G.R. No. L-24316 November 28, 1967
EMILIANO R. FLORENDO, SR., protestant-appellee, vs. PLAMASUR BUYSER, protestee-appellant.

FACTS

In the election for barrio captain of Bad-as, Placer, Surigao del Norte, held on January 12, 1964, Plamasur Buyser was proclaimed elected with 232 votes against Emiliano Florendo, Sr.’s 213 votes. Florendo contested the election in the municipal court, alleging errors in ballot appreciation, a discrepancy in the number of ballots issued and used, and a discrepancy between the number of registered voters and those who voted due to the “fraudulent” registration of additional voters on January 11 and 12, 1964. The municipal court ruled in favor of Buyser, finding no error or fraud, and declared the January 11-12 registration valid as consented to by both parties, noting that even if the 7 new voters among the 57 late registrants voted for Florendo, it would not reverse the result. Florendo appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), filing an amended protest alleging that 33 voters were unlawfully registered on January 11 and 12 and voted for Buyser. The CFI, after trial, issued an order declaring the January 11-12 registration null and void for being unauthorized by the Commission on Elections resolution, which fixed registration not later than January 5, 1964. Consequently, it annulled the January 12 election and directed the Provincial Governor to call a new election. Buyser appealed this order to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in annulling the entire election based solely on the void registration of voters on January 11 and 12, 1964, without determining if the illegal votes affected the election’s outcome or if it was impossible to ascertain the true will of the electorate.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the CFI order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that while the registration of voters on January 11 and 12, 1964, was void for being conducted after the January 5 deadline fixed by law (Section B of the Revised Barrio Charter), this irregularity alone is insufficient to annul the entire election. Citing precedent, the Court ruled that annulment is warranted only when the disregard of the law is so fundamental or persistent that it is impossible to distinguish lawful from unlawful votes or to arrive at any certain result, or when the great body of voters has been prevented from voting. Here, there was no allegation that the late-registered voters were disqualified or that it was impossible to segregate their votes. The CFI should have proceeded to ascertain who registered after January 5 and for whom they voted, to determine if Florendo’s allegation that all illegal registrants voted for Buyser was correct, and to make the necessary vote adjustments. Since the appeal to the CFI vacated the municipal court’s findings and required a trial de novo, the CFI must make these vital factual findings.