JOSE DEOGRACIAS, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE C. ABREU, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA, RESPONDENTS.

MORELAND, J.:

This is an original action in this court to obtain a writ of mandamus
directed to the Court of First Instance of the 14th Judicial District to compel
it to proceed with the hearing of an election contest which it had dismissed on
motion.

At the elections held on the 6th of June, 1916, in the municipality of Boac,
subprovince of Marinduque, Province of Tayabas, there were five candidates for
the office of municipal president, Jose Deogracias, Gumersindo de la Santa,
Benito Mondoñedo, Pedro Mascarenas and Narciso Alino. Gumersindo de la Santa
having, according to the return of the inspectors, received the highest
number,of votes cast was proclaimed elected by the municipal board of canvassers
on the 9th of June, 1916.

On the 19th of June the plaintiff filed a protest against the election of the
said De la Santa. The contest was amended on the 2nd of August. Gumersindo de la
Santa duly answered the amended protest on the 18th of August.

On the 5th of September Gumersindo de la Santa filed a motion in the Court of
First Instance in which the contest was pending for the dismissal of the contest
on the ground that not all of the persons receiving votes for the office
contested had been notified of the contest in the manner and within the time
prescribed by law. After a hearing the motion was granted and the contest was
dismissed upon the grounds stated in the motion.

The court in its order dismissing the contest said:

“Notwithstanding the fact that it does not appear in the record in this case
that the notices were served, the court has permitted the contestant to offer
evidence on that subject. In accepting this opportunity the contestant offered
in evidence a copy of the contest on which appear acknowledgments or admissions
of service of the notice of protest by Benito Mondonedo, Narciso Aliño and Pedro
Mascareñas; but the only evidence offered by the protestant to show service of
notice on the respondent Gumersindo dela Santa was the receipt which one
receiving registered mail signs on receipt of the same.

“This receipt is not sufficient to prove the service of the notice of the
contest on Gumersindo de la Santa, In the absence of a special provision on the
subject, since the Election Law does not provide the manner in which the notice
of contest should be served on the candidates receiving votes, the notice must
be served on the candidates in the manner required by the rules promulgated for
the Courts of First Instance of the Islands.

“Article 14 of those rules provides: ‘Notices and copies of motions and
pleadings may be served by anyone. Proof of such service may be made by the
written admission of the party served or the affidavit of the party serving. In
each case the time, place, and manner of the service shall be stated. In all
cases the proof shall be filed with the clerk.’

“As will be seen neither the registered receipt nor the acknowledgment of
Mondoñedo, Aliño and Mascareñas are sufficient to prove service under the
provisions of the rules just referred to inasmuch as, with regard to the
registered receipt, there is no sworn statement of the person- who served the
notice nor an acknowledgment or admission of the service by the person to whom
the notice was directed; and with regard to the admissions of service by the
others it does not appear on what date or in what place or in what manner the
notice was served. With respect to the service on all of them the proof of
service has not been duly filed in the office of the clerk of
court.”

Upon the grounds thus stated the court dismissed the contest.

We are of the opinion that the court was in error in part and correct in
part. A written admission of service by a party to an action or proceeding is as
effective as an affidavit of service made by the persons who actually served the
process or notice. As appears from the statement of the court admission of
service was made by three of the four respondents. That admission of service was
in writing and attached to a copy of the contest. This is sufficient to prove
service as to them. As to the other respondent Gumersindo de la Santa it is
sufficient to recall that he appeared in the case and filed an answer. It is the
universal rule that a voluntary general appearance, and especially the filing of
a pleading, is an act which gives the court complete jurisdiction over the
person of the party so appearing and pleading and that no service of process or
of notice on him is necessary thereafter.

It appears, however, that the appearance in the case and the filing of the
answer did not occur until the 18th of August, 1916, whereas the contest was
filed on the 19th of June. Therefore, under the recent decision of this court in
the case of Bermudez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, (p. 360, ante),
notice of the contest must be served on the respondents within twenty days after
the filing of the contest. It is clear that the appearance and answer of the
respondent Gumersindo de la Santa was long after the expiration of the twenty
days referred to; and the question therefore arises as to whether the rule of
twenty days applies to a voluntary general appearance and to an appearance by
answer as it does to service. In principle there should be no distinction. If it
is essential to confer jurisdiction on the court that the notice of contest be
served within twenty days after the contest is filed, then, certainly, there was
no jurisdiction here as there was no service or appearance within that time. The
jurisdiction of the court failed at the end of the twentieth day and a voluntary
general appearance thereafter was without force or effect.

The other evidence of the service of the notice on the respondent Gumersindo
de la Santa offered by the contestant was the receipt acknowledging delivery of
register package to which the court refers in its opinion. We are satisfied that
this receipt is not sufficient evidence of service to comply with the provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to the service of a summons in an
action, which provisions we have held applicable to the service of notice of
contest in cases of this character (Campos vs. Wislizenus and Aldanese,
35 Phil. Rep., 373.)

There being no proof of service of the contest on Gumersindo de la Santa
within the twenty days after the filing of the contest, and his appearance and
answer occurring after that period had expired, the court acquired no
jurisdiction of the proceeding and the contest was properly dismissed.

The demurrer is sustained; and unless an amended complaint is filed within
five days the action will be dismissed with costs. So ordered.

Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.