G.R. No. 42386 ; October 11, 1934
PEDRO SALDAÑA, protestant-appellant, vs. TRANQUILINO NAVARRO, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

Pedro Saldaña filed an election protest against Tranquilino Navarro in the Court of First Instance of Bataan. Navarro moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it failed to allege that the protestant and protestee were “duly registered candidates,” a jurisdictional requirement under the Election Law. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the protest, holding that the absence of an allegation that the certificate of candidacy was “duly filed” deprived it of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the allegations in the motion of protest are sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of First Instance to take cognizance of the election protest.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal. The protest alleged that the protestant and protestee were “qualified voters” and the “only two inscribed candidates” for municipal president who were voted for in the election. The Court held that the word “inscribed” is synonymous with “registered,” and such an allegation substantially complies with the jurisdictional requirement under Section 479 of Act No. 3834 that the candidates be duly registered. The Court cited its prior ruling in Acerden vs. Tonolete (52 Phil., 409) which upheld jurisdiction based on a similar allegation. The case was ordered reinstated for further proceedings.

AI Generated by Armztrong.