RESTITUTO VILLEGAS, PROTESTANT AND APPELLANT, VS. ATILANO VILLEGAS, PROTESTEE AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
the Province of Oriental Negros involving a contest over the office of
governor of Oriental Negros, the trial court having dismissed the
protest of Restituto Villegas instituted against Atilano Villegas.

It appears that in the election which took place on June 5, 1928,
there were two candidates for the office of provincial governor,
namely, Restituto Villegas and Atilano Villegas, the parties to this
appeal. After the election was concluded the board of canvassers
proclaimed the protestee, Atilano Villegas, elected by a majority of
over 1,500 votes, the appellee having received, according to said
canvass, 7,137 votes, and the appellant, 5,609. In the course of the
contest commissioners were appointed and, after a lengthy trial, the
court declared Atilano Villegas duly elected provincial governor of
Oriental Negros, with 6,907 votes to his credit, as against 5,462 votes
in favor of the protestant, that is to say, conceding to the protestee
a majority of 1,445.

The trial court stated in its decision that no question was made as
to the votes in nineteen precincts of the province, the contest being
limited to some four precincts, with respect to only two of which could
any serious question be raised. The trial court further stated in its
opinion, and this conclusion is not combated in the appellant’s brief,
that, in the nineteen precincts which are not here in question, the
protestee received a majority of 419 votes over the protestant. This
shows that, even omitting the contested precincts, the protestee was
elected. But it is insinuated that the irregularities in the questioned
precincts were sufficiently serious to justify the setting aside of the
results of the entire election. This contention is of course untenable
on its face; and the specifications of alleged frauds and
irregularities which are supposed to have occurred in different places
during the election are not pointed out with sufficient particularity
to require this court to unravel the contentions of the appellant. On
pages 4 to 14 of the appellant’s brief, the author of the brief
contents himself with citing the testimony of scores of witnesses and
suggesting that the court read the testimony for itself. Assignments of
this kind are frivolous and insufficient.

The appealed decision contains, we think, an adequate exposition of
the reasons justifying the conclusion reached in the lower court, and
the further extension of this opinion is unnecessary.

The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs of this instance against the appellant.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.