Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

053 Phil 149:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 30837. March 27, 1929.]

POLICARPO RADAZA, Protestant-Appellant, v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE, Protestee-Appellee.

Segundo Apostol and Francisco Enage for Appellant.

Kapunan & Kapunan for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ELECTIONS; TIE ESTOPPEL. — The protestant, in alleging and contending that he was proclaimed the winner in the drawing of lost by reason of the tie, and hereafter in taking possession of the office, and attempting to prevent the protestee from holding it, may should be considered to have deliberately induced his opponent to believe that the canvass which resulted in a tie was legal, and to act upon said belief in the validity of said canvass and tie, and, therefore, he cannot permitted to deny his own acts.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION. — "JURIS ET DE JURE." — Between the protestant and the protestee, there exists with respect to the election herein disputed, the presumption juris et de jure — which cannot be rebutted in any way—that the said tie of votes between them in the election for municipal president of Naval was valid lawful, and consequently that the canvass of all the precincts of that municipality, which resulted in said tie, is also valid and lawful. The protestant is estopped, and the law forbids him from attacking now the validity and legal effect of the canvass in the precincts mentioned in his motion of protest. (Sec. 333, No. 1, Code of Civil Procedure.)

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — Even supposing that the allegations in the motion of protest conferred jurisdiction upon the court below to try this case, it is a fact that there has arisen against the protestant returns which he now tries to attack were made in full accord with the laws and regulations.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J.:


In these proceedings the protestee filed the following motion for dismissal of the protestant’s petition:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Comes now the protestee in the above entitled case through his undersigned attorneys, and respectfully prays the court to finally dismiss the case, on the ground:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy; or

"That there is no subject matter involved, which may be submitted to the court’s jurisdiction."cralaw virtua1aw library

This motion is based upon the following facts, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. It appears from the motion of protest itself: (a) That luck favored the protestant in the lots drawn on August 16, 1928, in the presence of the municipal board of canvassers, between said protestant and the protestee, who tied as candidates for the office of municipal president of Naval in the elections held on June 5, 1928; and (b) that, for this reason, the protestant was proclaimed municipal president-elect of Naval, Province of Leyte, by the municipal of canvassers; and

"2. That immediately after said proclamation of the municipal board of canvassers of Naval that the petitioner was the municipal president-elect of Naval, the latter, on October 16, 1928, which is the date fixed by law for the induction into office of the new officers elected on June 5, 1928, qualified and took possession of the office of municipal president of the municipality of Naval, of this province, having first taken the required oath.

"There is therefore no subject matter herein involved, which calls for the exercise of court jurisdiction.

"In support of this motion, the protestee offers to present evidence to prove the fact alleged in paragraph 2, that the protestant took possession of the office of municipal president of Naval on the 16th instant."cralaw virtua1aw library

When this motion came up for hearing, both parties adduced evidence, and, considering the petition well-grounded, the court below dismissed the protest.

The protestant attacks this judgment, and assigns the following errors alleged to have been committed by the court below:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In finding that the protestant held and now holds the office of municipal president, simply because he attempted to take the possession thereof by taking the required oath;

"2. In not finding that only the protestee really took possession of said office, and still holds it.

"3. In holding that there is no justiciable subject matter in the record which confers jurisdiction on the court.

"4. In declaring the protestant barred from filing a protest, and without any legal ground to protest."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the third paragraph of his protest, the protestant alleges the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"3. That according to the canvass of the board of election inspectors, both candidates in the aforementioned last elections held in said municipality of Naval, the protestant and the protestee, each obtained 358 votes, in each and every one of the election precincts of said municipality; whereupon the municipal council of Naval, constituting the municipal board of canvassers, in its session of June 6, 1928, declared the election for office of municipal president of said municipality tied; and in accordance with the provisions of the Election Law in cases of a tie for the office of municipal president, lots were drawn before the council constituted as the municipal board of canvassers, in its session of June 14, 1925; but the Court of First Instance of Leyte, to which the herein protestee applied, issued a writ of mandamus to the aforesaid municipal council of Naval, ordering it, in its decision of July 8, 1928, to have the two candidates, the protestant and the protestee, again draw lots; and in compliance with this order of the court, lots were again drawn on August 16, 1928, luck having been with the herein protestant, who was forthwith proclaimed president-elect of Naval by the aforementioned council. But the Court of First Instance of Leyte to which the herein protestee again appealed, issued a writ of mandamus to the municipal council of Naval, again ordering it in its decision of October 3, 1928, to proclaim the herein protestee, Francisco D. Enaje, president-elect of Naval, as in fact the said municipal council of Naval, constituted as the municipal board of canvassers, proclaimed Francisco D. Enaje elected in its session of October 8, 1928, in compliance with the aforesaid order of the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

We see nothing in this paragraph questioning the legality of the tie between the protestant and the protestee. It is true than in the following paragraph, it is alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"4. That the municipal president tied, by reason and in virtue of the results of the general elections held on June 5, 1928, nor proclaimed the herein protestee, Francisco D. Enaje, as president- elect, as alleged above, had not the boards of election inspectors of the second and fourth election precincts of the municipality of Naval, acted illegally, and for this reason, the protestant contests the election of the protestee upon the following grounds, to wit:" and it goes on to enumerate cases in which the aforementioned boards of election inspectors, unduly adjudicated some ballots and rejected others.

It is also true that while an apparent inconsistency exists between the allegations of the third paragraph, copied above, and those of the fourth, which we have just transcribed, yet it might be contended that paragraph 3 is a mere statement of facts, which neither attacks nor admits the legality of the election tie between the protestant and the protestee.

But it is no less true that, according to the evidence presented by the parties at the hearing of the motion for dismissal, the protestant, on the ground that he had been proclaimed the winner in the drawing of lots held on August 16, 1928, that is, admitting the legality of the tie that gave rise to said drawing of lots, took possession of the office in question, by taking the required oath. Furthermore, according to the lower court, whose findings of fact are, in our opinion, based upon the result of the proceedings, the protestant, after taking the oath of office and taking possession thereof, did the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The same day that the protestant took possession of the office of municipal president-elect of Naval, he sent a telegram to provincial governor-elect, the Hon. Vicente de la Cruz, stating that he had assumed the presidency of Naval, and extending his hearty congratulations to said governor on his induction into office, signing said telegram as municipal president of Naval (Exhibit B). On the afternoon of that day, October 16, 1928, the Hon. Vicente de la Cruz sent Mr. Policarpo Radaza a telegram ordering him to immediately turn over to Mr. Francisco D. Enaje the office of municipal president. Mr. Radaza ignored said order of the governor, locked up his desk and office, and took all the keys of said office with him, being still in his possession, and left Naval the same day for Tacloban, where he still remains." (Appealed order.)

These acts of the protestant constitute a full acknowledgment of the legality and efficacy of the aforementioned tied and, consequently, of the canvass made in all the precincts of that municipality, including the second and fourth, which canvass resulted in a tie.

The protestant alleging and contending that he was proclaimed the winner in the drawing of lots by reason of the tie, and thereafter in taking possession of the office, and attempting to prevent the protestee from holding it, may and should be considered to have deliberately induced his opponent to believe that the drawing was legal, and to act upon said belief in the legality and validity of said tie, and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to deny his own acts. Between him and the protestee, there exists, with respect to the election herein disputed, the presumption juris et de jure, which cannot be rebutted in any way, that the said tie of votes between them in the election for municipal president of Naval, was valid and lawful, and consequently that the canvass of all the precincts of that municipality, which resulted in said tie, is also valid and lawful. The protestant is estopped, and the law forbids him from attacking now the validity and legal effect of the canvass in the precincts mentioned in his motion of protest. (Sec. 333, No. 1, Code of Civil Procedure.)

In view of the foregoing, we hold that even supposing that the allegations in the motion of protest conferred jurisdiction upon the court below to try this case, it is a fact that there has arisen against the protestant the indisputable and conclusive presumption that the election returns which he now tries to attack were made in full accord with the laws and regulations.

The dismissal of this protest is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, 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






March-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

    052 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 30019 March 2, 1929 - KUI PAI & CO. v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE

    052 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. 30491 March 2, 1929 - DONATO CRUZ, ET AL. v. TEOFILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    052 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. 30981 March 2, 1929 - ESTEBAN MONTERAMOS, ET AL. v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

    052 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 30814 March 5, 1929 - ROSALIO GONZALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    052 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    052 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929 - IGNACIO DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    052 Phil 900

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-15 March 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. 30953 March 7, 1929 - NARCISA JAVIER v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 910

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-30015 March 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 30247 March 11, 1929 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE v. FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 29752 March 12, 1929 - SOTERO IGNACIO v. SANTOS CHUA HONG

    052 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. 30264 March 12, 1929 - MANILA RALROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    052 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. 30460 March 12, 1929 - C. H. STEINBERG v. GREGORIO VELASCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. 29292 March 13, 1929 - TOMASA C. VIUDA DE PAMINTUAN v. JUAN TIGLAO

    053 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 30393 March 14, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA

    053 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 29927 March 15, 1929 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO

    053 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 30291 March 15, 1929 - CATALINO SEVILLA v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    053 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 30035 March 18, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIA ABADILLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 30780 March 18, 1929 - AURELIANO ROSANES v. AMADO PEJI

    053 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

    053 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 30601 March 21, 1929 - ANTONIO CHUA CHIACO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 32329 March 23, 1929 - In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

    053 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 29503 March 23, 1929 - AGRIPINA GALLION v. NARCISO L. GAYARES ET AL.

    053 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 30020 March 23, 1929 - ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS v. MENZI & CO.

    053 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 30067 March 23, 1929 - PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. v. MARIANO TUASON

    053 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 30266 March 25, 1929 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. FRED J. ELSER

    054 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 29832 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO ASINAS ET AL.

    053 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 30074 March 25, 1929 - MARIANO CARAGAY v. FRANCISCO URQUIZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 30242 March 25, 1929 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ALVARA FAJARDO

    053 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 30280 March 25, 1929 - NICANOR CARAG v. WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL

    053 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

    053 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 30600 March 25, 1929 - RAMON DELES v. ARELLANO ALKONGA

    053 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 30705 March 25, 1929 - MACARIO E. CAESAR v. FILOMENO GARRIDO

    053 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 30289 March 26, 1929 - SERAPIA DE GALA v. APOLINARIO GONZALES

    053 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 30608 March 26, 1929 - RAFAEL CARANDANG v. GALICANO AFABLE

    053 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 28379 March 27, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIA CABANGIS ET AL.

    053 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 29448 March 27, 1929 - JOSE CASTILLO v. ESTEBAN VALDEZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 29721 March 27, 1929 - AMANDO MIRASOL v. ROBERT DOLLAR CO.

    053 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 29967 March 27, 1929 - JOSE GASTON ET AL. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30490 March 27, 1929 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALBALADEJO Y CIA.

    053 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 30514 March 27, 1929 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. CRISTOBAL ABAGAT ET AL.

    053 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

    053 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

    053 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 30541 March 30, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE BELLA BAUTISTA

    053 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 30610 March 30, 1929 - MANUEL SALAK v. LUIS ESPINOSA

    053 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 30648 March 30, 1929 - RUFINO FAUSTO v. JOSE VILLARTA

    053 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

    053 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 31348 March 30, 1929 - TAN C. TEE & CO. v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 172