GR L 5654; (January, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5654 January 30, 1953
LUIS SAN JUAN, petitioner, vs. SANTOS CALDERON and HON. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, respondents.
FACTS
In the November 13, 1951 elections, Luis San Juan and Santos Calderon were candidates for municipal councilors of Taytay, Rizal. The board of canvassers proclaimed Santos Calderon as one of the elected councilors, defeating Luis San Juan by three votes. Alleging that about twenty ballots cast for him were illegally counted in favor of Calderon, San Juan filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The protestee filed an answer, commissioners were designated, ballots were examined, and a report was submitted. After the protestant rested his case, the protestee filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. The respondent judge granted the motion, stating the protestant failed to prove: (1) the election returns in all precincts; (2) that the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed the protestee; (3) that the protest was filed within the legal period after proclamation; and (4) that both parties were registered candidates.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge erred in dismissing the election protest for lack of jurisdiction based on the protestant’s alleged failure to prove certain jurisdictional facts.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge erred. The Supreme Court held that to confer jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance over an election protest, it is sufficient for the protest to allege: (a) that the protestant duly registered his candidacy and received votes; (b) that the protestee was proclaimed elected; and (c) that the protest was filed within two weeks after such proclamation. The protest in this case contained these allegations in its first three paragraphs, which were expressly admitted in the protestee’s answer, making proof unnecessary. Regarding the timely filing, the protest was dated November 28, 1951, nine days after the November 19, 1951 proclamation alleged in the protest, and the respondents admitted it was filed on December 1, 1951, twelve days after proclamation, which is within the two-week period. Therefore, all essential jurisdictional points were shown. The order of dismissal was revoked, and the respondent judge was directed to decide the election protest on the merits. Costs were taxed against respondent Santos Calderon.