This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court  of Appeals.

Petitioner Salvador L. Calo and respondent Casiano C. Plaza were candidates for the office of mayor of the City of  Butuan  in  the  general elections held  on November 10, 1959.  Two (2) weeks later, or on November  25, 1959, the Board of Canvassers of Butuan City proclaimed Calo elected with  7,464 votes as against  7,278 votes  of  Plaza his closest opponent, or a plurality of  186  votes  in  favor of Calo.    Soon thereafter, or  on December 3, 1959,  Plaza filed the corresponding election   protest with  the  Court of First Instance  of  Agusan, which,  after   appropriate proceedings, rendered judgment  for  Plaza, whom the  court declared elected with 7,428 votes  as against 7,402  votes credited  to Calo, or a plurality of 26 votes in  favor of Plaza.  On appeal  taken by both parties, a special division of the Court of Appeals, in a  4 to  1  decision, held that Plaza had been elected with a plurality of  five (5) votes, and with this  modification, affirmed the decision of the trial   court, with costs against  Calo.  Hence this appeal by  certiorari taken by the latter,  who  maintains that the Court of Appeals has committed eight  (8)  alleged errors discussed  in his brief.  We do not deem it necessary, however, to take up each one of   said alleged errors for the reasons presently to be stated.

Protestant's plurality  of twenty-six  (26) votes under the decision of the trial court was reduced by the Court of Appeals to five (5)  votes, because  the  name  written on the  space for  mayor in most of the ballots involved therein was "D.O. Plaza", and   one of the candidates for Governor of the Province of Agusan was Democrito O. Plaza, and because the latter's nickname  is  "Monting" and  the name written on said  space  in one (1) ballot (Exhibit 24-d)  was "Monting  Plaza",  so  that, the  protestee  contended,  the  candidate voted  for was,  not the protestant,  but  said Democrito  O. Plaza.  The protestee maintained, therefore, that  these ballots should  be  considered as  stray votes for mayor, but the Court of Appeals was not inclined to  sustain this view, for the reason that the  person voted for  Governor  in some of these ballots was, also,  "D.O. Plaza", and that "Monting  Plaza"  was, also, the  name  written on the space for Governor in said Exhibit 24-d.  The conclusion  drawn therefrom by the  Court  of Appeals was that  the voters who filled these ballots  had in mind for mayor a person other than the one  voted  for   Governor, which  is clearly untenable, for, having written  the  same name in both spaces, the voter must be  deemed  to have intended  the  same individual , since identity  of names necessarily connotes identity of persons, unless the contrary is satisfactorily established by  competent  evidence, and no such  evidence has  been introduced in the present case.

This notwithstanding, the Court of  Appeals concluded that even if the votes for "D.O.   Plaza"  and "Monting Plaza" which,  according to the appealed decision  numbered twenty-one (21)-were deducted from those  obtained by the protestant, the latter would still be the winner by five  (5) votes.  There are,  however, a number of other ballots   that have been erroneously counted  for the protestant,  and/or  not counted  for  protestee  Calo,  to wit:

1. Exhibits 19-c,  36-e, 57-b, 55-a, 15-d, 19-b, 67-F, 37-F, 44-b, 89-c and 70, or eleven (11)  ballots, in which "D.O. Plaza"  was, also, voted for  mayor.   These  ballots should be  considered as stray votes  for mayor  and   deducted from the total number credited to Plaza by the Court of Appeals.  Paragraphs   (1)  and  (6) of Section 149 of the Revised Election Code read:

   "1. Any ballot where only the Christian name  of candidate or only  his surname appears  is valid for such candidate if there is no other candidate with the same name or surname for the same office; but when the word  written in the ballot is at the same time the Christian name of a  candidate and the surname of his  opponent, the vote shall be counted in favor of the latter."

   "6. The erroneous initial of the name which accompanies the correct   surname of a candidate, the erroneous initial of the surname accompanying the  correct name  of  a  candidate, or the  erroneous intermediate  initial between the correct name and surname of a candidate does not annul the vote in favor of the latter."

   are  not in point.  Paragraph (1)  refers to  the   case when only the Christian name,  or the surname, or  one word, which is the Christian name of a candidate and  the surname of his opponent, has  been written   by  the voter. It  does not  apply when  said  word is   accompanied  by initials, as  in the ballots above mentioned.   Neither does paragraph  (6) apply when the initial or initials and the surname written are those of another candidate, although for  another office, inasmuch as  the latter must be deemed to be the person voted for.

2. Exhibits 41-b, 55-d and 7-e  (3 ballots) should likewise, be considered, for the same reason, stray votes for mayor, instead of being counted for protestant  Plaza, the name written on the  space for mayor therein  being "D. Plaza".
3. We should similarly consider as stray votes for mayor Exhibits 56-d,  44-b-l and 30-a (3 ballots)  in which the persons voted for mayor  are "D.O. Pleza",  "D.O. Pesza" and  "D.  Palasas", respectively, tor, even if  the surnames therein had been   correctly written "Plaza", these ballots would not  be in a better  position  than those involved in the  preceding  paragraphs, insofar as  the  protestant is concerned.
4. Exhibit 33-C-2 (1 ballot) in which the candidate voted for  mayor is "D. B. Plasa", is substantially in  the same condition as those heretofore  discussed.
5. Exhibits  21-e,  28-c, 57-f,  20-f-2 and  20-f-l  (5 ballots), with pasted stickers bearing  the printed name of persons, in  which Plaza  is voted   for mayor, should be annulled as marked ballots  (Section 149,  paragraph  14).
6. Exhibit 4-e,  in which the name "Plaza" was written successively  in the first   four  (4) spaces  for  Senators, and Exhibit 4-e-l, in which  the voter wrote "D.O.  Plaza" on  the  eight  (8) spaces for Senators, apart  from the space for Governor, and in both of which Plaza was voted for  mayor, are, also, marked ballots, which  (2 ballots) should be  deducted from  the  votes credited to Plaza by the   Court  of Appeals.
7. Exhibit 59-d-l, in which Plaza is voted for mayor, should be  annulled as  a marked  ballot, the voter  having written  on the fourth space for Senators the words "Mga lider  sopsop  elang tian  guipaboro".
8. The following thirteen (13) ballots should be counted for  Calo, he having been  voted therein for  mayor.  They were  erroneously nullified  by the trial  court  upon the ground  that they are marked:

1. Exhibit M 9, merely because, after filling the first space for  members of the provincial board, the voter had written on  the second space therefor a word that  the trial court read as "vocales".  It should be noted, however, that one of the candidates  for member of  the  provincial board  was  "Morales",  and that the penmanship of  the voter is so poor  that he could have actually intended to write  "Morales"  not "vocales".  Moreover, this word is the  Spanish term for  members  of the provincial board and the  voter  might not  have  been familiar with  the equivalent  in English of said term "vocales", so that he may have  inserted  this Spanish expression to indicate that the name   written  on said fiisst space was intended for "vocales", or members of  the  provincial board, and, hence, without the intent to mark or identify the ballot.
2. Exhibit EEEE-4, because the word written on  the space  for vice-mayor is "Conbaburd".   This is not sufficient identification  mark, in the absence  of evidence aliunde, which  has not been introduced.   The voter was obviously unenlightened, judging from his poor spelling and handwriting.
3. Exhibit RRRR, because "E, CHEZ" appears  written on the second space for councilors.   The trial  court did not state why it considered the ballot marked.   The fact that "E, CHEZ" was written in  block letters, like the name "PEREZ", appearing in the  next lower space, unlike other names on  the ballot, which were written in ordinary script,  does not justify the action taken by  the trial court  (Sec  149, par. 18).  Besides there was a candidate for  councilor  by the name of  Sanchez, and  the voter appears to  be of the unenlightened type.
4. Exhibit 1-6, because the vote for mayor is "Badong Calo-Nanong".  The last term (Nanong) does not suffice to constitute an  identification  mark.
5. Exhibit  S-8, because,  after filling the  space  for Senators, provincial officiate, mayor  and vice-mayor and the first space for councilors, the voter wrote, in the third space for councilors,  the words "That's all", leaving  the second and other spaces for  councilors  blank.   Obviously the voter merely  wanted to indicate that he did not care to vote for more than one councilor.
6. Exhibit S-10, because, instead of writing the names of persons  on the spaces for Senators, the  voter wrote on the first space therefor the  words "Grand Allaian". The intent to mark the ballot is far from clear.  The voter may have meant to vote for the entire set of candidates for Senator of  the political  party known as  Grand Alliance.
7. Exhibit 99-f-10,  because  the word  written on the third space for councilors is  "Air"  or "Ais".  Considering that this word may be considered  iden   sonams with "Asis", which is the surname  of a candidate for councilor, the voter may have merely committed an error in spelling.
8. Exhibit V-4-d, because "sn  B sanci" appears on the space for vice-mayor.  The voter wrote, also,  "di palsa" on the space for Provincial Governor, and "Ba  Calo", on the space for mayor.  These  circumstances and his poor penmanship, as well as the fact  that there was a  candidate surnamed Sanchez, convince us that the voter had no intention to mark his ballot.
9. Exhibit VVV-6, because the name written on  the space for mayor  is "S Kato". However, "K" is used in many parts of the Philippines in lieu of "C".  We note also, that the "t" in "Kato", is  written like an "i", although with a horizontal bar at  the top,  and that the voter has a very poor  handwriting   Under  the  circumstances,  said "Kato" may be considered idem sonams with  "Calo".
10. Exhibit ZZ-5, because the  name written on the last space for councilors  is   "Martha".  The intent to mark is not  clear.
11. Exhibit QQQQ-3,  because the  name written, on the last space for councilors, is "Pasing".  Without any  evidence almnde on  the intent  to  identify the  ballot, said word is not enough to nullify  the ballot as a  marked one.
12. Exhibit PP-6, because "D.O. Plaza ako" is written on the space for Provincial Governor  The term  "ako" is  not  sufficient  to nullify  the  ballot.   The evident intent of the voter was,, obviously, to stress his desire to vote for Democrito  O.   Plaza for Provincial Governor.
13. Exhibit GG-4, because  it is written in ink.  The trial court violated paragraph 10 of Section 149 of the Revised Election Code.

Recapitulating, we should, therefore,  deduct 11 plus 3, plus 3, plus 1, plus 5, plus 2, plus 1, or altogether 26 votes, from the 7,407 votes counted in  favor of Plaza by the Court of Appeals,  thereby  leaving a  balance  of  7,381  votes in his favor.  Upon  the other hand,  we  must add thirteen (13)  votes to the 7,402 votes  credited to Calo by  said Court, thereby increasing his votes to 7,415. As  a consequence protestee Calo has won with a plurality of thirty four  (34)  votes  over protestant Plaza.

Wherefore, the decision  of  the  Court of Appeals  and that of the Court  of First Instance of Agusan are hereby reversed and  another one shall be entered declaring that protestee Salvador L. Calo is the duly elected mayor for Butuan  City, with  costs against  protestant  Casiano C. Plaza.  It is  so  ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ.,   concur.