Facts:

The case of Manuel Aquino et al. vs. Judge of First Instance of Cagayan et al. arose from a municipal election held on June 6, 1916, in the municipality of Amulung, Province of Cagayan. The election was conducted to select a president, a vice-president, and councilmen for the municipality. Following the election, a canvass of the votes was performed, resulting in the declaration of certain candidates as elected officials by the municipal board of inspectors. On June 19, 1916, a joint protest against the election results was filed by several candidates who had run for the positions of president, vice-president, and councilmen. Notice of this protest was duly given to all opposing candidates, except for two candidates who were vying for the councilman positions. Subsequently, a motion was filed to dismiss the protest on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it, as the two councilman candidates had not been notified. The lower court considered this motion ...

Facts:

1. Election Held: An election was conducted on June 6, 1916, in the municipality of Amulung, Province of Cagayan, to elect a president, vice-president, and councilmen.
2. Canvass of Votes: After the election, the municipal board of inspectors canvassed the votes and declared certain candidates elected.
3. Joint Protest Filed: On June 19, 1916, a joint protest was filed by some candidates for president, vice-president, and councilmen against the election results.
4. Notice of Protest: Notice of the protest was given to all opposing candidates except two candidates for councilman.
5. Motion to Dismiss: A motion was filed to dismiss the protest on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction because the two councilman candidates were not notified.
6. Dismissal of Protest: The court dismissed the protest based on the motion, prompting the petitioners to seek a writ of mandamus to reinstate and hear the protest on its merits.

Issue:

1. Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to hear the protest despite the failure to notify all candidates, particularly the two councilman candidates.
2. Whether the joint protest filed by candidates for president, vice-president, and councilmen constituted an improper joinder of parties, requiring separate protests for each office.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)