Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > November 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1207 November 2, 1905 - PIA BASA v. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL.

005 Phil 187:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1207. November 2, 1905. ]

PIA BASA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Montagne & Dominguez, for Appellants.

Felipe G. Calderon and Fermin Mariano, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. CHILDREN; LEGITIMACY; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. — The plaintiffs admitted that the defendant M., born on January 22, 1852, was the legitimate child of S, and T. The certificate of baptism of D, ancestor of the plaintiffs, showed that he was born on September 23, 1951, of the same parents: Held, That the admission of the plaintiffs in respect to the legitimacy of the defendant M, proved that the statement of parentage in D’s certificate of baptism was false and that he could not be a legitimate child of S, and T.

2. ID.; ID.; CERTIFICATE OF BAPTISM. — Statements relating to parentage made in a certificate of baptism may be controverted by other evidence.

3. ID.; ID.; SURVIVAL OF ACTION; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. — D. died on June 29, 1896. The present action was commenced by his children on Oct. 15, 1901: Held, That considering the action as one to establish the legitimacy of D., it was barred by the provisions of article 118 of the Civil Code.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


1. Dalmacio Arquiza died on the 29th of June, 1896, at the age of 45 years, according to the certificates presented during the trial. (Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, pp. 12 and 157 of the bill of exceptions.)

2. His wife and daughters, the plaintiffs, filed the petition in this case, on the 15th of October, 1901. (P. 2 of the bill of exceptions.)

3. By their petition they seek the division of a piece of town property, described in the said petition as follows: "A certain block of land, situated in the suburb of Ermita, city of Manila, and bounded by Calle Nueva, Calle Isaac Peral, Calle del Padre Faura, and Calle Taran, together with all its parts and with the improvements and dependencies existing on the said land." (P. 3 of the bill of exceptions.)

4. Point 4 of the complaint establishes: "That the plaintiffs are the owners and proprietors of one-third part, undivided, of the aforesaid block of land." (P. 3 of the bill of exceptions.)

5. And in point 5: "The each of the defendants Maria Paz Arquiza and Jose Claro Arquiza are the owners and proprietors of one-third part, undivided, of the aforesaid block of land." (P. 3 of the bill of exceptions.)

6. In point 8: "That the defendants Maria Paz Arquiza, Jose Veles, her husband, and Jose Claro Arquiza, and each of them, are collecting and receiving at present, and have been collecting and receiving for a long time previous to the filing of this petition, the rent and revenues of the said block of land. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. There is no file with No. 8, as evidence presented by plaintiffs, a record of possessory proceedings "covering all the land and all the property the object of this litigation," instituted by a procurador de juzgados in the name of Jose Claro Arquiza, of which plaintiffs underscore the following words: "Which property my constituent acquired by inheritance from his deceased father, Santiago Arquiza, who died on the 19th of July, 1864, on which date his possession thereof commenced . . ." (P. 158 of the bill of exceptions.)

8. In fact Santiago Arquiza, the legitimate father of Jose Claro Arquiza, died on the 19th of July, 1864, after his wife, Joaquina Carcaces, whose death occurred on the 6th of August, 1858. (Exhibits Nos. 16 and 17, page 188 of the bill of exceptions.)

It is beyond question that Jose Claro Arquiza and Maria Paz Arquiza are legitimate children of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces, as shown by the petition itself, by the evidence adduced by both parties, and principally by the certificates of filiation, admitted without dispute. (Exhibits Nos. 14 and 15, page 167 of the bill of exceptions.)

The title on which the defendants Jose Arquiza and Maria Paz Arquiza base their ownership is that of inheritance from their legitimate father, Santiago Arquiza. The joint possession and title of Jose Claro Arquiza and Maria Paz Arquiza are based on their legitimate parentage, by virtue whereof, and considering themselves the sole heirs of their father, Santiago Arquiza, they took possession of said estate, holding it as their exclusive patrimony from their paternal side, they being the sole legitimate children who survived their father, whose title to the property is also beyond all controversy, and is presupposed in the present litigation.

The plaintiffs, however, claim participation in said inheritance and joint possession in representation of Dalmacio Arquiza, who, according to their allegation and evidence, was also a legitimate son of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces, their principal proof being the certificate of parentage of the said Dalmacio Arquiza, which reads as follows: "On the 28th of September, of the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, with my license, the priest Don Remigio Rodriguez solemnly baptized in the sagrario of this cathedral Dalmacio Arquiza, a boy 5 days of age, the legitimate son, born of legitimate weedlock, of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces, Indians . . ." (Exhibit No. 6, page 157 of the bill of exceptions.)

This alleged legitimate parentage, as well as the claim for joint possession since the beginning, and the claim for participation in the estate of Santiago Arquiza subsequently, were denied and disputed by the defendants in their amended reply with voluminous evidence, against which the plaintiffs adduced not less voluminous testimony, regarding the public opinion as to the origin of Dalmacio Arquiza, and the defendants established "that Dalmacio Arquiza was the son of Benita Linares, by Santiago Arquiza, but born while the latter was married with Joaquina Carcaces." (P. 13 of the bill of exceptions.)

In refutation of the alleged legitimate parentage of Dalmacio Arquiza, set forth in Exhibit No. 6, the certificate of baptism of the same, the defendants affirmed in their reply and supported with evidence that Dalmacio Arquiza, if he was a son of Santiago Arquiza, was a bastard child had with another woman, and not with his legitimate spouse, Joaquina Carcaces.

The court does not consider it necessary to state its opinion of the testimony adduced by the two parties, deeming sufficient undisputed facts, established and accepted by both parties, which are necessarily the premises of the question at issue.

The proof of the percentage of Maria de la Paz Arquiza consists in the certificate of her baptism and birth, the only proof them established by law, which is admitted as evidence unless it has been contested and the contrary established. It is worded as follows: "On the thirty-first of January of the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, Br. D. Escolastico Ruiz, secular priest of this archbishopric, did, with any license, solemnly baptize and anoint with the holy oils and chrism, in the church of Ermita, Maria Paz Arquiza, a girl 8 days of age, the legitimate daughter of D. Santiago Arquiza and Da. Joaquina Carcaces, Indians of the barrio of Ilaya, of the barangay No. 35." (Exhibit No. 15, page 167 of the bill of executions.)

If it is true, as has been admitted during the trial, that Maria de la Paz Arquiza was born eight days previous to the 31st of January, 1852 — that is, on the 22nd of said month and year — and that she is legitimate daughter, born in legitimate wedlock, of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces; if it is true, as has been admitted during the trial, that Dalmacio Arquiza was born on the 23d of September, 1851, it being denied that he was the legitimate son of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces, then it would appear from the attested dates of these documents, which have not been contested, but rather accepted by both parties, that an interval of only four months separated both these births. The attorney for the plaintiffs, now appellants, admits that it is impossible that two children be born from the same mother, one four months after the other, and neither law nor reason can require more evident and conclusive proof to properly establish than of these two children the one can not be legitimate whose legitimacy has been contested, and whose legitimacy is incompatible and can not be presumed jointly with that of the other child, the legitimacy of which is recognized and accepted. The judge says with good reason that if Maria Paz was the illegitimate child and Dalmacio the legitimate, the plaintiffs would not have requested one-third of the estate of Santiago Arquiza, thus acknowledging the right of Maria Paz to another third part, but one-half, the other to go to Jose Claro Arquiza, and Maria Paz to be excluded from inheritance.

Without proof of the legitimate birth of Dalmacio Arquiza, his status can not be considered the same as that of Jose Claro Arquiza and Maria de la Paz Arquiza, owners and possessors of the estate of which the heiresses of the said Dalmacio Arquiza claim a portion, because previous to the case on hand, and during the same, the said defendants were the only persons recognized and considered as the legitimate children and legitimate heirs of Santiago Arquiza. Without evidence to prove his being a legitimate son of Santiago Arquiza, Dalmacio Arquiza can not be given participation in the joint domain, with Jose Claro Arquiza and Maria de la Paz Arquiza, as coheir of these two, the only legitimate children surviving Santiago Arquiza. It being impossible to presuppose the joint domain presupposed by the complaint, there is no ground for an action, nor was there any basis for an action for the purpose of requesting, as has been requested, the partition of property supposed to be held, undivided, by three.

There is no such undivided estate held by three, because such joint domain by three did not exist. This joint domain by three can not exist, for the reason that there can not be three heirs with regard to the estate left by Santiago Arquiza. There are only two legitimate heirs, the two defendants. The person from whom the claim of the plaintiffs originates, if he was Santiago Arquiza’s son, was a bastard child, and incapable of being his heir. Plaintiffs themselves have furnished the proof of his illegitimate birth by the birth certificate of Dalmacio Arquiza, which has been proved a legal impossibility, and a physiological impossibility, as subsequently admitted by plaintiffs themselves, it being the most decisive evidence which could be adduced, and absolutely irrefutable for the party which presented it.

The two defendants, as legitimate children of Santiago Arquiza, had been in quiet and peaceful possession of his state since July, 1864, when after over thirty-seven years of such possession, a third party appeared before the courts with the claim that these two were not the only surviving legitimate children of Santiago Arquiza, but that there were three, the third being Dalmacio Arquiza. The legitimate filiation of the latter having been denied, legal procedure required that it be proved, the burden of proof resting upon him who alleged such filiation and based his claim on it. He made use of the principal proof authorized by article 115 of the Civil Code, and against this prima facie authentic evidence another proof of the same nature was adduced, for the purpose of comparing the two and the proving material impossibility. This impossibility it has been impossible to refute, and the legitimate filiation of Maria de la Paz continues to be encontested, and is incompatible with that of Dalmacio Arquiza, which has been persistently contested to the end. If the fact on which the petition is based is an absurdity, a legal impossibility, then there is no fact which can be the cause or origin of the action. This court, therefore, has no further evidence to examine as after all, it is not conclusive, because neither the uninterrupted enjoyment of the status of a legitimate child (article 116)) nor a foundation of proof in writing coming from both parents, either jointly or severally (article 117), can be deducted from the entire result of this case.

The court did not err in accepting, as evidence destructive of the presumption which a parochial record of baptism carries with it as to the parentage therein set forth, another record of the same nature and force, according to which is impossible to admit the contents of the former. It is already established jurisprudence, and appears, amongst other sentences, in the sentencia de casacion of the 13th of July, 1899, "that the record of baptism, as in general all the documents, attests the fact which gives rise to its issue, and the date thereof, to wit, the fact of the administration of the sacrament on the day stated, but not the truth of the statements therein made as to the parentage of the child baptized . . ." — That even when the filiation of legitimate children is proved, as established by article 115 of the Civil Code, by the record of the birth, entered in the civil register, analogous to which are the certificates of baptism previous to the creation of the civil office referred to, this is a presumption against which evidence may be admitted, and said article 115 is not infringed if said presumption is offset by said evidence." In the decision of March 28, 1896: "That a certificate of baptism having been proved false civilly, in so far as it sets forth the legitimate filiation of the plaintiff with regard to the defendant, this falsity being based on what appears from other documents of a like nature, and authentic and efficacious in the same manner, presented during the trial, it is evident that the relation of paternity was not fully established as required by the law, and the certificate of the administration of the sacrament does not, in the present case, constitute the authentic instrument to which pronounced the sentence, in declaring that the plaintiff had not proved that she was a legitimate daughter, plaintiff having also failed to prove constant enjoyment of that civil status, and in acquitting the defendant for this reason, did not infringe the provisions of the law in incur the errors of fact and law cited . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The fact that the plaintiff made of the question a supposition does not oblige the defendant and the court to suppose the only thing questionable, to wit, the status of the legitimate child of Dalmacio Arquiza, the same as Jose Claro Arquiza and Maria de la Paz Arquiza. This is the only question to be decided, and if decision should be rendered in favor of Dalmacio Arquiza, then the action for the division of the joint property of inheritance, filed by the successors in interest of Dalmacio Arquiza, would be justified by title of joint domain or joint inheritance, which would have to be recognized (since 1864) in favor of said Dalmacio Arquiza. In case of a decision to the contrary, however, such actions can not exist, in view of the absence of the title presupposed, and the petition must therefore be denied.

In fact, the whole question involved in this case has been based on the supposition that plaintiffs and defendants have not done anything but discuss whether or not Dalmacio Arquiza was the legitimate son and heir of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces, each upholding one or the other side of the question — the plaintiffs the affirmative, and the defendants the negative — the former, that he was coproprietor, as coheir, with the defendants, and the latter that he could not be coheir, and therefore not coproprietor with them. It is clearly an action for the recognition of legitimacy, or for petition of inheritance.

This being so, it must be considered that while the action to claim legitimacy could have been brought by the son, Dalmacio Arquiza, at any time of his life, it did not have this duration for his heir, as said action is transmitted to the same only when the child dies during minority or in a state of insanity. In cases where the action is transmitted to the heirs of the child, only a period of five years is allowed in which to institute the action. (Article 118.) Dalmacio Arquiza died neither in minority nor in a state of insanity, and even if he had died in either of those states it would appear that the action was instituted by his heirs after the five years had expired, it being filed on October 15, 1901, and he having died on June 29, 1896.

On these grounds we consider the judgment appealed from is in accordance with the law in "deciding that plaintiffs have no right to obtain anything in this action, and must pay the costs," and therefore affirm it in all its parts, denying the petition in all its chapters, with the costs of this instance against appellants.

Let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and after the lapse of twenty days let the records be returned to the lower court for execution thereof. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

Willard, J., did not sit in this case.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 1207. November 2, 1905.] PIA BASA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1497. November 2, 1905.] TOMANA VERA MOGUER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 2206. November 2, 1905.] MANUEL GASPAR, Plaintiff-Appellees, vs. JUAN B. MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2263. November 2, 1905.] CIPRIANO SANIDAD, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMON CABOTAJE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2304. November 3, 1905.] EL BANCO ESPA�OL-FILIPINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL., Defendant-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1078. November 7, 1905.] JOHN W. HOEY, Petitioner, vs. R.C. BALDWIN, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 1791. November 7, 1905.] EMILIO BUENO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2089. November 7, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ENRIQUE RIJANO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2297. November 7, 1905.] CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, administrator of the estate of Teodoro Patricio, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1341. November 8, 1905.] URSULA LIQUETE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EULALIO DARIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1528. November 10, 1905.] JOSE ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AURORA BARRIO, guardian of her minor children, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1975. November 10, 1905.] THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2296. November 10, 1905.] J.F. WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2322. November 10, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BASILISO BASTAS and DIONISIO DE LA SERNA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2332. November 10, 1905.] MIGUEL EVANGELISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1308. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PEDRO GIRON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1642. November 11, 1905.] JUAN NOEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LASALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2008. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2184. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO PALANCA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2371. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2425. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff and Appellees, vs. The Chinaman UN CHE SAT, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2444. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO CAGARA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1440. November 14, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, complainant-Appellee, vs. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2773. November 14, 1905.] HARRY J. COLLINS, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. G.N. WOLFE, Warden of Bilibid Prison, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1898. November 15, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2121. November 15, 1905.] THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO IRIBAR, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1465. November 17, 1905.] ALFREDO CHANCO, administrator of the estate of Maximo Madrilejos, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1789. November 17, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2125. November 15, 1905.] PEDRO IBA�EZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANA ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2631. October 21, 1905.] EDWIN H. WARNER, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. 771 OBJECTORS, Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2019. November 20, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1165. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RUFINO FELIPE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1261. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PACIANO ANONUEVO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1647. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ADAUCTO OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2289. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOE HUTCHINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1693. November 22, 1905.] FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. JOHN S. SWEENEY, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 2436. November 22, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUILLERMO MAZA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2153. November 23, 1905.] H. FRANKEL AND W.L. WRIGHT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. M.A. CLARKE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1036. November 25, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REGINO VALENCIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1696. November 27, 1905.] VICENTA RODRIGUEZ, administratrix of the estate of Lorenza Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LANALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 1207 November 2, 1905 - PIA BASA v. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 1497 November 2, 1905 - TOMANA VERA MOGUER v. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 2206 November 2, 1905 - MANUEL GASPAR v. JUAN B. MOLINA

    005 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 2263 November 2, 1905 - CIPRIANO SANIDAD v. SIMON CABOTAJE

    005 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 2304 November 3, 1905 - EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 1078 November 7, 1905 - JOHN W. HOEY v. R.C. BALDWIN

    005 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 1791 November 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENO v. LA COMPAÑIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN

    005 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 2089 November 7, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRIQUE RIJANO

    005 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 2297 November 7, 1905 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA

    005 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 1341 November 8, 1905 - URSULA LIQUETE v. EULALIO DARIO

    005 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 1284 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. JACINTO DEL ROSARIO

    005 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 1528 November 10, 1905 - JOSE ENRIQUEZ v. AURORA BARRIO

    005 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 1975 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    005 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 2296 November 10, 1905 - J.F. WRIGHT v. LA COMPAÑIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 2322 November 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BASILISO BASTAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 2332 November 10, 1905 - MIGUEL EVANGELISTA v. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 1308 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GIRON

    005 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 1642 November 11, 1905 - JUAN NOEL v. MARIANO LASALA

    005 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 2008 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 2184 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO PALANCA

    005 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 2371 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 2425 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. UN CHE SAT

    005 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 2444 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO CAGARA

    005 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 1440 November 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 2773 November 14, 1905 - HARRY J. COLLINS v. G.N. WOLFE

    005 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 1898 November 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE

    005 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 2121 November 15, 1905 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ANTONIO IRIBAR

    005 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 1465 November 17, 1905 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 1789 November 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 2125 November 15, 1905 - PEDRO IBAÑEZ v. ANA ORTIZ

    005 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 2019 November 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL

    005 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 1165 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO FELIPE

    005 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 1261 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIANO ANONUEVO

    005 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 1647 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUCTO OCAMPO

    005 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 2289 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOE HUTCHINSON

    005 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 1693 November 22, 1905 - FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA v. JOHN S. SWEENEY

    005 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 2436 November 22, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MAZA

    005 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 2153 November 23, 1905 - H. FRANKEL, ET AL. v. M.A. CLARKE

    005 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 1036 November 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO VALENCIA

    005 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 1696 November 27, 1905 - VICENTA RODRIGUEZ v. MARIANO LANALA

    005 Phil 357