FAYPON VS QUIRINO

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

FACTS:
Respondent was born in Caoayan, Ilocos Sur; came to Manila to pursue his studies; went to United States for the same purpose; returned to the Philippines; and engaged in the newspaper work in Manila, and Iloilo. When he ran for the office of Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur, he was proclaimed by the provincial board of canvassers as the governor. A petition for quo warranto was filed by the petitioner on the ground of respondent's ineligibility for the said office because of alleged lack of residence. The petitioner relies on the fact that the respondent registered as voter in Pasay City in 1946 and 1947.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent's acts, activities, and utterances constitute abandonment or loss of his residence of origin.

RULING:
NO. The Court ruled out that mere absence from one's residence or origin - domicile - to pursue studies, engage in business, or practice his avocation, is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence.

A citizen may leave the place of his birth to look for "greener pastures" to improve his lot. 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 but for professional or business reason, he may not be absent himself from the place of his activities; so there he registers as voter. Despite such registration, the animus revertendi to his home, to his domicile or residence of origin, he has not forsaken him. Thus, registration of a voter in another place has not been deemed sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence.

RODRIGUEZ VS MONTINOLA

G.R. No. L-5689                   May 14, 1954

FACTS:

This is an original action of certiorari instituted in this Court by the Provincial Governor ad the members of the Provincial Board of Pangasinan to nullify the disapproval of the Secretary of Finance of their Resolution No. 55 dated January 30, 1952, abolishing the positions of three special counsel in the province, to prohibit the provincial treasurer and the district auditor from paying the salaries of three special counsel from February 1, 1952, and to prevent the latter from continuing to occupy and exercise the functions incident to their positions.

RULING: 

The Secretary of Finance is an official of the central government, not of provincial governments, which are distinct and separate. If any power of general supervision is given him over local governments, certainly it can not be understood to mean or to include the right to direct action or even to control action, as in cases of school superintendents or supervisors within their respective districts. Such power (of general supervision) may include correction of violations of law, or of gross errors, abuses, offenses, or maladministration. Unless the acts of local officials or provincial governments constitute maladministration, or an abuse or violation of a law , the power of general supervision can not be exercised. In synthesis, we hold that the power of general supervision granted the President, in the absence of any express provision of law, may not generally be interpreted to mean that he, or hisalter ego, the Secretary of Finance, may direct the form and manner in which local officials shall perform or comply with their duties.