Faypon vs. Quirino

PERFECTO FAYPON, petitioner, vs. ELISEO QUIRINO, respondent.

G.R. No. L-7068, December 22, 1954

FACTS:

The respondent-appellee was born in Caoayan, Ilocos Sur in June, 1895. He went to study in the United States in 1919, and returned to the Philippines in 1923. On his return, he taught as professor in the University of the Philippines for four years. He became the owner and editor of the Intelligence in Manila then went to Iloilo as editor of the Iloilo Times. He was also the executive secretary and general manager of the NEPA (National Economic Protectionism Association), and the editor of Commerce, an official organ of the Chamber of Commerce in Manila. In 1946–1947, he was registered as a voter in Pasay City. On November 13, 1951, Quirino was elected by the provincial board of canvassers as the Provincial Governor. However, he was alleged to be ineligible for the said office because of lack of residence. The petitioner filed a petition of quo warranto, which was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case. Hence, the petitioner filed for a writ of certiorari.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the respondent’s registration as voter in Pasay City in 1946 and 1947 constitute abandonment or loss of his residence of origin.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court ruled that mere absence from one’s residence or origin or domicile to pursue studies, engage in business, or practice his avocation is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence. The determination of a person’s legal residence or domicile largely depends upon intention which may be inferred from his acts, activities and utterances.

A citizen may leave the place of his birth to improve his lot by studying in other places, practicing of his avocation, or engaging in business. When election is to be held, the citizen who left his birthplace to improve his lot may desire to return to his native town to cast his ballot. However, there are circumstances in which the person cannot not leave the place of his professional or business activities so there he registers as voter as he is qualified to be one. Despite such registration, the animus revertendi, or his intention to relocate to his home, to his domicile or residence of origin, he has not yet lost his residence of origin. In order to lose it, a strong feeling of attachment to the place of one’s birth must be overcome by positive proof of abandonment.

In addition, a candidate for provincial office who may not be actually present in his residence of origin, but who in good faith is a resident thereof for at least a year, would be enough to make him eligible for such office.

Wherefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that on the evidence the latter has found, the respondent has not lost his residence of origin.