G.R. No. L-16878; April 26, 1961
JUAN SANCHEZ, petitioner-appellee, vs. OSCAR DEL ROSARIO, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Juan Sanchez, a defeated candidate for councilor in Bocaue, Bulacan, filed a petition for quo warranto against the winning candidate, Oscar del Rosario, before the Court of First Instance. The petition sought to unseat Del Rosario on the ground of ineligibility. It was uncontested that on the date of the election, Del Rosario was only 21 years, 3 months, and 7 days old. Section 2174 of the Revised Administrative Code mandates that an elective municipal officer must be at least twenty-three years of age at the time of election.
The trial court ruled in favor of Sanchez, declaring Del Rosario ineligible and ordering him to vacate the office. Del Rosario appealed, raising several defenses. He argued that Sanchez was estopped from questioning his eligibility since Sanchez knew of the age issue before the election but failed to act. He also contended that Sanchez lacked legal personality to sue because Sanchez would not be entitled to the office even if Del Rosario were ousted. Further, Del Rosario claimed that a prior petition filed by another individual with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) against all Nacionalista Party candidates constituted res judicata. Lastly, he asserted that the age requirement should be considered merely directory after the election, invoking the will of the electorate.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Oscar del Rosario, being underage at the time of election, is ineligible for the office of municipal councilor, and whether the defenses he raised are valid to bar the quo warranto proceeding.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, declaring Del Rosario ineligible and ordering his ouster. The Court systematically rejected all of Del Rosario’s defenses. On estoppel, the Court held that the right to contest eligibility under existing law arises only after proclamation, citing that there was no authorized pre-election proceeding to bar an ineligible candidate. Sanchez properly followed the procedure under Section 173 of the Revised Election Code, which allows a quo warranto petition within one week after proclamation.
Regarding legal personality, the Court ruled that a petitioner in a quo warranto case under Section 173 need not be entitled to the office sought to be vacated. The law’s intent is to allow any registered candidate for the same office to challenge ineligibility, irrespective of whether they would succeed to the position. The defense of res judicata failed because the prior COMELEC petition was general, targeted all Nacionalista candidates for different reasons, and did not involve the specific issue of non-age. The Court noted that COMELEC’s duty to give due course to certificates of candidacy is ministerial, and it cannot ordinarily inquire into eligibility questions like age that do not appear on the face of the certificate.
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the age requirement becomes directory after the election. It cited precedent (Feliciano vs. Aquino) and noted that Del Rosario failed to meet the age qualification both at the time of election and, presumably, upon assumption of office. The constitutional and statutory qualifications for public office are mandatory and cannot be waived by the electorate’s vote. Therefore, the judgment unseating Del Rosario was affirmed.