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:
For a court to acquire jurisdiction over an election contest, it is sufficient that the motion of protest alleges the essential jurisdictional facts (e.g., the protestant’s registration and receipt of votes, the protestee’s proclamation, and the timeliness of the filing). It is not a jurisdictional requirement that all other registered candidates voted for the same office be formally impleaded as protestees in the protest. Jurisdiction over the persons of other candidates may be acquired through their voluntary appearance.

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, contesting the results from Precinct No. 2. The protest alleged that 29 ballots for Legaspi, 8 for Molo, and 6 for Tabernilla were fraudulently counted for Torres.
3. On June 28, 1928, 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.
5. On July 21, 1928, Molo filed an amended protest including Legaspi and Tabernilla as protestees.
6. The Court of First Instance of Capiz denied the motion to dismiss and later rendered judgment in favor of Molo.
7. Torres filed this original petition for *certiorari* with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul all proceedings, orders, and the judgment in the election contest, claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction for failure to include all candidates as parties.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Capiz acquired jurisdiction over Election Contest No. 2447 despite the initial failure of the protestant to include all other registered candidates voted for the office of municipal vice-president as parties in the protest.

RULING

NO, the trial court did not lose jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

The Court held that for jurisdiction over an election contest to vest in the court, the motion of protest need only allege the essential facts required by law. These essential facts, as established in prior jurisprudence, are: (a) the protestant duly registered his candidacy and received votes; (b) the protestee was proclaimed elected; and (c) the protest was filed within two weeks after the proclamation. The protest filed by Molo contained all these allegations.

The inclusion of all other candidates as formal parties is not a jurisdictional requirement. While Section 481 of the Election Law (as amended) requires a protest with summons, the omission of a candidate’s name as a protestee does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the *subject matter*. Jurisdiction over the *person* of a candidate is acquired either through summons or voluntary appearance.

In this case, the names of the other candidates (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. Furthermore, the protestant later filed an amended protest formally including them.

Therefore, since all jurisdictional facts were alleged, the protestee (Torres) was duly summoned, and the other candidates voluntarily appeared, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction to try and decide the election contest.