G.R. No. 30510 , December 21, 1928
ABENCIO TORRES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, and DEOGRACIAS MOLO, respondents.

DOCTRINE:
The jurisdiction of a court over an election contest is acquired upon the filing of a motion of protest that alleges the essential jurisdictional facts prescribed by law. It is not a jurisdictional requirement that all other registered candidates voted for the same office be formally named as protestees in the protest, provided their names appear therein and they are either summoned or voluntarily appear.

FACTS

1. In the June 5, 1928, elections for Municipal Vice-President of Makato, Capiz, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Abencio Torres (protestee/petitioner) as the winner with 318 votes. Deogracias Molo (protestant/respondent) received 314 votes, while Alejandro Legaspi and Baselides Tabernilla received 274 and 12 votes, respectively.
2. On June 15, 1928, Deogracias Molo filed an election protest against Abencio Torres alone. The protest alleged that due to fraud in the reading of ballots in Precinct No. 2, 29 votes for Legaspi, 8 votes for Molo, and 6 votes for Tabernilla were wrongly credited to Torres. The protest included the names and vote totals of all four candidates but named only Torres as the protestee.
3. Torres filed a motion to dismiss the protest, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the other candidates (Legaspi and Tabernilla) were not included as parties.
4. On July 14, 1928, Legaspi and Tabernilla voluntarily appeared in the case. On July 21, 1928, Molo filed an amended protest including all candidates as protestees.
5. The Court of First Instance of Capiz denied the motion to dismiss and later rendered judgment in favor of Molo.
6. Torres filed this original petition for *certiorari* with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul all proceedings, orders, and the judgment in the election contest. He contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the original protest did not include all candidates voted for as parties.

ISSUE

Did the Court of First Instance of Capiz acquire jurisdiction over Election Contest No. 2447 despite the original protest not formally naming all other registered candidates voted for as protestees?

RULING

NO, the trial court did not lose jurisdiction. The petition for *certiorari* is denied and dismissed.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. The essential jurisdictional facts for an election contest, as established by jurisprudence, are: (a) the protestant was a duly registered candidate who received votes; (b) the protestee was proclaimed elected; and (c) the protest was filed within two weeks after proclamation. Molo’s protest contained all these allegations.

The Court clarified the distinction between jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the
* Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is acquired by the court upon the filing of a protest alleging the essential facts. The omission of party names does not affect this.
* Jurisdiction over the person of the protestee is acquired through valid summons. The omission of a candidate’s name from the protest would merely prevent them from being summoned, but does not strip the court of its power to hear the case.

The Court noted that Section 481 of the Election Law (as amended) stated that “the candidate whose election is contested and all other registered candidates voted for may reply…” This wording implies it is sufficient for their names to appear in the protest so they may be summoned, not that they must all be formally named as protestees.

In this case, the names of Legaspi and Tabernilla were mentioned in the body of the original protest. More importantly, they subsequently entered a voluntary appearance, which conferred jurisdiction over their persons upon the court. Therefore, any technical defect in the original pleading was cured. Consequently, the trial court had full jurisdiction to try and decide the election contest.