Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > February 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5899 February 28, 1953 - PANTALEON NAVAL v. GENEROSO SANA

092 Phil 747:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5899. February 28, 1953.]

PANTALEON NAVAL, Protestant-Appellant, v. GENEROSO SANA, Protestee-Appellee.

Jose Palarca for Appellant.

T. Tria Tirona and R. Y. Navarro for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. ELECTION LAW; PERIOD FOR EXCLUSION OR INCLUSION IN THE REGISTRY LIST OF VOTERS; REGISTRY LIST AS FINALLY CORRECTED, CONCLUSIVE. — It is against the policy of the law to allow minors to vote in the election of public officials. But the law itself has prescribed a remedy for that contingency through exclusion of unqualified persons from the list of voters, the procedure for which is laid down in the Revised Election Code. The time to challenge the qualification of a voter is before, and not after, the election. "In election contest proceedings, the registry list, as finally corrected by the board of inspectors, shall be conclusive in regard to the question as to who had the right to vote in said election."


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


In the election of November 13, 1951, for the office of mayor of Mayantoc, Province of Tarlac, candidate Generoso Sana was proclaimed winner by the municipal board of canvassers with a majority of 18 votes over his opponent Pantaleon Naval. In due time the latter filed his motion of protest in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, and upon receiving an adverse verdict, elevated the case here on a question of law.

The question is whether the trial court erred in ruling out evidence to prove the contestant’s 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 being of the opinion that the qualifications of electors registered in the voters’ list, having been already 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.

The question is not a new one. As early as 1929 this court, in the case of Icay v. Diapo, G.R. No. 30671, ruled that it was no error for the trial court not to admit evidence to show that certain electors who were registered in the voters’ list and voted in the election were not qualified. The rule was reiterated in 1932 in the case of Fernandez v. Mendoza, 57 Phil., 687, where it was declared that where voters were not challenged during the legal period "any evidence tending to show that these voters were registered and that they voted although not possessing the necessary qualifications is immaterial." And this is the ruling followed by the court when it dismissed, for lack of merit, appellant’s earlier petition in the present case for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to admit the very evidence whose exclusion is the subject of the present appeal.

In line with the same view, the Electoral Tribunal of the House, in the case of Fernandez v. Baes, Electoral Case No. 23 (1951), held that the registration list of voters as finally corrected by the board of inspectors is conclusive on the question as to who have the right to vote in an election and that a minor who has succeeded in registering as a voter and actually voted should be counted in the election protest.

The ruling established in the cases above cited is but an implementation of the mandate contained in section 176 (f) of the Revised Election Code, which says that "In election contest proceedings, the registry list, as finally corrected by the board of inspectors, shall be conclusive in regard to the question as to who had the right to vote in said election."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the United States the rule is practically the same as may be judged from the following quotations from Corpuz Juris Secundum:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Under some provisions, the final registration list is conclusive evidence of those entitled to vote, until reversed or set aside in the prescribed manner, and it cannot be collaterally attacked." (29 C.J.S., 49.)

"In the absence of challenges or other proceedings prior to the election to have the names of voters who are legally registered erased from the registration rolls, such rolls are binding on the court. Marrero v. Middleton, 59 So. 863, 131 La., 432." (Ibid.)

It is of course against the policy of the law to allow minors to vote in the election of public officials. But the law itself has prescribed a remedy for that contingency through exclusion of unqualified persons from the list of voters, the procedure for which is laid down in the Revised Election Code. Not having availed of that remedy at the proper time, appellant has only himself to blame.

There being no substantial error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6266 February 2, 1953 - EULOGIO RODRIGUEZSR., ET AL. v. VICENTE GELLA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-5838 February 9, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO VILLANUEVA

    092 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4911 February 10, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BULALAKAO MAMASALAYA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. L-5468 February 11, 1953 - ANTONIO TABOR v. HON. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

    092 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-5874 February 11, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOGRACIAS LASAFIN

    092 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-4688 February 16, 1953 - IN RE: WU SIOCK BOON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. L-4693 February 16, 1953 - IN RE: LEON RATUNIL SY QUIMSUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-4872 February 16, 1953 - EUGENIO BRAVO v. CIRIACO BARRERAS

    092 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-5155 February 16, 1953 - TARCELA R. VDA. DE BOUGH, ETC. v. ESTEBAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-5278 February 17, 1953 - SUY SUI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-5847 February 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FELICIANO

    092 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. L-5429 February 19, 1953 - LOPE SARREAL v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-4656 February 23, 1953 - FRANCISCO MALLARI, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO MALLARI, ET AL.

    092 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-5268 February 23, 1953 - GREGORIO CRUZ v. MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC.

    092 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. L-5181 February 24, 1953 - FRANCISCA E. VDA. DE ESPARTERO, ET AL. v. JUAN LADAW, ET AL.

    092 Phil 704

  • G.R. No. L-5361 February 24, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONIDAS RASAY

    092 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. L-4589 February 27, 1953 - MARIO DE LA CRUZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 714

  • G.R. Nos. L-4743-45 February 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMINGOL HANASAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-5064 February 27, 1953 - BIENVENIDO A. IBARLE v. ESPERANZA M. PO

    092 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. L-5175 February 27, 1953 - CATALINO CAMIA ET AL. v. FELIPE CHANCO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-5627 February 27, 1953 - NORBERTO L. DAYRIT, ET AL. v. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-5832 February 27, 1953 - PAZ FIRMEZA v. EVO SANTIAGO DAVID

    092 Phil 733

  • G.R. Nos. L-4717-18 February 28, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL B. TIDOY, ET AL.

    092 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-5693 February 28, 1953 - URBANA D. ANZURES v. ALTO SURETY & INS. CO., INC., ET AL.

    092 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-5780 February 28, 1953 - TIMOTEO CACHOLA v. ANDRES CORDERO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-5899 February 28, 1953 - PANTALEON NAVAL v. GENEROSO SANA

    092 Phil 747