Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > January 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5654 January 30, 1953 - LUIS SAN JUAN v. SANTOS CALDERON, ET AL.

092 Phil 598:



[G.R. No. L-5654. January 30, 1953.]

LUIS SAN JUAN, Petitioner, v. SANTOS CALDERON and Hon. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Respondents.

De Santos, Herrera & Delfino for Petitioner.

Javier, Roxas, Javier and Benjamin E. Estacio for Respondents.


1. ELECTION PROTESTS; ALLEGATIONS IN PROTEST, NOT THE PROOF THEREOF, CONFER JURISDICTION TO THE COURT. — When an election protest filed with a court alleges the requisite jurisdictional facts, jurisdiction is acquired by the court without the necessity of proof of those facts.



In the elections of November 13, 1951 Luis San Juan and Santos Calderon together with other persons were candidates for councilors of the municipality of Taytay, Rizal. The corresponding proclamation of the board of canvassers declared Santos Calderon one of the elected councilors defeating Luis San Juan by three votes only.

Alleging that, in one precinct, about twenty ballots cast for him had illegally been read and counted in favor of Santos Calderon, San Juan filed a protest in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Acting on the protest, the respondent judge required the protestee to answer. The protestant filed a bond. On December 5, 1951 the protestee replied, making admissions and denial, but claiming to have been properly proclaimed. Commissioners were designated, ballots were examined and a report was submitted. Then the protest came up for hearing on March 26, 1952; and after the protestant had rested his case, the protestee submitted a motion to dismiss for the reason that the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter, and the respondent sustained the motion in an order the pertinent portion of which reads as

"In the present case, the protestant failed to prove (1) the election returns in all the precincts of the municipality of Taytay, of this province, in the last elections of November 13, 1951; (2) that the municipal board of canvassers has proclaimed the protestee; (3) that the protest was presented during the legal period from and after the said proclamation and (4) that both the protestant and the protestee were registered candidates in the said elections for municipal councilor. These are the facts which confer jurisdiction upon this court over the subject matter. For the failure of the protestant to prove these facts, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and protestee has the right to raise that question at any stage of the proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Pobre v. Quevedo, 52 Phil., 359, at pages 360, 361 this Supreme Court said that." . . in order to confer jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance over an election protest, it is sufficient to file a motion to that effect, stating the following facts: (a) That the protestant has duly registered his candidacy and received votes in the election (Tangco v. Jocson, 43 Phil., 715); (b) that the protestee has been proclaimed elected in said election (Manalo v. Sevilla, 24 Phil., 609); and (c) that the motion of protest was filed within two weeks after such proclamation (Navarro v. Veloso, 23 Phil., 625; Manalo v. Sevilla, supra; Honteveros v. Altavas, 39 Phil., 226, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Judged by this doctrine, respondent’s decision seems to have required proof of more points than those prescribed by established jurisprudence.

On the other hand has the protestant complied with the aforesaid requirements?

We note that the first three paragraphs of the protest alleged that protestant had filed his certificate of candidacy in due time, that he had been voted for in the said elections, and that the protestee had been proclaimed elected by the board of canvassers on November 19, 1951 with a majority of 3 votes. These three paragraphs were expressly admitted in the respondents’ answer. It was therefore unnecessary for protestant to prove those allegations. 1 As to the filing of the protest within two weeks 2 after the proclamation, there is the assertion that the proclamation was made on November 19, 1951 and the protest is dated November 28, 1951 (i.e. nine days afterwards) It is not probable that the protest was late. Anyway there was no obligation of protestant to prove or allege the time of filing, because it is a matter of record, and the court knows it. 3 And the respondents here admit that the protest was filed on December 1, 1951 (i.e. twelve days after proclamation).

Wherefore, inasmuch as the points essential to jurisdiction have all been shown, the respondent judge erred in declaring he had no jurisdiction. His order of dismissal is revoked, and as requested by the petitioner, he is directed to decide the aforesaid election protest on the merits. Costs shall be taxed against the respondent Santos Calderon. So ordered.

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


1. The rules of procedure applicable to ordinary civil cases are also applicable generally to election contests when they do not conflict with the Election Law. (Gardiner v. Romulo, 26 Phil. 521; Lucero v. De Guzman, 45 Phil., 852; Morente v. Filamor, 52 Phil., 289.) .

2. Sec. 74, R. A. No. 180.

3. Villanueva v. Araneta Diaz, 47 Phil., 836; Nisperos v. Araneta Diaz, 47 Phil., 806.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

January-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3773 January 2, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. URBANO VIRAY, ET AL.

    092 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. L-4358 January 2, 1953 - JOSE SAMINIADA v. EPIFANIO MATA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-4531 January 10, 1953 - ANG SI HENG, ET AL. v. WELLINGTON DEP’T. STORE INC., ET AL.

    092 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-6225 January 10, 1953 - ARSENIO H. LACSON v. MARCIANO ROQUE, ET AL.

    092 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4008 January 15, 1953 - APOLONIA SANTIAGO v. ANGELA DIONISIO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-4377 January 23, 1953 - FERNANDO BAQUIAL v. FELIX AMIHAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-4871 January 26, 1953 - IN RE: ANG LAM v. HILARIO PEREGRINA

    092 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. L-5041 January 27, 1953 - BAY BOULEVARD SUBD., INC. v. FRANCISCO SYCIP, ET AL.

    092 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-5164 January 27, 1953 - CONRADO V. SINGSON, ET AL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. L-3683 January 28, 1953 - BANGON DU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. L-4588 January 28, 1953 - IN RE: MATEO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-5270 January 28, 1953 - PNB v. GLICERIO JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-4963 January 29, 1953 - MARIA USON v. MARIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. L-2708 & L-3355-60 January 30, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO M. ACIERTO

    092 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-3602 January 30, 1953 - WONG SIU TONG v. ALEJO AQUINO

    092 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. L-3813 January 30, 1953 - PAUKI MADALE, ET AL. v. PASEYANAN BAY SA RAYA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-4551 January 30, 1953 - CHAN KIM LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 561


    092 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-5042 January 30, 1953 - FELICIDAD AMBAT v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    092 Phil 567

  • G.R. Nos. L-5059-60 January 30, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMEON MENDOZA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-5121 January 30, 1953 - J. P. HEILBRONN CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    092 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-5129 January 30, 1953 - FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL. v. CONRADO ARAGON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-5159 January 30, 1953 - CANAS PLANTATION CO. v. BUREAU OF FORESTRY

    092 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-5346 January 30, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO AGUILANDO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-5360 January 30, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEANDRO DIMAPILIS

    092 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. L-5527 January 30, 1953 - SALVADOR FERNANDEZ v. PABLO GARCIA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-5654 January 30, 1953 - LUIS SAN JUAN v. SANTOS CALDERON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-4347 January 31, 1953 - ELPIDIO JAVELLANA v. DOMINADOR BARILEA

    092 Phil 600