Article 50, NCC of the Philippines

Article 50. For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence.

The domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence.

There are two (2) elements of domicile:

1.The fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place;

2. The intention to remain permanently or animus manendi

The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile and in case of disagreement, the court shall decide (Art. 69 Family Code). The Family Code abrogated the inequality between husband and wife where the husband, under the old law, fixes or dictates the domicile of the wife. It was gender-based discrimination and not rationally related to the objective of family solidarity. 

But the court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if:

1. the latter should live abroad;

2. there are other compelling reasons for the exemption.

There distinctions between the domicile and the residence: "A residence is not a domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intent of returning.”

A residence is a place of abode; permanent or temporary; a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes; and involves the intent to leave as soon the purpose is established.

A domicile, on the other hand, is a fixed permanent residence, to which, when one absent, one has the intention of returning (Imelda R Marcos v. COMELEC, et al, GR No. 119976, Sept. 18, 1995).

The important points in domicile have to be noted: 

1. A domicile, once acquired is retained until a new one is gained. 

2. Domicile is not lost even if one has lived and maintained residences in different places for some purposes, without having had the intention to abandon it by reason of occupation, profession, etc., shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence. 

In matters of domicile, a minor follows the domicile of his parents. In the case of Imelda R. Marcos v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995, it was said that a domicile, once acquired is retained until a new one is gained. In spite of her having born in Manila, Tacloban, Leyte is her place of domicile of origin by operation of law. This was not established only when she reached the age of 18 years old, but when his father brought his family back to Leyte. Domicile is not easily lost.

To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate:

1. an actual removal or change of domicile;

2. a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and

3. acts which correspond with the purpose.

Imelda R. Marcos v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995

Facts: 

Imelda R. Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte stating, among others, her residence in the place was seven (7) months. Cong. Cirilo Roy Montejo, another candidate, filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification of with the COMELEC contending, among others, that Imelda R. Marcos failed to comply with the one (1) - year residence requirement under the Constitution. An order was issued by the COMELEC disqualifying Imelda and canceling her certificate of candidacy. She filed an Amended Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, changing the "seven months" to "since childhood." It was denied because it was filed out of time. In an en banc resolution, the COMELEC  declared her as qualified to run and allowed her proclamation should she win in the election.  In another resolution same day, it directed that the proclamation is suspended in the event that she obtained the highest numbers of votes; hence, she went to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not Imelda Imelda Marcos was a resident of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of election on May 9, 1995.

Held: 

Yes. The Supreme Court said: 

"While the COMELEC seems to be in agreement with the general proposition that for purposes of election law, residence is synonymous to domicile, the Resolution reveals a tendency to substitute or mistake the concept of domicile for actual residence, a conception not intended for the purpose of determining a candidate's qualifications for election to the House of Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution. As it was the residence, for the purpose of meeting the qualification for an elective position, has settled meaning in our jurisdiction.

"Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that 'for the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is their place of habitual residence." In Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA 966; Corre, 100, Phil. 321, this Court took the concept of domicile to mean an individual's 'permanent' home,' 'a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent.' Based on the foregoing, domicile includes the twin elements of 'the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place' and animus manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently.

"Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country. The essential distinction between and domicile in that the residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a person's intent is to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent to leave after his purpose is established, it is a residence (Uytengsu v. Republic, Phil. 890).

Thus, it is quite normal for an individual to have different residences in various places. However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.

In Uytengsu v. Republic (supra) the Supreme Court laid this distinction quite clearly:

"There is a difference between domicile and residence.’Residence' is used to indicate a place of abode whether permanent or temporary; 'domicile' denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. A residence is not a domicile, but a domicile can be a residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may numerous places of residence. His place of residence is generally the place of domicile, but it is not by any means necessary so since no length of residence without the intention of remaining will constitute domicile.

The mere absence of a person from his permanent residence without the intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change in domicile.

On the matters of Imelda's domicile, the Supreme said:

"Thus, the assertion by the COMELEC that 'she could not have been a resident of Tacloban City from childhood up to the time she filed for her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) because became a resident of many places,' flies in the face of settled jurisprudence in which this Court carefully made distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for election law purposes."

In the instant case, in its proposition that the petitioner was ineligible to run for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC was obviously referring to the petitioner’s (actual) residence, not her domicile. This contention by the COMELEC ignores the settled jurisprudence on residence in election law, the deliberations of the constitutional commission, and the provisions of Omnibus Code (B.P Blg. 881) which provides that any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality, or country solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in public and private service, educational activities, work in military or naval service reservations, service in the army, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police force, or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.

References: 

Family Code of the Philippines 2017th Edition by Albano et al

sc.judiciary.gov.ph/