7/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267

806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections
*
G.R. No. 125249. February 7, 1997.

JIMMY S. DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS and AMANDO A. MEDRANO, respondents.

Election Law; Protests; Public office is personal to the public officer

and is not a property transmissible to his heirs upon death.—It is true that a
public office is personal to the public officer and is not a property
transmissible to his heirs upon death. Thus, applying the doctrine of actio
personalis moritur cum persona, upon the death of the incumbent, no heir of
his may be allowed to continue holding his office in his place.
Same; Same; An election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to
the protestant or to the protestee such that the death of either would oust the
court of all authority to continue the protest proceedings.—But while the
right to a public office is personal and exclusive to the public officer, an
election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to
the protestee such that the death of either would oust the court of all
authority to continue the protest proceedings.
Same; Same; An election protest involves not merely conflicting private
aspirations but is imbued with paramount public interests.—An election
contest, after all, involves not merely conflicting private aspirations but is
imbued with paramount public interests.
Same; Same; Death of the protestant neither constitutes a ground for
the dismissal of the contest nor ousts the trial court of its jurisdiction to
decide the election contest.—The death of the protestant, as in this case,
neither constitutes a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor ousts the
trial court of its jurisdiction to decide the election contest. Apropos is the
following pronouncement of this court in the case of Lomugdang v. Javier:
Determination of what candidate has been in fact elected is a matter clothed
with public interest, wherefore, public policy demands that an election
contest, duly commenced, be not abated by the death of the contestant. We
have squarely so ruled in Sibulo Vda. de De Mesa vs. Judge Mencias, G.R.
No. L-24583, October 29, 1966, in the same spirit that led this Court to hold
that the ineligibility of the protestant is not a defense

_______________

* EN BANC.

807

VOL. 267, FEBRUARY 7, 1997 807

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017341fb7876232c2ba3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
7/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

(Caesar vs. Garrido, 53 Phil. 97), and that the protestee’s cessation in office
is not a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor detract the Court’s
jurisdiction to decide the case (Angeles vs. Rodriguez, 46 Phil. 595; Salcedo
vs. Hernandez, 62 Phil. 584)."
Same; Same; The asseveration of petitioner that private respondent is
not a real party in interest entitled to be substituted in the election protest in
place of the late Jamilla is utterly without legal basis.—The asseveration of
petitioner that private respondent is not a real party in interest entitled to be
substituted in the election protest in place of the late Jamilla, is utterly
without legal basis. Categorical was our ruling in Vda. de De Mesa and
Lomugdang that: “x x x the Vice Mayor elect has the status of a real party in
interest in the continuation of the proceedings and is entitled to intervene
therein. For if the protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the Vice-
Mayor succeeds to the office of Mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly
elected can not assume the post.”

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Garcia, De la Peña & Partners for petitioner.
Brillantes, Machura, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla & Bello Law
Offices for private respondent

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for certiorari raising twin issues as regards the

effect of the contestant’s death in an election protest: Is said contest
a personal action extinguished upon the death of the real party in
interest? If not, what is the mandatory period within which to
effectuate the substitution of parties?
The following antecedent facts have been culled from the
pleadings and are not in dispute:
Petitioner was proclaimed Mayor of Gloria, Oriental Mindoro
during the May 8,1995 elections.
In the same elections, private respondent was proclaimed Vice-
Mayor of the same municipality.

808

808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

On May 19, 1995, petitioner’s rival

1
candidate, the late Nicolas M.
Jamilla, filed an election protest before
2
the Regional Trial Court of
Pinamalayan, an, Oriental
3
Mindoro. During the pendency of said
contest, Jamilla died. Four
days after such death or on December 19, 1995, the trial court
dismissed the election protest ruling as it did that "[a]s this case is
personal, the death of the protestant extinguishes the case itself. The
issue or issues
4
brought out in this protest have become moot and
academic."
On January 9, 1995, private respondent learned about the
dismissal of the protest from one Atty. Gaudencio S. Sadicon, who,

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017341fb7876232c2ba3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
7/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267

as the late Jamilla’s counsel, was the one who informed the trial
court of his client’s demise.
On January 15, 1996, private respondent filed his Omnibus
Petition/Motion (For 5 Intervention and/or Substitution with Motion
for Reconsideration). Opposition thereto was filed by petitioner on
January 30, 1996.6 7
In an Order dated February 14, 1996, the trial court denied
private respondent’s Omnibus Petition/Motion and stubbornly held
that an election protest being personal to the protestant, is ipso facto
terminated by the latter’s death.
Unable to agree with the trial court’s dismissal of the election
protest, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari and
mandamus before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC);
private respondent mainly assailed the trial court orders as having
been issued with grave abuse of discretion. 8
COMELEC granted the petition for certiorari and mandamus. It
ruled that an election contest involves both the pri-

________________

1 Election Protest Case No. 8–95.

2 Branch 41 presided by Judge Antonio R. Quizon.
3 Jamilla died on December 15, 1995.
4 Order dated December 19, 1995; Rollo, p. 26.
5 Rollo, pp. 78–83.
6 Id., pp. 85–86.
7 Id., p. 27.
8 Resolution of the COMELEC dated May 28, 1996, penned by Commissioner
Julio F. Desamito; Rollo, pp. 19–24.

809

VOL. 267, FEBRUARY 7, 1997 809

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

vate interests of the rival candidates and the public interest in the
final determination of the real choice of the electorate, and for this
reason, an election contest necessarily survives the death of the
protestant or the protestee.
We agree.
It is true that a public office is personal to the public officer
9
and
is not a property transmissible to his heirs upon death. Thus,
applying the doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona, upon
the death of the incumbent, no heir of his may be allowed to
continue holding his office in his place.
But while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to
the public officer, an election protest is not purely personal and
exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such that the death of
either would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest
proceedings.
An election contest, after all, involves not merely conflicting
private aspirations but is imbued with paramount public interests.
10
As
we have held in the case of Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias:

“x x x. It is axiomatic that an election contest, involving as it does not only

the adjudication and settlement of the private interests of the rival

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017341fb7876232c2ba3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
7/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267

candidates but also the paramount need of dispelling once and for all the
uncertainty that beclouds the real choice of the electorate with respect to
who shall discharge the prerogatives of the offices within their gift, is a
proceeding imbued with public interest which raises it onto a plane over and
above ordinary civil actions. For this reason, broad perspectives of public
policy impose upon courts the imperative duty to ascertain by all means
within their command who is the real candidate elected in as expeditious a
manner as possible, without being fettered by technicalities and procedural
barriers to the end that the will of the people may not be frustrated (Ibasco
vs. Ilao, et al., G.R. L-17512, December 29, 1960; Reforma vs. De Luna,
G.R. L-13242, July 31, 1958). So inextricably intertwined are the interests
of the contestants and those of the public that there can be no gainsaying the
logic of the proposition

________________

9 Santos v. Secretary of Labor, 22 SCRA 848, 850 [1968].

10 18 SCRA 533 [1966].

810

810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

that even the voluntary cessation in office of the protestee not only does not
ipso facto divest him of the character of an adversary in the contest
inasmuch as he retains a party interest to keep his political opponent out of
the office and maintain therein his successor, but also does not in any
manner impair or detract from the jurisdiction of the court to pursue the
proceeding to its final conclusion (De Los Angeles vs, Rodriguez, 46 Phil.
595, 597; Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 62 Phil. 584, 587; Galves vs. Maramba,
G.R. L-13206). Upon the same principle, the death of the protestee De Mesa
did not abate the proceedings in the election protest filed against him, and it
may be stated as a rule that an election contest survives and 11
must be
prosecuted to final judgment despite the death of the protestee."

The death of the protestant, as in this case, neither constitutes a

ground for the dismissal of the contest nor ousts the trial court of its
jurisdiction to decide the election contest. Apropos is the following
12
pronouncement of this court in the case of Lomugdang v. Javier:

“Determination of what candidate has been in fact elected is a matter

clothed with public interest, wherefore, public policy demands that an
election contest, duly commenced, be not abated by the death of the
contestant. We have squarely so ruled in Sibulo Vda. de De Mesa vs. Judge
Mencias, G.R. No. L-24583, October 29, 1966, in the same spirit that led
this Court to hold that the ineligibility of the protestant is not a defense
(Caesar vs. Garrido, 53 Phil. 97), and that the protestee’s cessation in office
is not a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor detract the Court’s
jurisdiction to decide the case 13(Angeles vs. Rodriguez, 46 Phil. 595; Salcedo
vs. Hernandez, 62 Phil. 584)."

The asseveration of petitioner that private respondent is not a real

party in interest entitled to be substituted in the election protest in
place of the late Jamilla, is utterly without legal basis. Categorical
was our ruling in Vda. de De Mesa and Lomugdang that:

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017341fb7876232c2ba3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
7/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267

________________

11 Id., p. 538.
12 21 SCRA 402 [1967].
13 Id., p. 407.

811

VOL. 267, FEBRUARY 7, 1997 811

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

“x x x the Vice Mayor elect has the status of a real party in interest in the
continuation of the proceedings and is entitled to intervene therein. For if
the protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the Vice-Mayor succeeds
to the office of Mayor
14
that becomes vacant if the one duly elected can not
assume the post."

To finally dispose of this case, we rule that the filing by private

respondent of his Omnibus Petition/Motion on January 15, 1996,
well within a period of thirty days from December 19, 1995 when
Jamilla’s counsel informed the trial court of Jamilla’s death, was in
compliance with Section 17, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Since the Rules of Court, though not generally applicable to election
cases, may 15
however be applied by analogy or in a suppletory
character, private respondent was correct to rely thereon.
The above jurisprudence is not ancient, in fact these legal
moorings have been recently
16
reiterated in the 1991 case of De la
Victoria vs. COMELEC. If only petitioner’s diligence in updating
himself with case law is as spirited as his persistence in pursuing his
legal asseverations up to the highest court of the land, no doubt
further derailment of the election protest proceedings could have
been avoided.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for
certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (C.J.), Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco,
Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

——o0o——

______________

14 Ibid.
15 Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias, 18 SCRA 533, 539 [1966].
16 199 SCRA 561.

812

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017341fb7876232c2ba3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
7/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017341fb7876232c2ba3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6