At the elections held on the 5th day of November, 1907, the petitioner  obtained a  majority of votes for the office of municipal president of the town of Badoc, Province of Ilocos Norte.  A protest was lodged with the Court of First Instance of said province against said elections, in so far as the said office was concerned, by the defeated candidate Lorenzo  Baldueza, one  of the respondents herein.  The protest was presented within the term appointed by the law, alleging as ground therefor, acts  which are said to constitute a violation of paragraph 3 of section 30 of the Election Law (Act No.  1582 of the Philippine Commission).

Proceedings  were commenced  under the provisions  of section  27 of the said law, and after consideration of the evidence adduced by both  parties, the trial court rendered judgment as follows;

"The record  discloses that from the year 1903, Silvestre Arzadon was, and still is, the organizer of a body or group of electors for  the office of municipal president. He promised that if he should be elected to that office his  electors would not be employed in any work for the town, and that if they  ever  became involved in any court proceedings or with the  government,  they would be assisted  by him,  the expenses  to be paid out of the funds  of the  group;  that one of the agreements made by the group was to distribute ballots among the electors bearing the names of the  persons to be voted for, prior to  the former taking the oath  prescribed  by law; the said  electors were instructed  to elect no other persons than such as were designated in the  ballots; that Silvestre Arzadon held meetings for the purpose  of influencing and inducing the electors to vote for certain persons  and  offered  money  wherever necessary  or  to the electors who  did not desire employment, etc.,  etc.

"By the foregoing, Silvestre Arzadon appears  to have violated the provisions of  the  Election Law which prohibit every action, influence, and promise of  any kind, for the purpose  of obtaining  votes.   These should indicate  the free  will of the voters, and for such  infractions his  election  for the office of  municipal president of  the  town of Badoc must  be  considered illegal.

"Therefore, it is decreed by the court that  the election of  Silvestre  Arzadon for the office of  president,  held on the 5th day  of  November last, in the municipality  of Badoc, Ilocos Norte,  was  not legal, and  another special election  for the said office  must be held at the expense  of the said Arzadon who shall not then  be eligible, and any vote  entered in  his favor  shall not count; the  costs and expenses of these proceedings shall also be charged to him."

Upon  being notified of the above decision, Silvestre Arzadon  appeared before  this  court  and  instituted, certiorari proceedings and prayed that said decision  be declared null in so far as it  held that he was ineligible for the special election  for the  office of municipal president of the  town of Badoc,  as ordered in  said  judgment, and  so  far  as  it provides that said  special election be held at his expense. The matter has now been submitted to this court.

Certiorari is  the proper remedy whenever  an inferior tribunal, board, or  officer exercising judicial functions, has exceeded its or his jurisdiction,  and no appeal,  nor  any plain, speedy, and  adequate remedy exists to correct such excess or  extralimitation.  (Sees. 217 and 514,  Code of Civil  Procedure.)   The jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance to hear and  decide election contests  is exclusive and final  (sec.  27 of the  Election  Law) ; consequently,  decisions rendered by them in the exercise of said jurisdiction can not be reviewed by means of an appeal.  As they are not appealable and as against them no other plain, speedy and adequate  remedy exists,  it is evident that they constitute a proper  subject for the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.   Therefore, if the court below has exceeded his jurisdiction in  rendering the  above-cited  decision it is proper to annul the  same by  virtue of said proceedings.

It is our opinion that  he has so exceeded his jurisdiction.  The  jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance to hear election protests  is conferred  upon them by the  aforesaid   section 27 of the Election  Law, and neither the said section, nor any other legal provision authorizes the court, in deciding such protests, to declare ineligible in future elections the person against whom the protest was presented, nor to sentence him to pay the expenses of the new election to be held.   Hence, the court below had no power to enter such rulings in the case as gave rise to these proceedings, and  in consequence  thereof said rulings must be entirely annulled.

The said court having ordered a special election,  it is a question whether or not he was authorized to do so under the Election Law.  But this  point  in his  decision has  not been  impugned nor  appealed from, and can  not therefore be the subject of a ruling in  this decision.

The judgment  appealed  from is hereby annulled  in  so far as it holds that the petitioner is ineligible at  the special election ordered therein, and imposes  on him the obligation to bear the expenses of such election, without any special ruling as to the costs in these proceedings.    So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.