GR 36484; (December, 1931) (Digest)
G.R. No. 36484, December 31, 1931
ARTURO A. IGNACIO, petitioner, vs. PEDRO MA. SISON, Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial District, and JUAN NAVARRO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arturo A. Ignacio filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Mindoro. Respondent Juan Navarro, the protestee, was summoned on September 3, 1931. Navarro filed a demurrer to the protest without giving proper notice to Ignacio. The court overruled the demurrer on October 6, 1931, and gave Navarro ten days to answer. Within that period, Navarro filed an answer and a counter-protest alleging fraud and irregularities in eight precincts. Ignacio objected, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to try the counter-protest because it was filed beyond the 15-day period from service of summons, the order overruling the demurrer was void due to lack of notice, and the judge was in Pasig, Rizal, when he issued the order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in proceeding to try the counter-protest despite the alleged procedural defects, particularly the lack of notice of the demurrer and the timing of the counter-protest.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The failure to give notice of the demurrer did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. Citing So Chu and Limpangco vs. Nepomuceno, the Court held that where a court has jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, a procedural irregularity like lack of notice for a motion (or demurrer) does not render its order void but may be corrected on appeal. The Court distinguished the Manakil and Tison and Gamay cases, noting they involved different contexts. On the procedural questions, the Court affirmed that a demurrer is permissible in election contests (following Grecia vs. Salas and others) and that a counter-protest filed within the period granted by the court after a demurrer is overruled is timely (following Morente vs. Filamor). Thus, the respondent judge did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction, and the proper remedy for any error is appeal, not prohibition.
AI Generated by Armztrong.