This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The COMELEC en banc subsequently denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.[47] Citing Sabili v. COMELEC and Librea,[48] the COMELEC en banc stated that it is not required that a candidate should have his own house in order to establish his residence or domicile in a place.[49] It is enough that he should live in the locality even in a rented house or that of a friend or a relative.[50] | |||||
|
2013-10-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In this light, the alleged admission is not an issue that can be submitted and appreciated by this Court in the present proceedings. If the Court appreciates at all the evidence that the COMELEC cited, appreciated and evaluated, it is for the purpose of determining if the appreciation and evaluation are so grossly unreasonable as to turn into an error of jurisdiction. In these instances, the Court is compelled by its bounden constitutional duty to intervene and correct the COMELEC's error.[50] Note that as pointed out above the COMELEC never even considered the alleged admission in its rulings. Thus, there is no basis for this Court to consider or appreciate this admission in the present proceedings. | |||||
|
2013-06-25 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Petitioner relies on Mitra v. COMELEC[4] and Sabili v. COMELEC[5] in claiming that "the series of events whereby petitioner first had her residence constructed [...] after she purchased in 2008 the property where her residence was eventually established, and while she lived in another barangay of the same municipality, and then eventually moved in to her residence in Brgy. Tugas amounted to an 'incremental process' of transferring residence." | |||||
|
2013-06-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the present Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Ante Order, petitioner raises the following issues:[19] | |||||