Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > May 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 - MATEO CARIÑO v. TINSULAR GOVERNMENT

007 Phil 132:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2746. December 6, 1906. ]

MATEO CARIÑO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, Respondent-Appellee.

Coudert Brothers, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Wilfley, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC LANDS; PRESCRIPTION; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. — The statute of limitations did not run against the Crown of Spain as to its public agricultural lands in these Islands. (Following Valenton Et. Al. v. Murciano, and other cases.)

2. ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION OF GRANT. — There is in these Islands no conclusive presumption of a grant from the Government founded merely upon long possession.

3. ID.; ID.; PUBLIC LAND ACT. — Act No. 926, section 54, paragraph 6, is not applicable to this case.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


The appellant, on the 23d of June, 1903, by his attorney in fact, Metcalf A. Clarke, filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration asking that he be inscribed as the owner of a tract of land in the municipality of Baguio, in the province of Benguet, containing 146 hectares. The Government of the Philippine Islands, appeared in the Court of Land Registration and opposed the petition. The Government of the United States that the land was part of the military reservation of Baguio. Judgment was entered in the Court of Land Registration in favor of the petitioner, from which judgment the respondents appealed in accordance with the law then in force to the Court of First Instance of the province of Benguet. The case was therein tried de novo, and judgment was entered dismissing the petition. The petitioner has brought the case here by bill of exceptions.

The petitioner presented no documentary evidence of title, except a possessory information obtained in 1901. By the provisions of the Mortgage Law, under which this possessory information was obtained (art. 394), it produced only those effects which the laws give to mere possession.

The petitioner not having shown any title from the Government, and the land being agricultural, the case is governed by the decisions of this court in the cases of Valenton Et. Al. v. Murciano 1 (2 Off. Gaz., 434); Cansino Et. Al. v. Valdez Et. Al. 2 (4 Off. Gaz., 488); and Tiglao v. The Insular Government 1 (4 Off. Gaz., 747). In these cases it was held that the mere possession of land such as that in controversy in this case would give the possessor and title thereto as against the Government; in other words, that the statute of limitations did not run against the State in reference to its agricultural lands.

The petitioner, however, insists that although the statute of limitations as such did not run against the Government of Spain in the Philippine Islands, yet a grant is to be conclusively presumed from immemorial use and occupation. To say that the presumption of a grant is presumption of law is, in our opinion, simply to say that it amounts to a statute of limitations; and for a court to hold that the statute of limitations does not run against the Government as to its public agricultural lands, and at the same time to hold that if a person has been in possession of such lands for thirty years it is conclusively presumed that the Government has given him a deed therefor, would be to make two rulings directly inconsistent with each other.

Considered as a presumption of fact, the contention could not be sustained in this particular case. Here the surrounding circumstances are incompatible with the existence of a grant, It is known that for nearly three hundred years all attempts to convert the Igorots of the Province of Benguet to the Christian religion completely failed, and that during that time they remained practically in the same condition as they were when the Islands were first occupied by the Spaniards. To presume as a matter of fact that during that time, and down to at least 1880, the provisions of the laws relating to the grant, adjustment, and sale of public were taken advantage of by these deeds from the Government for these lands would be to presume something which did not exist. The appellant says in his brief (p.10):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Igorot, no less than the American Indian, is an aborigine, and is equally ignorant of the forms of law and procedure necessary to protect his interests."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is, moreover, in the case evidence that in 1894 the petitioner sought to obtain title from the Government in accordance with the laws then in force. In 1901 he made a contract with Metalcalf A. Clarke, by the terms of which he agreed to sell the land to Clarke for 6,000 pesos when he obtained title thereto from the Government, and this contract he does not say that he is the owner, but simply that he is in possession thereof. The court below found that the land is now worth upwards of P50,000.

The possession of the land has not been of such a character as to require the presumption of a grant. No one has lived upon it for many years. It was never used for anything but pasturage of animals, except insignificant portions thereof, and since the insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been used by the petitioner for any purpose.

The petitioner relies upon the case of the United States v. Chaves (159 U.S., 452) and the case of The United States v. Chaves (175 U.S., 509). In the case of Hays v. The United States (175 U.S. 248) the court said at page 261;

"But this presumption is subject to the limitation that where title is claimed from a deed which is shown to be void, it will not be presumed that there was an independent grant (Smith v. Highbee, 12 Vermont,. 113), or where surrounding circumstances are inconsistent with the theory of a grant. (Townsend v. Downer, 32 Vermont, 183).

"The substance of this doctrine is that lapse of time any be treated as helping out the presumption of a grant, but where a void grant is shown, it affords no presumption that another valid grant was made. Nor does such presumption arise if the surrounding circumstances are incompatible with the existence of a grant. In this case under consideration we can not find any evidence which justifies us in believing that a legal grant can have been made, and under those circumstances we can not consider possession since the date of the treaty as dispensing with the requirement that the title, if not perfect at that time, was one which the claimant would have a lawful right to make perfect had the territory not been acquired by the United States."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Chaves v. The United States (175 U.S., 552) the court made the following statement at page 562:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Finally, it distinctly appears that the possession of the parties is insufficient in length of time to prove a valid title. In United States v. Chaves (159 U.S., 452) the possession was under the claim of a grant made by the governor of New Mexico to the alleged grantees. The grant had been lost, but it had been seen and read by witnesses, and its existence had been proved by evidence sufficient, as we stated in the opinion (p. 460), to warrant ’the finding of the court below that the complainant’s title was derived from the Republic of Mexico, and was complete and perfect at the date when the United States acquired sovereignty in the territory of New Mexico, within which the land was situated. We do not question the correctness to the remarks made by Mr. Justice Shiras in regard to evidence of possession and the presumptions which may under certain circumstances drawn as to the existence of a grant.

"We do not deny the right of the duty of a court to presume its existence in a proper case, in order to quiet a title and to give to long continued possession the quality of a rightful possession under a legal right. We recognized and enforced such a rule in the case of United States v. Chaves decided at this term. in which the question is involved. We simply say in this case that the possession was not a duration long enough to justify any such inference.

"There is no proof of any valid grant, but on the contrary the evidence offered by the plaintiff himself and upon which the bases the title that he asks the court to confirm, shows the existence of a grant from a body which had no legal power to make it, and which, therefore, conveyed no title whatever to its grantee, and the evidence is, as given by the plaintiff himself, that it was under this grant alone that possession of the lands was taken. We can not presume (within the time involved in this case) that any other and valid grant was ever made. The possession of the plaintiff and of his grantors up to the time of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in 1848, had not been long enough to presume a grant. (Crispin v. United States, 168 U.S., 208; Hayes v. United States, 170 U.S., 637, 649, 653; Hays v. The United States, ante 248.) The possession subsequently existing, we can not notice. Same authorities."cralaw virtua1aw library

As we understand it, it is well settled in the United States that prescription does not run against the Government as to its public lands — in other words, that if a person desires to obtain title to the public lands of the United States situated within the boundaries of the States, he must do so in the way pointed out by the law. We do not understand that a person in possession of unsurveyed public lands in the State of Minnesota, for example, whose ancestors had occupied that the land for forty years, could maintain in court a claim that he was the legal owner of the lands by reason of the presumption that the United States had granted the land to his ancestors, a presumption founded not upon any proceedings taken in the General Land Office to acquire a patent thereto, but upon the mere possession for that length of time.

The same is true of the public lands of Spain in the Philippine Islands. In the case of Valenton Et. Al. v. Marciano it was said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did the State remained the absolute owner."cralaw virtua1aw library

But in any event, and whatever the law may be elsewhere, it seems clear that this doctrine of presumptive grant can not apply to the Philippines in view of the Spanish legislation for the Indies. From time to time there were promulgated laws which required the person in possession of public lands to exhibit their titles or grants thereto. If these titles or grants were found to be good, they were confirmed, but if they were not, or if the persons had no grants or titles at all, they were evicted from the land. For example, in Law 14, title 12, 4, Recompilation of the Laws of the Indies, it is stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We therefore order and command that all viceroys and presidents of pretrial courts designate, at such times as shall to them most expedient, a suitable period within which all possessors of tracts, farms, plantations, and estates shall exhibit to them and to the court officers appointed by them for this purpose their title deeds thereto. And those who are in possession by virtue of proper deeds and receipts or by virtue of just prescriptive rights shall be protected, and all the rest shall be restored to us to be disposed of at our will.

In the Royal Cedula of October 15, 1754, it was provided —

"that any and all persons who, since the year 1700, and up to the date of promulgation and publication of said order, shall have occupied royal lands, whether or not the same shall be cultivated or tenanted, may, either in person or through their attorneys or representatives, appear and exhibit to said subdelegates the titles and patents by virtue of which said lands are occupied. Said subdelegates will designate as the period within which documents must be presented a term sufficient in length and proportionate to the distance the interested party may have to travel for the purpose of making the presentation. Said subdelegates will at the same time warn the parties interested that in case of the failure to present their title deeds within the term designated, without a just and valid reason therefor, they will be deprived of and evicted from their lands, and they will be granted to others."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the regulations of June 25, 1880, it was provided as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 8. If the interested parties shall not ask an adjustment of the lands whose possession they are unlawfully enjoining within the time of one year, or, the adjustment having been granted by the authorities, they shall fail to fulfill their obligation in connection with the compromise, by paying the proper sum into the treasury, the latter will, by virtue of the authority vested in it, reassert the ownership of the Stated over the lands, and will, after fixing the whole thereof, proceed to sell at public auction that part of the same which, either because it may have been reduced to cultivation or is not located within the forest zone, is not deemed advisable to preserve as State forest reservations." 1

In the royal decree of the 13th of February, 1894, published in the Official Gazzette of Manila of the 17th of April, 01894, it is provided in article 4 as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 4. The title to all agricultural lands which were capable of adjustment (composicion) under the royal decree of the 25th of June, 1880, but the adjustments of which decree in the Gaceta de Manila, will revert to the State. Any claim to such lands by those who might have applied for the adjustment of the same, but who have not done so as the above mentioned date, will not avail them in any way or at any time."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of these provisions of the law, it seems to us impossible to say that as to the public agricultural lands in the Philippines there existed a conclusive presumption after a lapse of thirty or any other number of years that the Government of Spain had granted to the possessor thereof a legal title thereto.

The plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926, the Public Land Act, for the reason that act is not applicable to the Province of Benguet. The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant.

After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered accordingly and ten days thereafter the case be returned to the court below for execution. So ordered.

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

Mapa, J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. 3 Phi. Rep., 537.

2. 6 Phil. Rep., 320.

1. Page 80, supra.

1. Gaceta de Manila, September 10, 1880.




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






May-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1298 May 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SINGUIMUTO

    004 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 2257 May 5, 1906 - CHANG HANG LING v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 2315 May 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO GANDOLE

    006 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. 2696 May 5, 1906 - SIXTO TIMBOL Y MANALO v. JANUARIA MANALO

    006 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 2698 May 5, 1906 - J. J. PETERSON v. CHARLES P. NEWBERRY

    006 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 2790 May 5, 1906 - CIRIACA MILLAN v. FLORENCIA MILLAN

    006 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 2801 May 5, 1906 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. MARIANO LIM

    006 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 3080 May 5, 1906 - NARCISO CABANTAG v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    006 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 1599 June 1, 1906 - CITY OF THE MANILA v. LEONARDA SALGADO

    006 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 1600 June 1, 1906 - PHILIPPINE SHIPPING CO. v. FRANCISCO GARCIA VERGARA

    006 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 1748 June 1, 1906 - BISHOP OF CEBU v. MARIANO MANGARON

    006 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 2726 June 1, 1906 - JUAN SANZ Y SANZ v. VICENTE LAVIN

    006 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. 2517 June 2, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. R. W. ALMOND

    006 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 2782 June 4, 1906 - FRANCISCO GONZALEZ v. INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION

    006 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 2355 July 11, 1906 - E.B. MERCHANT v. INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION

    006 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 2553 July 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN MARQUEZ

    006 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 2626 July 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL QUERIJERO

    006 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. 2468 July 16, 1906 - MAGDALENA CANSINO v. GERVASIO VALDEZ

    006 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 2080 July 18, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL A. SOLER

    006 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 2280 July 18, 1906 - FELIX MELLIZA v. W.H. MITCHELL

    006 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 995 July 25, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO LUCINARIO

    006 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 2448 July 25, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO MERCADO

    006 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 2609 July 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER

    006 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 2699 July 31, 1906 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. CLAUDIA CASTRO

    006 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 2705 July 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ALBERTO GONZALEZ

    006 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 2642 July 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FABIANA MANLALANG

    006 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-2664 August 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CELESTINA CAÑETA

    006 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-3007 August 3, 1906 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    006 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 2415 August 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JAMES W. WALSH

    006 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. 2688 August 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARCIANO ORUGA

    006 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 3018 August 7, 1906 - HIGINIO FRANCISCO YUNTI v. CHINAMAN DY-YCO

    006 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 3430 August 7, 1906 - ROCHA & CO. v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    006 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. 2535 August 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ABAD

    006 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 2723 August 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO MANALO

    006 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-2926 August 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO AGALUDUD

    008 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 2549 August 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EMETERIO DACANAY

    006 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 2741 August 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO LEAÑO

    006 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 2891 August 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO MAMINTUD

    006 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 2358 August 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANG KAN KO

    006 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 2750 August 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO ALDOS

    006 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. 2752 August 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENTINO SAYSON

    006 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 2510 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LAUREANO FLORES

    006 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 2550 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO VENTOSA

    006 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 2658 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ROSA ALCANTARA

    006 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 2714 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO MALLANAO

    006 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 2732 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. F. W. WEBSTER

    006 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 2737 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO BROCE

    006 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 2785 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CATAJAY

    006 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 2768 August 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO VALLESTEROS

    006 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 2806 August 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BALBINO MORALES

    006 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. 2173 August 30, 1906 - MANILA NAVIGATION CO. v. JOSE M. QUINTERO

    006 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 2736 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GINER

    006 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 2767 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GORGONIO DE LOS SANTOS

    006 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 2821 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO ANASTASIO

    006 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 2844 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SAMUEL SAULO

    006 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 2853 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO FLORES

    006 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 2537 September 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO SISON

    006 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 3463 September 5, 1906 - JUAN FAJARDO v. JULIO LLORENTE

    006 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 2850 September 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO VERGARA

    006 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 3500 September 7, 1906 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. J.M. QUINTERO

    006 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 3045 September 8, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TIBURCIO ZABALA

    006 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 3046 September 8, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DAVID FRANK

    006 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 2655 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MODESTO ANGELES

    006 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 2794 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CLARO PAGUIO

    006 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 2815 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BRIGIDO SALVADOR

    006 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 2867 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN REYES

    006 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 3000 September 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MONTES

    006 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 2433 September 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DEOGRACIAS BUENAVENTURA

    006 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 2949 September 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO DE OCAMPO

    006 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 2829 September 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PIO CASTILLO

    006 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 2772 September 21, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LOUIS A. UNSELT

    006 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 2865 September 21, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO ORUGA

    006 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 1771 September 22, 1906 - MARTIN JALANDONI v. LIZARRAGA HERMANOS

    006 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 1305 September 24, 1906 - RAMON SANTOS v. E. FINLEY JOHNSON

    006 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 2420 September 24, 1906 - MARTIN CASALLA v. EMETERIO ENAGE

    006 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 2886 October 2, 1906 - VALENTIN REYES v. JUANA TANCHIATCO

    006 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 2939 October 2, 1906 - JAIME SERRA v. GO-HUNA

    006 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 3038 October 2, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CENON ANGELES

    006 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 2875 October 3, 1906 - ELENA JAVIER v. CEFERINO SUICO

    006 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 2977 October 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JERRY CLAUCK

    006 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 2919 October 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LUCAS KANLEON

    006 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 3242 October 17, 1906 - DANIEL TANCHOCO v. SIMPLICIO SUAREZ

    006 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 2812 October 18, 1906 - LONGINOS JAVIER v. SEGUNDO JAVIER

    006 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 2947 October 19, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE RUIZ

    006 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 2888 October 23, 1906 - HUNG-MAN-YOC v. KIENG-CHIONG-SENG

    006 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 2900 October 23, 1906 - MAXIMO CORTES v. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB

    006 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 2589 October 24, 1906 - MARIANO DEVESA v. ALEJANDRO MONTELIBANO

    006 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 2999 October 25, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO VILLOS

    006 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 1382 October 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. QUE BING

    006 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. 2278 October 26, 1906 - SUA TICO v. CARLOS GEMORA

    006 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 2902 October 26, 1906 - NATALIA CATINDIG v. FRANCISCO CATINDIG

    006 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 2934 October 26, 1906 - JUAN MOLINA v. LA ELECTRICISTA

    006 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 3547 October 26, 1906 - LORENZA PAEZ v. JOSE BERENGUER

    006 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 1664 October 27, 1906 - ESTEBAN ARABES v. DIEGO URIAN

    006 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 2776 October 27, 1906 - BRUNO REMENTERIA v. LOPE DE LARA

    006 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 2685 October 29, 1906 - C. M. COTHERMAN v. CU PONGCO

    006 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 2944 October 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FILOMENO BACARRISAS

    006 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 3291 October 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO TALBANOS

    006 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 2024 October 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. W. W. RICHARDS

    006 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 2486 October 30, 1906 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. LAMBERTO AVELLANO

    006 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 2822 October 30, 1906 - VALENTIN SANTOS v. LEONIZA YTURRALDE

    006 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 2127 November 1, 1906 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 2146 November 1, 1906 - MANUEL TESTAGORDA FIGUERAS v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 2970 November 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CRAME

    006 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 2189 November 3, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA

    006 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. 2791 November 5, 1906 - CATALINO NICOLAS v. MARIA JOSE

    006 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 1794 November 6, 1906 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    006 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 1935 November 6, 1906 - CLARA ALFONSO BUENAVENTURA v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 2731 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    006 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 2783 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO PARCON

    006 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 3294 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SERRANO

    006 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 2686 November 8, 1906 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO.

    006 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 3082 November 8, 1906 - RAMONA TARROSA v. P. A. PEARSON

    006 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 2384 November 9, 1906 - In re DOMINADOR GOMEZ

    006 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 2903 November 9, 1906 - ESTEFANIA VILLAR v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 1326 November 10, 1906 - FELIX FANLO AZNAR v. RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ

    006 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. 2556 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SOFIO OPINION

    006 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 2968 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANGELO VINCO

    006 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 3309 November 10, 1906 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. A. A. MONTAGNE

    006 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 3270 November 12, 1906 - LUISA RAMOS v. CARLOS VARANDA

    006 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 2095 November 13, 1906 - MARIA ADELA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE

    006 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 3182 November 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SOLIS

    006 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 2101 November 15, 1906 - ELEANOR ERICA STRONG v. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE

    006 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 2892 November 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX ORTEGA

    006 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-2834 November 21, 1906 - JUAN AZARRAGA v. ANDREA CORTES

    009 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 2394 November 22, 1906 - KER & CO. v. A. R. CAUDEN

    006 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 3106 November 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PAUA

    006 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 3387 November 22, 1906 - T. SUGO v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 3388 November 22, 1906 - TATSUSABURO YEGAWA v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2563 November 23, 1906 - RICARDO NOLAN v. ANTONIO SALAS

    007 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-2897 November 23, 1906 - PEDRO MAGUYON v. MARCELINO AGRA

    007 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2958 November 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BRAULIO TUPULAR

    007 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3025 November 23, 1906 - SI-BOCO v. YAP TENG

    007 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-3393 November 23, 1906 - CLEMENTE GOCHUICO v. MANUEL OCAMPO

    007 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-2017 November 24, 1906 - MUNICIPALITY OF OAS v. BARTOLOME ROA

    007 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-2408 November 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH J. CAPURRO, ET AL.

    007 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-2644 November 24, 1906 - DENNIS J. DOUGHERTY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA

    007 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. L-2832 November 24, 1906 - REV. JORGE BARLIN v. P. VICENTE RAMIREZ

    007 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-2842 November 24, 1906 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. v. LEONARDO SANTOS

    007 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-2697 November 27, 1906 - JUSTIANO MENDIOLA v. CLAUDIA MENDIOLA

    007 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-2835 November 27, 1906 - FELICIANO ALFONSO v. RAMON LAGDAMEO

    007 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-2498 November 28, 1906 - MARCELO TIGLAO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    007 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2914 November 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO GAVIRA

    007 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2638 November 30, 1906 - AGATONA TUASON v. IGNACIA USON

    007 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-3378 November 30, 1906 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    007 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-2242 December 1, 1906 - HOUSTON B. PAROT v. CARLOS GEMORA

    007 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-2530 December 3, 1906 - ORDER OF DOMINICANS v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-2718 December 4, 1906 - JOSE EMETERIO GUEVARA v. HIPOLITO DE OCAMPO

    007 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 2800 December 4, 1906 - FRANK S. BOURNS v. D.M. CARMAN ET AL.

    007 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-2923 December 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO PALMADRES

    007 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-3009 December 4, 1906 - FELICIDAD BUSTAMANTE v. CRISTOBAL BUSTAMANTE

    007 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3534 December 4, 1906 - TO GUIOC-CO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2671 December 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO POBLETE

    007 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. L-2704 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FEDERICO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-1952 December 6, 1906 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    007 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 - MATEO CARIÑO v. TINSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-2921 December 6, 1906 - LUCAS GONZALEZ v. ROSENDO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-3022 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN LOZANO

    007 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3429 December 6, 1906 - CASTLE BROS. v. GO-JUNO

    007 Phil 144

  • G.R. Nos. L-2472 & 2473 December 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CORTES

    007 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2803 December 7, 1906 - DAMASA ALCALA v. FRANCISCO SALGADO

    007 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-2890 December 7, 1906 - VALENTINA PALMA v. JORGE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    007 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. L-2929 December 7, 1906 - FAUSTA BATARRA v. FRANCISCO MARCOS

    007 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. L-3006 December 7, 1906 - JOSE GONZALEZ v. AGUSTIN BAÑES

    007 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-3062 December 7, 1906 - MARIA MAGALLANES v. TEODORA CAÑETA

    007 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-3078 December 7, 1906 - FERNANDO PEREZ v. JUAN GARCIA BOSQUE

    007 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3495 December 7, 1906 - JAMES J. RAFFERTY v. JUDGE OF THE CFI FOR THE PROV. OF CEBU, ET AL.

    007 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2777 December 10, 1906 - MARIA CASAL v. EMILIO MORETA

    007 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-2532 December 11, 1906 - IN RE MACARIO ADRIOATICO

    007 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-2787 December 11, 1906 - CELSO DAYRIT v. GIL GONZALEZ

    007 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-3010 December 11, 1906 - JULIAN TUBUCON v. PETRONA DALISAY

    007 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3050 December 11, 1906 - LUIS SANTOS v. SILVESTRE DILAG

    007 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3117 December 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO ADRIATICO

    007 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-2766 December 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAULO CABAMNGAN

    007 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-3094 December 12, 1906 - FRED SPARREVOHN v. EMIL M. BACHRACH

    007 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-2828 December 14, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SOLIS

    007 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-3204 December 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLAVIANO SALANATIN

    007 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2855 December 19, 1906 - FLEMING, ET AL. v. LORCHA "NUESTRA SRA. DEL CARMEN

    007 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-2757 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN LIM ALAN

    007 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-2908 December 20, 1906 - ANTONIO TORRES Y ROXAS, ET AL. v. RAMON B. GENATO (Intervenor)

    007 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-3119 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO CAGAOAAN

    007 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-3093 December 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO MANABAT

    007 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2541 December 26, 1906 - IGNACIO ICAZA v. RICARDO FLORES

    007 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-1999 December 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MANUEL

    007 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-2765 December 27, 1906 - JOSE DOLIENDO v. DOMINGO BIARNESA

    007 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-3249 December 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FLOR MATA

    007 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. L-2395 December 29, 1906 - DOROTEO CORTES v. DY-JIA AND DY-CHUANDING

    007 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-2825 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAUL A. WEEMS

    007 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-2916 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE OROSA

    007 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-2966 December 29, 1906 - NICOLAS CONCEPCION TAN TACO v. VICENTE GAY

    007 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-3120 December 29, 1906 - BRYAN v. AMERICAN BANK

    007 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-3466 December 29, 1906 - MEYER HERMAN v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    007 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 1298 May 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SINGUIMUTO

    004 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 2257 May 5, 1906 - CHANG HANG LING v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 2315 May 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO GANDOLE

    006 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. 2696 May 5, 1906 - SIXTO TIMBOL Y MANALO v. JANUARIA MANALO

    006 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 2698 May 5, 1906 - J. J. PETERSON v. CHARLES P. NEWBERRY

    006 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 2790 May 5, 1906 - CIRIACA MILLAN v. FLORENCIA MILLAN

    006 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 2801 May 5, 1906 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. MARIANO LIM

    006 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 3080 May 5, 1906 - NARCISO CABANTAG v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    006 Phil 273