NICASIO M. VIVERO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MATEO G. MURILLO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This quo warranto proceeding is before us upon an appeal
taken by the protestant Nicasio M. Vivero from the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Leyte denying the remedy sought, dismissing
the proceeding and sentencing the plaintiff to pay the costs.

To support his appeal the appellant assigns eight alleged errors which we shall consider in the course of this decision.

The following were facts established at the trial by a preponderance of the evidence:

Mateo G. Murillo, the defendant-appellee, was born in the barrio of
Paliway, municipality of La Paz, of the Province of Leyte, where he
lived with his parents and received hifc primary education. In order to
continue his studies he removed first to Tacloban, Leyte, and later to
Calbayog, Samar, and finally to Manila until the year 1927, at the same
time acting as private secretary to Senator Veloso. Every year he
returned to his .native town to spend his vacations which usually
lasted from two weeks to one month, remaining alternately in his
parents’ house and in that of his brothers. While he studied he was
supported by his parents. With the approach of the general elections of
1925 Senator Veloso assigned him to Burauen, Leyte, for the purpose of
campaigning for him. While in that municipality he registered there as
a voter. But before the elections of that year Murillo returned to
Manila in order to continue his law studies. In December 1926, he went
back to La Paz and formally, though verbally, announced his candidacy
for the office of municipal president of said municipality at the
general elections of 1928. In the same year of 1926 he ordered some
wood to be prepared or sawed to be used in the construction of a house
for his residence. Later on Murillo returned to Manila and thence wrote
to his friends, relatives, and acquaintances, telling them of his
candidacy for the office of municipal president of La Paz. For the
purposes of said candidacy, Murillo frequently went to his native town.
In the month of February, 1927, he brought his family there, leaving
them in his parents’ house when he went back to Manila. In the month of
July of the same year he returned to La Paz and lived there with his
aforesaid family and later came to Manila. Lastly, in the month; of
November, 1927, he returned to said municipality, and did not leave it
until the general elections in June, 1928. On April 4, 1928, Mateo G.
Murillo went to Pascual Esplanada, a notary public in the town of the
municipality of Burauen, Leyte, to subscribe to a petition under oath
which was presented to the municipal treasurer of that municipality to
have his name as a voter in Burauen cancelled. On April 14,of the same
year, in registering as a voter in the second precinct of La Paz, said
defendant Mateo G. Murillo presented a copy of his petition for
cancellation to the chairman of the board of inspectors of said
municipality, Pedro Tubio. The municipality of La Paz was formerly a
barrio of the municipality of Burauen, having been organized as an
independent municipality in 1918.

The only question to decide in this appeal is whether or not the
defendant-appellee, Mateo G. Murillo, had a legal residence in the
municipality of La Paz before the general elections of 1928,.in order
to be eligible to the office of the president of said municipality.

It will be seen that Mateo G. Murillo has always, since his
childhood, been a resident of La Paz, not only while it was still a
barrio of the municipality of Burauen, but also after it became an
independent municipality, and he did not absent himself therefrom
except when studying, first in Tacloban, Leyte, later in Calbayog,
Samar, and finally in Manila. By the mere fact of having lived in
Tacloban, Leyte, in Calbayog, Samar, and in Manila, as a student, the
defendant-appellee did not acquire legal residence in said towns, nor
lose his residence in La Paz, because, being single, and supported by
his parents while studying, he was dependent on them and their
residence was his and it does not appear that he acquired an
independent legal residence anywhere else.

While it is true that the defendant-appellee registered as a voter
in Burauen in the general elections of 1925, yet he did so without any
right thereto, for it does not appear that he resided in Burauen at any
time after the separation of the barrio of La Paz from said
municipality and its, organization as an independent municipality, nor
that he transferred his residence to the former abandoning that of his
parents. On the contrary, having continued his studies in Manila,
supported by his parents, returning to the latters’ home during his
vacations, it is presumed that he continued to reside with them until
the month of November, 1927, when he established his residence in the
town of La Paz.

Moreover, it is sufficiently proven that Mateo G. Murillo had
applied in due time and form, for the cancellation of his name as a
voter in the municipality of Burauen, and for his registration as a
voter in the municipality of La Paz. Although it does not appear that
said cancellation was registered he is not thereby rendered ineligible
to the office of municipal president according to the doctrine recently
laid down by this court in the quo warranto proceeding of Yra vs. Abano (p. 380, ante), wherein this court said the following:

“1. ELECTIONS; ‘QUO WARRANTO’; MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS; QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTIVE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS; ELECTION
LAW, SECTIONS 404, 431, AND 432, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, SECTION
2174, CONSTRUED.—A candidate who was elected to the office of municipal
president and who at the time of the election was registered as a voter
of Manila and not of the municipality in which he was a candidate, is
nevertheless eligible to the office, and proceedings in the nature of quo warranto
instituted by virtue of the provisions of section 408 of the Election
Law, as amended, by the vice-president elect of the municipality, who
challenged the right of the municipal president elect, to the position
to which elected on the ground that the municipal president was
ineligible, cannot be successfully maintained.

“2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—The Election Law
makes use of the terms ‘qualified voter in his municipality’ and
‘qualified elector therein.’ To be a qualified voter, does not
necessarily mean that a person must be a registered voter. It is
sufficient for the candidate to posses all of the qualifications
prescribed in section 431 and none of the disqualifications prescribed
in section 432. The fact that a candidate failed to register as an
elector in the municipality does not deprive him of the right to become
a candidate and to be voted for.

“3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.;
ID.—One may be a qualified voter without exercising the right to vote.
Registering does not confer the right; it is but a condition precedent
to the exercise of the right. Registration regulates the exercise of
the right of suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right.”

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so
hold, that a student living with his parents in a certain barrio of a
municipality, which barrio is later separated to be organized as an
independent municipality, who for several years pursues his studies in
several provinces of the archipelago, supported by his parents,
returning to the latters’ home during his vacations in the newly
organized municipality, does not lose his residence in said
municipality, either on account of having resided in different
provinces as a student, or of having registered as a voter in the
former municipality and is eligible as municipal president of the new
municipality even if his registration as a voter in the municipality to
which the new one originally belonged has not been cancelled.

By virtue whereof, and finding no error in the judgment appealed
from, the same is hereby affirmed in its entirety, with costs against
the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.