DATU PAX ALI S. MANGUDADATU VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
- G.R. Number: G.R. Nos. 260219 & 260231
- Promulgated: 2025-04-22
- Ponente: GAERLAN, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Datu Pax Ali S. Mangudadatu (Pax Ali), who was the incumbent Mayor of Datu Abdullah Sangki (DAS), Maguindanao, filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Provincial Governor of Sultan Kudarat for the May 9, 2022 elections. In his COC, he declared his residence as Purok Garden, Tamnag, Lutayan, Sultan Kudarat, and indicated a residence period of one year and eight months up to the day before the elections. Sharifa Akeel Mangudadatu and Azel V. Mangudadatu, along with Bai Ali A. Untong, filed petitions to deny due course to or cancel Pax Ali's COC, alleging that he misrepresented his residency, as he remained the Mayor of DAS, Maguindanao, and thus could not have abandoned his residence there to establish a new one in Sultan Kudarat. They presented evidence of Pax Ali performing his mayoral duties. Pax Ali countered that his domicile of origin was Sultan Kudarat and that while he temporarily transferred to DAS for his mayoral candidacy in 2018, he always intended to return to Sultan Kudarat. He claimed to have increased his physical presence and moved his belongings to Lutayan since July 2020, and resigned as Mayor of DAS on November 15, 2021, as proof of his abandonment of his old domicile. He provided various documents and affidavits to support his claim of re-establishing residence in Lutayan since October 2020, including a transfer of voter's registration on May 17, 2021. The COMELEC First Division granted the petitions and canceled Pax Ali's COC, finding that he failed to comply with the requisites for a valid transfer of residence and made a false material representation with deliberate intent to deceive. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this decision. Pax Ali then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Pax Ali's COC on the ground of false material representation regarding his residency qualification? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court ruled that the **COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion** in canceling Pax Ali's COC. The Court reiterated that for a petition under **Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC)** to prosper, three requisites must concur: (1) a candidate made a material representation in his or her COC; (2) such representation is false; and (3) he or she made the representation with the intent to deceive the electorate. Pax Ali's declaration in his COC that he had been a resident of Lutayan, Sultan Kudarat for one year and eight months before the May 9, 2022 elections was a **material representation** because residency is a qualification for the position of Governor under **Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code (LGC)**. The Court found Pax Ali's representation to be **false**. While Pax Ali's domicile of origin was Lutayan, Sultan Kudarat, he admittedly established a new domicile of choice in DAS, Maguindanao, when he ran for Mayor in 2018. To re-acquire a domicile of choice, there must be (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there for an indefinite period (animus manendi), and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile (animus non revertendi). While Pax Ali presented sufficient evidence of physical presence in Lutayan, Sultan Kudarat, his intent to abandon DAS and remain in Lutayan was lacking at the critical time. Pax Ali was still the incumbent Mayor of DAS, Maguindanao, when he filed his COC on October 7, 2021. As Mayor, he had a continuing requirement to remain a resident of DAS throughout his tenure. His continued discharge of mayoral duties in DAS until his resignation on November 15, 2021, negated any genuine intention to abandon DAS as his domicile and establish Lutayan as his new one. The Court considered his resignation as a "mere afterthought" after two petitions for cancellation of his COC were filed, and thus, it came too late to satisfy the one-year residency requirement. Counting from his resignation date,…
Keywords
Rule 64 Rules of Court, Rule 65 Rules of Court, Section 74 Omnibus Election Code, Section 78 Omnibus Election Code, Section 40 Local Government Code, Section 12 Omnibus Election Code, Section 68 Omnibus Election Code, Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, Res Judicata, First Qualified Placer Rule, void ab initio, Election Law, Residency Requirement, Certificate of Candidacy, Material Misrepresentation, Disqualification of Candidates, Petition for Certiorari, Domicile of Origin, Animus Manendi