G.R. No. L-5379 August 22, 1952
Mariano M. Castañeda, petitioner-appellee, vs. Jose V. Yap, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Mariano M. Castañeda filed a petition contesting the eligibility of Jose V. Yap to assume the office of municipal mayor of Victoria, Tarlac, to which Yap was proclaimed elected on November 13, 1951. The Court of First Instance of Tarlac found that Yap was born on January 16, 1929, making him less than 23 years of age at the time of the election, which is below the age requirement for municipal mayor under Article 2174 of the Revised Administrative Code. The trial court declared Yap ineligible and enjoined him from assuming office. Yap appealed, raising five assignments of error.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Jose V. Yap was ineligible for the office of municipal mayor due to his age, and whether the trial court correctly adjudicated the ancillary procedural and evidentiary matters raised in his appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that Jose V. Yap was ineligible for the office.
1. On the defense of estoppel, the Court ruled it was not available. First, estoppel was not pleaded as a defense in Yap’s answer. Second, even if pleaded, it would not hold because the right to an elective office can only be contested after proclamation under Section 173 of the Revised Election Code, and there is no proceeding to bar an ineligible candidate from running based on estoppel. Yap’s alleged good faith does not cure his ineligibility.
2. The trial court correctly ruled as irrelevant any further evidence to establish estoppel.
3. The age requirement is based on public policy, and no specific harm need be shown. Castañeda, as a registered candidate for the same office, had the right to contest Yap’s eligibility by quo warranto under Section 173 of the Revised Election Code.
4. Regarding the admission of Exhibit “E” (a university certificate of matriculation stating Yap’s birthdate), any error in its admission was harmless. Other evidence (Exhibits A to D) from the Division of Archives, a baptismal certificate, and the municipal civil registrar’s office sufficiently established Yap’s birthdate as January 16, 1929. Furthermore, Exhibit E was properly admissible as Yap admitted on the witness stand that he furnished the information contained therein.
5. The question of whether damages are a proper subject of a counterclaim in a quo warranto proceeding was rendered immaterial, as the plaintiff’s action was fully justified by the result.