(Sgd.) "DEOGRACIAS MOLO
"Protestant"
On June 28, 1928, the protestee Abencio Torres filed the following motion for dismissal:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The undersigned Abencio Torres, protestee in the above entitled proceeding, to the honorable court shows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That he hereby enters a special appearance to impugn the aforementioned proceeding and therefore prays for the dismissal thereof on the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"GROUNDS
"1. That this court has no jurisdiction over the person of the herein protestee and, consequently, no power to try and decide this case, other than to dismiss it, and
"2. That in the motion of protest filed by Deogracias Molo, the other candidates to the same office of municipal vice-president, Messrs. Alejandro Legaspi and Basilides Tabernilla, who respectively obtained votes in the last elections in the municipality of Makato, Capiz do not appear either as protestants or as protestees.
"Wherefore, the undersigned prays the honorable court to issue an order dismissing the motion of protest of the protestant Deogracias Molo with costs against the latter.
"Makato for Ibajay, Capiz, June 28, 1928.
(Sgd.) "ABENCIO TORRES
"NOTE. — Copy of this motion was sent by registered mail to the protestant Deogracias Molo who lives in Tangalan, municipality of Makato, Capiz, as evidenced by the attached post-office receipt."cralaw virtua1aw library
On July 14, 1928, the other registered candidates voted for the office of vice-president, Alejandro Legaspi and Basilides Tabernilla, entered a voluntary appearance.
On July 21, 1928, the protestant Deogracias Molo filed an amended protest including all the candidates voted for the office of municipal vice-president as protestees.
On August 4, 1928, after having heard the parties, the respondent court denied the motion for dismissal.
Later on the court rendered judgment in favor of the protestant and against the protestee.
In the case of Ferrer v. Gutierrez David and Lucot (43 Phil., 795), cited by this court in recent decisions rendered in the election contests of Saldana v. Consunji (G. R. No. 30173 [1928]) 1 and Yumul v. Palma (G. R. No. 30174 [1928]) 2 this court laid down the doctrine that in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction to try an election contest, it is sufficient to allege in the motion of protest the essential facts pointed out by the law for conferring jurisdiction over the contest, among which are the following: (a) that the protestant has duly registered his candidacy and has received votes at the election (Tengco 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 must be presented within two weeks after the proclamation (Navarro v. Veloso, 23 Phil., 625; Manalo v. Sevilla, supra; Hontiveros v. Altavas, 39 Phil., 226).
It is not contended in the election contest now before us that any of these essential facts for conferring jurisdiction has not been alleged, but only the fact that the other registered candidates voted for the office of municipal vice-president were not included as protestees.
It is true that in order that a court may decide a case and that its decision become effective, it is necessary that it have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy and over the parties litigant. Jurisdiction over the person of the protestant is acquired by the presentation of the protest, and jurisdiction over the person or persons of the protestee or protestees, is acquired by the summons.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy is acquired by the court through the presentation of the motion of protest alleging the essential facts for conferring jurisdiction.
While it is true that section 481 of the Election Law as lastly amended by Act No. 3387, provides that proceedings for the judicial contest of an election shall be by virtue of a protest with summons, and that unless the name of the protestee or protestees appear in the motion of protest they cannot be summoned, yet the omission of said names does not prevent the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy, and over the party protestant. The mere act of putting in the name or names of the party or parties protested against is not sufficient for the court to acquire jurisdiction over their persons. It is necessary that they be summoned upon the protest in the form provided by law in order that the judgment to be rendered may affect them.
This same section 481 provides furthermore, that "the candidate whose election is contested and all other registered candidates voted for may reply thereto within fifteen days after the summons, or if they have appeared without being summoned, within fifteen days from the date of their appearance, but in all cases before the beginning of the hearing of the case in court." This same provision of law, in stating "the candidate whose election is contested and all other registered candidates voted for," seems to indicate that it is not necessary that all the registered candidates voted for be made parties protestees, but it is sufficient that their names appear in the protest so that the sheriff may summon them all.
Now then; it not only happens that the names of the other candidates, Alejandro Legaspi and Basilides Tabernilla, appear in the motion of protest, but that, moreover, the latter appear voluntarily, thus conferring jurisdiction on the court over their persons.
In conclusion, then, it appears that since the motion of protest alleged all the essential facts for conferring jurisdiction on the court and included the names of the parties, protestant and protestee, which latter was summoned, and of the other registered candidates voted for, who appeared of their own free will, the Court of First Instance of Capiz acquired jurisdiction to try and decide the case.
By virtue whereof, and not finding any merit in the present proceeding the same is denied and dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Villamor, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Page 433, ante.
2. Page 412, ante.