GR L 5899; (February, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5899; February 28, 1953
Pantaleon Naval, protestant-appellant, vs. Generoso Sana, protestee-appellee.
FACTS
In the November 13, 1951 election for mayor of Mayantoc, Tarlac, Generoso Sana was proclaimed the winner by the municipal board of canvassers with a majority of 18 votes over Pantaleon Naval. Naval filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. The trial court ruled against him, and he appealed to the Supreme Court on a question of law. The core issue on appeal is the trial court’s exclusion of evidence. Naval sought to prove his allegation that no less than 100 minors were registered in the voters’ list and that those minors actually voted in the election. The trial court excluded this evidence, holding that the qualifications of electors registered in the voters’ list, having been finally determined either by the board of election inspectors or by the corresponding circuit judges during the period for the inclusion and exclusion of voters, could no longer be inquired into in an election contest.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in ruling out evidence to prove that minors were registered in the voters’ list and voted in the election.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that it did not err in excluding the evidence. The Court ruled that the registry list, as finally corrected by the board of inspectors, is conclusive in regard to the question of who had the right to vote in the election, pursuant to Section 176(f) of the Revised Election Code. This principle, established in prior jurisprudence such as Icay vs. Diapo and Fernandez vs. Mendoza, means that where voters were not challenged during the legal period for inclusion and exclusion, any evidence tending to show they were not qualified is immaterial in an election contest. The Court noted that the law provides a specific remedy—exclusion proceedings—to challenge voter qualifications before the election, and having failed to avail of that remedy at the proper time, the appellant cannot collaterally attack the voters’ list in a post-election protest. The policy against minors voting is enforced through the prescribed pre-election procedures, not through evidence in an election contest. The decision was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.