PEDRO SALDAÑA, PROTESTANT AND APPELLANT, VS. TRANQUILINO NAVARRO, PROTESTEE AND APPELLEE.

VILLA-REAL, J.:

Pedro Saldana appeals to this court from the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bataan which reads as
follows:

“Acting upon Attorney Vicente J. Francisco’s
motion for dismissal of the election protest filed by Pedro Saldafia
against Tranquilino Navarro in the above entitled case, on the ground
that it is not stated in said protest that the protestant or the
protestee are ‘duly registered candidates’, which is an indispensable
requisite prescribed by the Election Law to confer jurisdiction upon the
courts to take cognizance of these cases, the court, after iiaving
carefully examined all the pleadings for and against said motion, has
arrived at the conclusion that said motion for dismissal should be
granted. (See Tabada vs. Zandueta and Vergara, 47 Phil., 859.)
Even granting that the word ‘inscribed’ is synonymous to ‘registered’,
inasmuch as the law precisely requires that there be an allegation to
the effect that the certificate of candidacy of a candidate has been
‘duly filed’, and there being no such allegation in the motion of
protest, the court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance ofssdd case.

“Wherefore, the motion for dismissal filed by said
Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, representing Tranquilino Navarro, the
protestee in this case, is granted, and this case is dismissed, with
costs against the protestant. So ordered.”

In support of his appeal, the protestant assigns the
following alleged errors as committed by the trial court in its said
resolution, to wit;

“1. The lower court erred in declaring that the
protestant should allege in his motion of protest that his certificate
of candidacy was ‘duly filed’.

“2. The lower court erred in ordering the
dismissal of this case with costs against the protestant/’

The only question to be decided in this appeal is
whether or not the facts alleged in the motion of protest filed by the
appellant Pedro Saldana are sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the
Court of First Instance of Bataan to take cognizance of said case.

Paragraph 2 of said motion of protest reads as
follows:

“2. That said protestant and protestee are
qualified voters of the municipality of Samal, Province of Bataan, the
only two inscribed candidates for the office of municipal president of
said municipality, and that they were voted for for said office in the
general elections held on June 5, 1934.”

The trial court, in ordering the dismissal of the
motion of protest under consideration, based its opinion on the ground
that it did not allege that the certificate of candidacy has been “duly
filed” as required by section 479 of Act No. 3834.

In the case of Acerden vs. Tonolete (52
Phil., 409), the motion of protest contained the following allegation of
jurisdictional facts: “That in the general elections held on June 5,
1928, the protestant and protestee were the only two candidates
registered and voted for who contended for the office of municipal
president of the municipality of Carigara.” The question having been
raised whether or not the above facts were sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon the court, with which said motion was filed, in order
to take cognizance of the case, this court decided it in the
affirmative.

Between the allegation of jurisdictional facts
contained in the motion of protest in the above cited case of Acerden vs.
Tonolete and that contained in the motion of protest under
consideration, there is no essential difference. Neither is there any
essential difference between the word “registered” used in the motion of
protest in the former case and “inscribed” used herein, inasmuch as
they are synonymous. (IV Escriche, Dictionary of Law and Jurisprudence;
Dictionary of the Spanish Language.)

In view of the foregoing consideration, we are of
the opinion and so hold that the allegation “That said protestant and
protestee are qualified voters of the municipality of Samal, Province of
Bataan, the only two inscribed candidates for the office of municipal
president of said municipality, and that they were voted for for said
office in the general elections held on June 5,1934,” contained in a
motion of protest, substantially complies “with all the requisites
prescribed by section 479 of Act No. 3834 to confer jurisdiction upon a
Court of First Instance to take cognizance of an election protest.

Wherefore, the resolution appealed from is reversed
and it is ordered that the motion of protest be reinstated and the
proceedings therein continued, with costs against the appellee. So
ordered.

Malcolm, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard,
JJ., concur.