Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

053 Phil 168:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 30836. March 30, 1929.]

VICENTE OLANO, Protestant-Appellant, v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN, Protestee-Appellee.

Demetrio B. Encarnacion for Appellant.

Apolonio R. Chaves for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ELECTIONS; LEGALITY OF BALLOTS; NATURE OF SUFFRAGE; JURISDICTION OF TRIAL COURT. — The fact that neither of the parties raised the question of the illegality of certain ballots either at the trial or in their pleadings, does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to examine them, for as this court held in the case of Yalung v. Atienza (52 Phil., 781), the institution of suffrage us a public and not a private interest, and the trial court may examine all the ballots after the ballot boxes are opened in order to determine which are legal and which are illegal, even when neither of the parties raised any question as to their illegality.

2. ID.; BALLOTS FILLED OUT IN ONE HANDWRITING. — The mere fact that each group of ballots appears to be written by one man is not in itself, sufficient to destroy the presumption of their legality, arising from their being found in the valid-ballot box in which they were deposited in the presence of the inspectors or watchers for the contending candidates. It might be that the voters who cast their votes were incapacitated, and had been assisted in the preparation of their ballots by two unauthorized persons in the polling-place, but this fact alone is not enough to invalidate the aforementioned ballots, when it does not appear that such irregularity was part of a scheme devised to adulterate the suffrage. (Valenzuela v. Carlos and Lopez de Jesus, 42 Phil., 428; Cailles v. Gomez and Barbaza, 42 Phil., 496.)


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This is an appeal taken by the protestant, Vicente Olano, from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cavite holding that the protestee, Bernardino Tibayan, obtained 261 legal votes in the general elections held on June 5, 1928, and he obtained 227 legal votes, for the office of municipal president of the municipality of Ternate, Cavite, the former having been elected with a plurality of 34 votes over the latter.

In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the following errors alleged to have been committed by the trial court in its decision, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the lower court erred in rejecting the 35 ballots of the protestant, Vicente Olano, in precinct No. 3 of Ternate, 16 of which were placed in envelope K, and 19 in envelope L, on the alleged ground that each of these two groups were prepared by one person, notwithstanding the fact that this question was not raised by either of the parties in this case at the trial, or even in their pleadings. And it likewise erred in having rejected them without a sufficient legal ground.

"2. That the lower court erred in rejecting four other ballots prepared and voted in favor of the protestant, Vicente Olano.

"3. That the lower court erred in not rejecting at least 53 ballots cast in favor of the protestee, Bernardino Tibayan, notwithstanding that the same were prepared by Ciriaco Ramos, Placido Ramos, Daniel Tibayan, and Valentin Leonora, and other unknown persons, outside the polling-place in the three election precincts of Ternate, making use of false ballots. And it likewise erred in counting and adjudicating 3 other ballots to the protestee, two of which were marked and the third was not filled out in his favor.

"4. That the lower court erred in not declaring that the protestant, Vicente Olano, elected municipal president of Ternate with a plurality of at least 37 ballots over the protestee, Bernardino Tibayan, despite the frauds committed by the latter, making use of false or unofficial ballots and other unlawful means.

"5. That the lower court erred in not ordering in its judgment the prosecution of those persons who prepared the various ballots both official and unofficial cast in favor of the protestee, Bernardino Tibayan, outside of the three polling-places of Ternate, as proven at the trial.

"6. That the lower court erred in declaring the protestee, Bernardino Tibayan, elected municipal president of Ternate, and in sentencing the protestant to pay the costs, instead of holding to the contrary."cralaw virtua1aw library

As to the first assignment of error, there is no question that the sixteen (16) ballots of precinct No. 3 of Ternate, placed in envelope K, wherein the name of the protestant Vicente Olano appears in the space for municipal president were filled out by one person, and that the nineteen (19) ballots of the same precinct placed in envelope L, in which also the name of the aforesaid protestant Vicente Olano appears in the space for the municipal president, were also written by one hand.

The fact that neither of the parties raised the question of the illegality of said ballots either at the trial or in their pleadings, does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to examine them, for as this court held in the case of Yalung v. Atienza (52 Phil., 781), recently decided, the institution of suffrage is a public and not a private interest, and the trial court may examine all the ballots after the ballot boxes are opened in order to determine which are legal and which are illegal, even when neither of the parties has raised any question as to their illegality.

As to the admissibility of the 35 ballots in question the evidence shows that they were found in the valid-ballot box, counted for and adjudicated to the protestant-appellant, Vicente Olano, by the board of inspectors. Their legality had not been attacked by the protestee-appellee, Bernardino Tibayan, either in his answer to the protest motion or during the trial of the case in the court below. It has not been proven that their insertion in said box was fraudulent nor that their preparation was part of a scheme to thwart the free expression of the voters’ will. The mere fact that each group of ballots appears to be written by one man is not, in itself, sufficient to destroy the presumption of their legality, arising from their being found in the valid-ballot box in which they were deposited in the presence of the inspectors or watchers for the contending candidates. It might be that the voters who cast their votes were incapacitated, and had been assisted in the preparation of their ballots by two unauthorized persons in the polling-place, but this fact alone is not enough to invalidate the aforementioned was part of a scheme devised to adulterate the suffrage. (Valenzuela v. Carlos and Lopez de Jesus, 42 Phil., 428; Cailles v. Gomez and Barbaza, 42 Phil., 496.)

In view of the foregoing considerations, we arrive at the conclusion that the lower court erred in rejecting the 35 ballots discussed in the first assignment of error, and in not adjudicating them to the protestant-appellant, Vicente Olano.

Having reached this conclusion we deem it unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error inasmuch as the judgment appealed from adjudicated to the protestee-appellee, Bernardino Tibayan, a plurality of 34 votes over the protestant-appellant and as 35 votes must be added to the latter, it results in a plurality of one vote in favor of said protestant-appellant, Vicente Olano, over the aforementioned protestee-appellee, Bernardino Tibayan.

By virtue whereof, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is held that Vicente Olano obtained 262 legal votes for the office of municipal president of the municipality of Ternate, Province of Cavite, in the general elections held on June 5, 1928, and Bernardino Tibayan obtained 261, thus leaving a majority of one vote in favor of the former, who must be declared, as he is hereby declared, elected municipal president of said municipality, with costs against the appellee. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, 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