G.R. No. 30338, February 14, 1929 (Modified March 7, 1929)
BASILIO YALUNG, protestant-appellee, vs. FELIX ATIENZA, protestee-appellant.

FACTS

In the June 5, 1928 elections for Municipal President of Capas, Tarlac, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Felix Atienza as the winner with 236 votes against Basilio Yalung’s 234 votes, a margin of two votes. Yalung filed an election protest, alleging fraud and irregularities in precincts Nos. 1, 2, and 4. The Court of First Instance appointed commissioners to recount the ballots from these precincts. After revision, the trial court declared Yalung the winner with 238 votes against Atienza’s 232 votes, a majority of six. Atienza appealed.

ISSUE

The main issues revolved around the validity of specific ballots contested by the parties and the proper procedure in election contests, particularly:
1. Whether the trial court could consider irregularities not specifically alleged in the protest.
2. Whether certain ballots were validly counted or rejected for the office of municipal president.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, ultimately declaring a tie between the candidates.

1. On the Scope of Revision: The trial court did not err in considering irregularities not specifically detailed in the protest. Election contests are of public interest and are not bound by the strict technicalities of ordinary civil pleadings. The court or its commissioners may examine all ballots to ascertain the lawful will of the electorate, even *motu proprio* rejecting illegal ballots not specifically impugned.

2. On Specific Ballots:
* Ballot with only “Felix” (Precinct No. 2): Correctly rejected for Atienza. A Christian name alone, without the surname, is insufficient to identify the voter’s intent.
* Ballot with “Jusi Atinza” (Precinct No. 4): Correctly rejected for Atienza. “Jusi” cannot be considered an attempt to write “Felix,” and the rule of *idem sonans* does not apply.
* Ballot A-1 Yalung from the Spoiled-Ballot Box (Precinct No. 2): Correctly counted for Yalung. The ballot was not properly marked “spoiled” and was placed in the wrong box by mistake. A small, slanting pencil line on it did not constitute a distinguishing mark intended to identify the ballot.
* Ballots with Periods after Initials (Precinct No. 4): Correctly counted for Yalung. The use of periods did not clearly indicate an intent to identify the ballot.

3. Modification and Final Disposition (March 7, 1929 Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration):
Upon reconsideration, the Supreme Court further examined the ballots and found that ballot 8-A Yalung was invalid because it contained two names (Yalung and another candidate, Meliton Bagay) written in the space for municipal president. A ballot with two names for a single office cannot be counted for either.
Deducting this vote from Yalung’s total resulted in a tie between Yalung and Atienza.

FINAL DISPOSITION:
The election was declared a tie. The Court ordered the candidates to draw lots in the presence of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac to determine the winner, with costs against the loser in the draw.