Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > May 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2790 May 5, 1906 - CIRIACA MILLAN v. FLORENCIA MILLAN

006 Phil 264:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 2790. May 5, 1906. ]

CIRIACA MILLAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FLORENCIA MILLAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Claro Reyes, for Appellants.

Chicote & Miranda, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ESTATES; HEIRS. — The children of a nephew, who died before his uncle. can not participated in the latter’s estate with a surviving niece. (Rafaela Pavia Et. Al., v. Bibiana de la Rosa Et. Al.)

2 ID.; ID.; TITLE: MISTAKE — The plaintiff believed that the defendants were entitled to a share of the property which she possessed as a matter of fact and law. The defendants, who were never in possession and had no right or title to the property, likewise believed that they were so entitled. Held, That such erroneous belief and good faith alone can not confer title on the defendants and that the plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the property.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


The plaintiff, Ciriaca Millan, was the legitimate aunt of the defendant, Florencia Millan, who is sued in this action with two children of her deceased sister.

Ciriaca Millan had three brothers, one of whom was Francisco Millan, who died leaving two daughters, Florencia and the mother of the other two defendants, Carmen and Manuel Perez.

Ciriaca Millan sued her nephews in her justice court of this court for 600 pesos, Philippine currency, rent received by them from a certain house in the district of Trozo of the City of Manila. The justice of the peace decided the case by dismissing the action of the plaintiff, who appealed from the order of the justice to the Court of First Instance wherein she reproduced her original complaint in the following terms, asking: (1) That she be declared to be entitled to three-fourths of the rent received from the property in "Question, No. 227 Calle Magdalena, Trozo, district of Binondo, the boundaries of which are described in the complaint; (2) that the property in "Question be ordered distributed between the parties to the action according to their respective rights; and (3) that the defendants be directed to pay the costs of both instances.

The defendants on their part admitted the following facts: (1) That the land in controversy was properly described in the complaint; (2) that the plaintiff was fact a joint owner with the defendants of this undivided property; and (3) that the plaintiff was entitled to three-fourths interest in the property, the remaining one-fourth belonging to the defendants, but the defendants by way of counterclaim alleged that there was due them from the plaintiff the rent received from the property before Florencia Millan, the principal defendant, entered upon the administration of the same and that the same time filed the following cross complaint, alleging (1) that the plaintiff and the defendants were the joint owners of another tract of land in the district of described in said cross complaint, with which description the adverse party agreed; (2) that their respective interests in the property are exactly in the same proportion as their interests in the other property, that is to say three-fourth to Florencia Millan and her nephew and niece, Manuel and Carmen Perez, and (3) that Ciriaca Millan had continuously administered the property to the time of the filing of the cross complaint, she having received all the rent due from the same, but failing, however, to pay to the defendants any part thereof. In view of this the defendants, after announcing that they did not object to the partition prayed for by the plaintiff, provided a partition should also be made of the property in Tondo referred to in the cross complaint and that the plaintiff render an account of her administration of the two properties, asked the court that they be ac "Quitted of the complaint and that a partition of the two tracts be ordered and an accounting made of the earnings of the two properties.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to three-fourths of the property described in the complaint as situated in Trozo, district of Binondo, city of Manila; that she was the absolute owner of the property in Tondo, also a district of the city of Manila, and that the defendants had no interest therein and were not therefore entitled to a partition of the same. The court further found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant three-fourths of the rent due from the said property since the 1st day of August, 1904, the date when the complaint was filed in the justice court, at the rate of 10 pesos, Philippine currency, per month, and entered judgment accordingly in favor of the plaintiff, Ciriaca Millan for the possession of three-fourths of the property described in the complaint as being situated in Trozo, district of Binondo, city of Manila, and for the sum of 67.50 pesos, and the further sum of 7.50 pesos payable monthly beginning with the month of May, 1905, such payments to continue until the property should be divided between the plaintiff and the defendants either by agreement or by an order of the court, and the costs of the action. The cross complaint of the defendants was dismissed by the court. The above referred to judgment is sated the 28th of April, 1905.

The defendants excepted to the said judgment and made a motion for a new trial, which motion was denied, the aforesaid exception allowed, and the bill of exceptions settled and sent to this court, where the appeal was argued and this is the decision of this court upon such appeal.

As to the property in Trozo, there is no dispute.

As to the property in Tondo, however, it appears that the same formerly belonged to Arcadio Santiago, the uncle of the plaintiff. Francisco Millan, also a nephew of Arcadio Santiago, died before the latter and according to the plaintiff’s contention the children of a nephew who died before his uncle can not participate in the estate of such uncle with the surviving nephews, and consequently that the defendants, claiming as they do through Francisco Millan whose death preceded that of his uncle, can not participate with Ciriaca Millan, the surviving niece of Arcadio Santiago. This relationship between the parties was established by the testimony of Florencia Millan who on cross-examination testified that her father was Francisco Millan, the brother of Ciriaca Millan, the latter two being therefore the nephew and niece of Arcadio Santiago to whom the property in Tondo belonged. Florencia herself, while testifying in regard to the Tondo property, and in answer to a "Question by her attorney stated that the said property was not occupied by her, but by Ciriaca Millan, and that she, the witness, was the administratrix of the property; that she was one of the heirs, she have been so informed by Ciriaca Millan, herself, when the witness, who is now 60 years old, was about 11 or 12 years of age; that Ciriaca has never given her any part of the rent from the said property; and that she has never made any claim therefor, for the reason that she was in charge of the Trozo property. In answer to the "Question "How do you come to have a share in the Tondo property?" she said, "For the reason that the owner of the property was may father’s uncle, and the uncle of the plaintiff also." Asked again "Is it not true that when the father (Arcadio Santiago) died, Francisco was already dead?" She was answered "Yes, sir."cralaw virtua1aw library

Ciriaca Millan testified as follows:" "Q. What interest have the defendants in the Trozo property? — A. I know that they are my brother’s children, and us I understand it they a share in the property, but it must be borne in mind, sir, that when the father died there were two cousins of mine named Millan still living. "Q. Then you have never denied to them their share in Tondo property? — A. No, sir; never. They are my brother’s children. "Q. You have never had any doubt then as to the rights of the defendants? — A. My cousins have received from many things in advance of their share in this property, and subsequently brought an action in court against me, but I won the case. "Q. Who are the administrators of the Tondo property? — A. My sisters administered the property during their lifetime. "Q. And who administered the Trozo property? — A. Paula Gonzalez. "Q. And who is Paula Gonzalez? — A. She is my niece. I have always taken care of her, and when she died I inherited the property. "Q. After the death of Paula Gonzalez who administered the Trozo property? — A. After that, as I needed nothing and bothered little about it, I told them to take the property and collect the rent for their own benefit. I was then living in the provinces, had no need for the money, and told them to take all the rent for themselves, but now that I am aged I need it and asked them to return the money, but they have refused to do so. "Q. When did you ask them to return part of the rent to you? — A. When I came back from the provinces, very poor. "Q. When was that? — A. About five years ago. "Q. It is not true that when you had the administration of the Tondo property you did not pay to Mr. Perez’s children their corresponding share? — A. No, sir. "Q. Is it not true that when you administered the Trozo property you did not pay to the children of Gabino Perez their share of the rent? — A. I don’t know anything about that." By the court:" "Q. Did you pay to Florencia Millan the rent from the Trozo property — A. Yes, sir; to her alone." Attorney Cue:" "Q. And the rents from the Tondo property have you paid any part thereof to the defendant? A. No, sir. "Q. Haven’t the defendants made demand upon you for the rent from the Tondo property? — A. No, sir." Cross-examination by Attorney Miranda:" "Q. When did you leave in Manila for the provinces? — A. After earthquake of 1863. "Q. And when you left, Florencia Millan took charge of the Trozo property, did she? — A. No, sir. "Q. When did turn over to Florencia Millan the Trozo property? — A. In 1872. "Q. What did you say to Florencia Millan when you turned the property over to her? — A. Florencia came to me and said that she was very poor, and as I could not take care of them I turned it over to her and said ’Here you are; take it and keep the rent.’ "Q. Then you allowed her to collect the rent because you did not need it at that time? — A. Yes, sir; as long as I had no need of it. "Q. And when you returned from the provinces after the war between Filipinos and Americans you need part of the money and asked them for it? — A. I asked them for all the money, because I had absolutely nothing at that time. "Q. What did Florencia Millan say to you? — A. She said she needed the money." By the court; "It is agreed by and between the parties that the rent from the Trozo property was 10 pesos per month."cralaw virtua1aw library

The question relating to the Tondo property is not sufficiently elucidated in the decision by the trial judge, who considered it very hard to hold that the children of a nephew who died before his uncle could not participate in the estate of such uncle with the surviving nephews, but that such was the law. The court, however, found that the plaintiff had been in the quiet and peaceful possession of the property for more than thirty years.

If the children of a nephew who died before his uncle should have right to participate in an inheritance with the surviving nephews, their rights would not be affected by a possession of more than thirty years on the part of such surviving nephews, because the property, being undivided, is no subject to prescription.

There is no doubt, however, that the children of a nephew who died before his uncle can not participate in the latter’s estate with a surviving niece. The law so provides and this court has so held in the case of Rafaela Pavia Et. Al. v. Bibiana de la Rosa Et. Al. 1

But the fact of the matter is that although the children of a nephew who died before his uncle were never in possession of the inheritance, nor had any legal title thereto, the surviving niece, however, always understood and believed that as children of the deceased brother of hers they had as much right to the inheritance as she had, and that the same should be divided between them. The question arises whether if under the law they could not participate in the inheritance with the surviving niece they could so participate as a matter of fact on account of their misconception of their respective rights.

We hold that where there is title it may be supported by error in good faith, but where there is no title it is idle to speak of errors committed in good faith, for good faith alone confers no title. Truth should always prevail over a false belief. An error based upon the act of another may aid a title by prescription; for instance, if a person buys property from another believing him to be owner of the same and it is discovered later that he was not such owner, the purchaser may acquire the property by prescription, but an error based upon one’s own act can not be the basis of prescription. Law 14 title 29, Partida 3 enacted prior to the Civil Code, reads as follows: "A person who holds personal property as his on, which he has acquired by purchase, gift, or by some other lawful means, and subsequently finds that he was wrongfully in possession of the same, can not acquire title to such property even though he holds the same for three years." "Nor even for forty years," says the glossator, "for the reason that an error as to the nature of one’s own act can not be considered."cralaw virtua1aw library

So that, although the plaintiff in this case believed that the defendants were entitled to a share of the property which she possessed as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, and the defendants believed that they were so entitled, yet if this was not, and could not be, actually so, truth should prevail over such mistaken belief, and the truth is that in fact and in law the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the property to the exclusion of the defendants. Otherwise these defendants, who were never in possession and had no right to the property and no title thereto would invoke such mistaken belief under which they as well as the plaintiff labored — that say, they would invoke as a title an error both of fact and law.

The judgment of the court below being in accordance with the law, the same is hereby affirmed in all respects, with the costs of this instance against the appellants. After the expiration of twenty days from the date hereof let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the record be remanded to the court below for execution. So ordered.

Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Not reported




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