This  is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance  of  the Province of Leyte  entered upon an order sustaining a demurrer  to an election protest, alleging that said protest did not state facts sufficient sustain a contest under the statute.

The court dismissed  the  protest upon two grounds:

First. That it did not allege that the protestee had been duly proclaimed governor of the Province of Leyte.

Second. That it  appeared  from  the allegations  of the protest that not of the candidates for the office  of provincial governor, the office concerning which the protest was filed, had been notified of the protest as required law.

We are  satisfied,  after a careful  examination of  the protest, that the decision of the  court below is well founded.

Of  course, one  of  the  fundamental facts necessary  to appear before a contest can be maintained is the election of the person against whom the protest is made.  If there is no election there can be no protest.  The b evidence, in fact, the primary evidence  of such election  is,  under the proclamation of the provincial board of canvassers.  It is  nowhere allege the protest that such board proclaimed the election of the protestee.   On the contrary, it affirmatively appears that such board did not do so, the protestant alleging that the protestee was declared elected by the various municipal boards of  inspectors.

We have already decided in  a cause not yet  published that the Election Law  is a special  law providing within itself a complete procedure highly special in its nature by which the protest may be carried on;  and that it be strictly followed.  The statute requires that a protest shall be inaugurated by motion upon notice to all of  the candidates receiving votes for that particular office.   That requirement must be  literally followed.   It w evidently the purpose of the Legislature, to bring into the proceeding every person who was interested in the result of the election and to give him a opportunity to be present at the hearing of the protest and  to be heard. What that purpose was, we do not  now stop to inquire.   It is sufficient us that the Legislature has  so required.

In the case at bar it was found by the  court below that the protest did allege  and that  the  record did not demonstrate that all of the candida had  received the notice of protest as  required by law.  A perusal of the protest demonstrates at once the correctness of this conclusion. The service the notice as required by law is one of the steps  necessary to  give the court jurisdiction to  proceed. This step not having been taken,  the court acquired no jurisdiction.  (Topacio vs. Paredes,  p.  238, ante; Navarro vs. Jimenez, p. 557, ante,)

The  judgment appealed from  is  hereby  affirmed,  with costs.   So ordered.

Arellano,  C.  J.,  Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Trent, JJ.,concur.