (2)
domicile of choice, which is acquired upon abandonment of the domicile of origin; and (3)
domicile by operation of law, which the law attributes to a person independently of his residence
or intention.

In a controversy such as the one at bench, given the parties' naturally conflicting perspectives
on domicile, we are guided by three basic rules, namely: (1) a man must have a residence or
domicile somewhere; (2) domicile, once established, remains until a new one is validly acquired;
and (3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at any given time.

The general rule is that the domicile of origin is not easily lost; it is lost only when there is an
actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence
and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with such purpose. In the instant case,
however, Ugdoracion's acquisition of a lawful permanent resident status in the United States
amounted to an abandonment and renunciation of his status as a resident of the Philippines; it
constituted a change from his domicile of origin, which was Albuquerque, Bohol, to a new
domicile of choice, which is the USA.

The contention that Ugdoracion's USA resident status was acquired involuntarily, as it was
simply the result of his sister's beneficence, does not persuade. Although immigration to the
USA through a petition filed by a family member (sponsor) is allowed by USA immigration
laws,16 the petitioned party is very much free to accept or reject the grant of resident status.
Permanent residency in the USA is not conferred upon the unwilling; unlike citizenship, it is not
bestowed by operation of law. And to reiterate, a person can have only one residence or
domicile at any given time.

Moreover, Ugdoracion's contention is decimated by Section 6818 of the Omnibus Election Code
and Section 40(f)19 of the Local Government Code, which disqualifies a permanent resident of,
or an immigrant to, a foreign country, unless said person waives his status.