G.R. No. L-18894; June 30, 1962
ERNESTO TAJANLANGIT, petitioner, vs. MANUEL L. CAZEÑAS, respondent.

FACTS

In the 1959 elections for Mayor of Dao, Antique, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Ernesto Tajanlangit as the winner by a three-vote margin over Manuel L. Cazeñas. Cazeñas filed an election protest before the Court of First Instance, which, after trial, declared him the winner by a two-vote plurality. Tajanlangit appealed to the Court of Appeals, which subsequently affirmed Cazeñas’s victory but reduced his plurality to a single vote.
Tajanlangit then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review, assigning errors in the appellate court’s appreciation of 16 ballots. Respondent Cazeñas, in turn, filed a counter-assignment of errors involving 19 ballots. The Supreme Court’s review focused on determining whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the legal rules for ballot appreciation, particularly concerning marked ballots and stray votes.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible errors in its appreciation of the contested ballots, thereby affecting the final vote count and the proclaimed winner.

RULING

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the contested ballots, applying established doctrines on ballot validity. It upheld the Court of Appeals’ factual findings based on evidence aliunde (external evidence) regarding certain ballots, such as Exhibits T-119, T-120, and T-121, which were correctly rejected as marked ballots under a vote-identification scheme. The Court reiterated that such factual determinations by the appellate court are generally conclusive.
On legal appreciation, the Court validated the rejection of Exhibit T-6, where the names “Acsay” and “Lotilla” were written in extraordinarily large, printed letters, constituting a deliberate identifying mark under the exception in the Revised Election Code. Conversely, it reversed the appellate court on Exhibit T-94, ruling that the name “Ledesma,” though written in large print, did not clearly show an intent to mark the ballot and was thus a valid vote. The Court also reversed the rejection of ballots T-4 and T-11, finding the written names “Tajanlangit” and “Tajan” to be sufficient identifiers for the petitioner under the idem sonans rule and as a nickname, respectively.
Regarding ballots Exhibits T-83, T-84, and T-89, which bore the mark “olo,” the Supreme Court affirmed their validity, accepting the appellate court’s factual finding that the marks were placed by someone other than the voter, thus not invalidating. After this recalculation, the final tally resulted in a tie, with both candidates receiving 1,565 valid votes each. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered that lots be drawn between Tajanlangit and Cazeñas to break the tie, as mandated by Section 170 of the Revised Election Code.