Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > August 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3637 August 31, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS, ET AL. v. ANASTASIO CUEVAS, ET AL.

008 Phil 469:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3637. August 31, 1907. ]

PEDRO P. ROXAS, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellees, v. ANASTASIO CUEVAS, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

Jose Santiago, for Appellants.

Del-Pan, Ortigas & Fisher, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL OF RESPONDENTS IN LAND ADJUDICATION CASES. — If it is the opinion of the appellants that the land awarded to the petitioners does not belong to private individuals but to the Government, it follows that they can have no interest in such land since they do not represent the Government, being private citizens only. Since the property belongs to the Government, being private citizens only. Since the property belongs to the Government, although the lower court has not so held it in its judgment, the prejudiced party would be the Government, not a private individual, and the right to appeal rests with the Government, not with the respondents nor any other private individual to whom the representation of the State or Government has not been intrusted.

2. SCOPE OF THE RESPONDENTS’ APPEAL. — In order that an application for registration of the title in the Court of Land Registration may be objected to, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 496, the opposition have been injured the latter can have no right to appeal from the judgment, whatever it may have been; neither the said act nor any other law grants to anyone the right to appeal on behalf of another party, and not in his own name and by reason of his own interest. It is only the legal personal right of the respondent prejudiced by the judgment of the lower court that can be considered by this court upon appeal. As no claim was made by the respondents in their own name, and as the decision which they seek from this court is that it be held that the land adjudicated by the judgment appealed from is the property of the Government, there is no possible way for this court to consider and decide as to a right which has not been claimed on appeal by the party really prejudiced. In the present case the proper party would be the Insular Government, represented by the Attorney-General, and the latter has not appealed from the judgment.

3. HOMESTEAD RIGHT SUBORDINATE TO RIGHTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. — An application for the grant of a homestead can only be considered when it refers to public lands, not when private property is concerned. Wile it remained doubtful, in the course of a litigation, whether a portion of land claimed to be private property does or does not belong to the Government, the applicants for homesteads might be allowed to appear in the suit as coadjuvants, though it may have been the initial right that induced them to defend the public rights of the Government, although subordinate to this public interest; but from the moment when such public interest has disappeared, by reason of proof of private ownership, cooperation in such an action can no longer be insisted upon, nor can the coadjuvant claim to have better rights than the principal plaintiff himself.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


The judgment appealed from contains the following statements:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on the 22d of December, 1904, application was filed with the Court of Land Registration, whereby the applicants asked for the registration in their name of certain land situated in the Province of La Laguna, known as Hacienda of Calauang, having an area of 7,813 hectares and 87 ares, valued according to the last assessment at $525,000 in money of the United States; that the following parties opposed the application: The Government of the Philippine Islands through the Attorney-General; 367 residents of the town of Calauang, Province of La Laguna, represented by Jose Santiago; 136 residents of the ancient town of Alaminos, now a barrio of the municipality of San Pablo, Province of La Laguna, and three residents of Santo Tomas, in the Province of Batangas, represented by Juan Alvarez; and 80 residents of the municipality of San Pablo, Province of La Laguna, represented by Julian Gerona and Gregorio Pineda.

"That the lands in question were originally Crown lands of the Kingdom of Spain, and were conveyed to one Francisco Xavier Salgado by royal grant dated February 2, 1777, Salgado being already in possession on the 5th day of March, 1776. That after the death of Salgado his estate was taken in administration by the ’Auditoria de Guerra,’ and on the 7th day of February, 1829, the Hacienda of Calauang was sold at auction, one Benito Machado becoming the purchaser for the sum of 16,000 pesos, one-half of which was paid in cash, the purchaser agreeing to pay the balance in three years, giving a mortgage upon the hacienda to secure the satisfaction of the deferred payment. That the purchase by said Machado was made with the funds, in the name, and for the use of one Domingo Roxas; that the latter performed the conditions as to the payment of the remaining one-half of the purchase price and thereupon became the owner in fee of the hacienda, free and clear of any incumbrance; that by various mesne conveyances and in regular order of succession the title to the Hacienda of Calauang became vested in the applicants in this case, who are now the owners of the same in fee, free and clear of all incumbrance, except the lien of a "censo" in favor of "Las Cajas de Comunidad," dated February 26, 1834, for the sum of twelve thousand pesos, bearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. That in certain proceedings held in the years 1847, 1848, 1878, and 1880, before the courts of the Spanish sovereignty, with the assistance of the inspector general de montes in representation of the Government, various questions disputes concerning the boundaries and limits of the hacienda with adjoining lands and towns were heard and determined. That pursuant to these proceedings surveys were made by the said inspector general de montes and a plan was prepared by him showing the true boundaries of the hacienda as established by the decision of the court and recognized by the Government. The said plan was introduced in evidence and forms part of the record herein, marked ’Exhibit U.’"

In reviewing the case, the court stated the following conclusions of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) That at the time of the entry by respondents upon the lands in question the same were lawfully possessed by another under a good and sufficient title;

"(2) That contained and uninterrupted possession has been maintained by the original owner of the lands and his successors down to the present date; and

"(3) That both prior and subsequent to the entry aforesaid, by respondents and their predecessors, knowledge of the title and legal possession of the true owner was repeatedly brought home to them by means of judicial decrees and official surveys of the land in questions."cralaw virtua1aw library

And further on:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The testimony shows that Francisco Xavier Salgado, the original owner of the lands in question, entered into immediate possession of the same under his grant from the Spanish Crown in 1777; that he contained in such possession in during his lifetime and that after his death the possession was continued by his legal successors, and has been continued by them without interruption down to the present day, for a period of one hundred and thirty years. This possession was not a purely constructive but a very active one, exercised by Salgado and his successors by means of actual occupancy, construction of valuable buildings, cultivation, appointment of administrators, collection of rents, measurements, surveys, placing of boundary monuments, and the employment of persons whose duty it was to, and who actually did at stated intervals, inspect the said monuments and attend to their proper maintenance. It further appears that upon two occasions, when infringements upon the rights of the owners were attempted, the aggressors were met by legal proceedings in the courts, resulting in judgments confirming the ancient title and possession. In contemplation of law, applicants have never been out of possession.

"Respondents allege in their answers possession by themselves and their predecessors for periods of from thirty to one hundred years, but their testimony was limited, in most cases, to showing possession by themselves alone. Some went a little further and introduced testimony tending to show possession by their immediate grantors; but that this possession was at best a precarious and doubtful one is clear from the testimony, which shows that in most cases the respondents resided at considerable distances from the lands claimed, having merely made use of the same for agricultural purposes from time to time, under circumstances from which it is fair to infer that their possession was nothing more than a permissive one."cralaw virtua1aw library

And, lastly:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There is evidence in the record tending strongly to show that many of the persons occupying lands within the limits of the Hacienda of Calauang were carried upon the books, kept by the administratory of the hacienda, as tenants, and recognized the title of its proprietors . . .

"For the reason given (so ends the judgment) the oppositions herein must be overruled; and it is ordered that the record of the above-mentioned documents in the registry of property of the Province of La Laguna be canceled."cralaw virtua1aw library

And the findings in said judgment are of this tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court finds that the appellants have legally acquired title to and are the owners in fee of the lands hereinafter described, and that they are entitled to a decree of registration for the same as provided by law.

"The court surveyor will prepare a new plan in accordance with this decision, showing therein the following described land, title to which is hereby confirmed to and ordered registered in the name of the applicants in the manner in which the interest of such of the applicants is set forth in the petition."cralaw virtua1aw library

This judgment was rendered on the 17th of February, 1906. On the 26th of the same month the respondents residing in the town of Calauang, by their attorney, Jose Santiago, duly excepted to said judgment, and announced their intention to present a bill of exceptions. On the same date they also filed an application for a new trial to be held on March 1, alleging as reason "that the exceptions submitted to this court the appellants state that "on the first instant (March, 1906) the new trial was denied."cralaw virtua1aw library

The record does not show that the motion was considered or that the petition for new trial was denied, nor that exception was taken in consequence of such denial.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of section 497 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, if the excepting partly filed a motion in the Court of First Instance for a new trial, and the judge overruled the motion, and due exception was taken, the Supreme Court may "review the evidence and make such findings upon the facts, and render such final judgment, as justice and equity require."cralaw virtua1aw library

Therefore, in this case, there is no basis provided for a review of the evidence, and the findings upon the facts, as set down by the trial court in its decision, must stand.

Under the bill of exceptions presented, this court, in accordance with the said section 497, can only decide the questions of law therein contained.

The questions of law presented in the statements of errors, in which, according to the appellants, the trial court has incurred, are the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. For having admitted "Exhibits C" and "D" as evidence from the applicants, the first of which is the instrument whereby the Hacienda of Calauang was acquired by Benito Machado, at public auction, in February, 1829, and the second a statement made by the same party interested in the hacienda, which does not invalidate the deed of sale in favor of Machado. (I and II.)

2. For having admitted from the applicants, as counter- proofs and additional evidence, the exhibits stated above, which do not justify the right or dominion of the petitioners on the Hacienda of Calauang, and for having accepted as sufficient proof of dominion the documents offered by the petitioners when the same are not deeds of successive conveyances from the first holder to the petitioners. (III, IV, V, and VI.)

3. For not having considered that the land in question belongs to the Government when, as a matter of fact, the exclusion of a parcel thereof, as such Government land, had been ordered; for having included in the judgment land the title to which is recorded in the Court of Land Registration in favor of persons other than the petitioners, said title having been issued by the Government; in view of the fact that the chief of the Bureau of Public Lands had approved several applications for homesteads; according to "Exhibits 1" to "10" of the respondents; since one of the very same petitioners had himself applied for a permit to cut timber within the land in question. (VII, VIII and IX.)

4. For not having considered that the petitioner have exhibited only a title by mere possession, a right which was forfeited for having failed to possess the property during more than eight years; and for having failed to consider the preferential rights of the respondents to the land occupied by them, when the evidence of the latter had not been objected to by the petitioners, in accordance with the agreement entered into by both parties on page 8 of the bill of exceptions. (X and XI.)

This last point touched by the appellants, and by the appellees as well, is extremely important on account of its significance and decisiveness. In fact, it has been agreed between the parties herein that the contents of the answers filed by the respondents may be taken as confirmed.

And it is because the respondents of Calauang have maintained in all their pleadings "that the land claimed and a portion thereof is occupied by the respondents." (Bill of exceptions, 6.) And in the brief filed before this court they maintain "that the Roxas people have alleged, as applicants, that they were the owners of the land in question, and that the respondents residing in the town of Calauang said that the land belonged to the Government . . ." And they reproduce the essential parts of their answer in opposition, wherein the first thing that they state is that the land in question is the property of the Government. And when referring to the documents offered by them as evidence, they said "that the same clearly established that the land in question is owned by the Government and not by private individuals." This statement is repeated in several parts of the brief.

If it is the opinion of the appellant that the land awarded by the judgment to the petitioners does not belong to private individuals but to the Government, it follows that the appellants, as respondents residing in Calauang, can have no interest in said land, as they are not the Government but mere citizens.

Since the land belongs to the State, and since the lower court has not so held it in its judgment, the aggrieved party would be the State and not a mere citizen, and it is the State that would have been entitled to appeal from the judgment and not the respondents of Calauang or any other private individual to whom the representation of the State or the Insular Government has not been entrusted.

The Insular Government, duly represented at the trial by the Attorney-General, has not appealed before us, nor have we to decide any question connected with the rights of the State or of the Insular Government.

In order that an application for registration of the title of ownership in the Court of Land Registration may be objected to, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 496, the opposition must be based on the right of dominion or some other real right opposed to the adjudication or recognition of the ownership of the petitioner, whether it be limited or absolute; and if none such rights of the respondent have been injured by the judgment, he can not have, on his part, the right to appeal from the said judgment, whatever it may be, as neither the said act nor any other law on this matter grants any one the right to appeal on behalf of another party and not in his own name and by reason of his own interest.

It is only the legal personal right of the respondent, prejudiced by the judgment of the lower court, that can be considered by this court upon appeal. No right of their own being claimed by the respondent, and inasmuch as the decision they seek from this court is one declaring that the land adjudicated by the lower court is the property of the Government, there is no way for his court to consider and decide as to a right which has not been claimed in the appeal by the party prejudiced, which in the present case would be the Insular Government, represented by the Attorney-General, who has not appealed from the said judgment.

Therefore the assignment of errors filed by the appellants is overruled as being absolutely contrary to law and worthless, and the appeal filed by the respondents of Calauang, from the judgment of the 17th of February, 1906, of the Court of Land Registration, is dismissed, with the cost of this instance.

But there is yet another judgment by the same court in this same action, bearing date of the 20th of July, 1906, rendered upon the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. On account of the opposition to the application in question, filed by the Attorney-General, with regard to a certain tract of land in the Hacienda of Calauang, the Court of Land Registration, in its judgment above referred to, of February 17, 1906, made also this statement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That portion of the application which refers to lands not included in the above description is hereby denied, reserving, nevertheless, the right of the petitioners to file an amended application asking for the registration of the land thus excluded, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Act and in the manner therein provided."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Although the applicants excepted to this part of the decision, they, however, subsequently availed themselves of the benefits of the said act, and the action was reopened in view of the amended application.

3. In his opposition the Attorney-General asked that certain persons who had applied for homesteads be notified in order that their rights might be protected; these persons appeared with Santiago and ratified their former answers in this case. (Minutes of proceedings.)

The court rendered its aforementioned judgment of the 20th of July, 1906, whereby, with the exception of about 213 hectares held to be public forest, it adjudged to the applicants the remainder of the lands which had been excluded by the judgment of the 17th of February, 1906, announced his appeal.

On the same date a petition for new trial was filed on the ground that the decision was contrary to law, and on the 28th of September of the same year he stated who were the respondents to the amended application, on account of their respective homesteads, to wit: Jose Antillon, Maria Salvador, Mariano Marfori, Gabino Quincaco, Juan Palejon, Domingo Ramos, Brigido Pascual, Leopoldo Atienza, Regino Martinez, Vicenta Jazmin, Magdalena Avapo, Mariano Medel, and Catalino Marfori, on whose behalf the defense excepted to the decision rendered in connection with the amended application. (Petition on p. 188, part 12.)

In the aforesaid petition, as well as in their previous one, the petitioner asked that the last proofs produced by both parties in support of and against the amended application, in connection with the tract of land excluded by the first decision, be included in the bill of exceptions. And upon this basis the appeal was heard together with the former one.

Out of the 1,000 hectares, more or less, excluded from the adjudication, under the judgment of the 17th of February, 1906, the court in its last decision, rendered on the 20th of July of the same year, finally excluded but 213 hectares, and adjudicated to the petitioners the remaining 787 hectares, more or less.

If the land claimed by the respondents of Calauang is included within the 213 hectares which have been excluded, and are not adjudged to the petitioners, their is no object in the appeal and the same should be dismissed. If, on the other hand, the same is included in the 787 hectares, more or less, transferred by the judgment of the 20th of July, 1906, the appeal can not prosper because in the last decision the court found as a fact that the petitioners, and not the respondents, have been and are not in possession of the 787 hectares. The thirteen respondents are not, therefore, entitled to the homestead for the reason that they have not been, nor are they at the present time, in possession of the land included therein.

Be that as it may, the fact is that in connection with the judgment of the 20th of July, 1906, although the aforesaid thirteen respondents excepted thereto, the bill of exceptions announced by them at the time has not been brought before us. Consequently the evidence expressly stated as forming part of the bill of exception can not be reviewed, for the reason that the bill has not been submitted with or without the evidence.

And even if submitted, they could not have been reviewed by this court, in view of the fact that the motion for a new trial was made on the ground that the judgment was contrary to the law, a basis which does not authorize the reviewing of evidence taken before a lower court. The motion for a new trial was neither heard nor denied, and no exception was taken as to any ruling denying the same.

The jurisdiction of this court being thus limited to deciding mere question of law, none of which, except those already set forth in the bill of exceptions to the judgment of the 17th of February, 1906, have been offered in connection with the judgment of the 20th of July following, yet, and in order to avoid confusion, the foregoing remarks are made on points of law that might have arisen on the second appeal.

For the reasons above set forth, the judgments of the 17th of February and 20th of July, 1906, appealed from, are affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.




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






August-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3640 August 1, 1907 - CHARLES S. ROBINSON v. CHARLES F. GARRY

    008 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-4011 August 1, 1907 - MAMERTA BANAL v. JOSE SAFONT, ET AL.

    008 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-3574 August 2, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DE DIOS

    008 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-3965 August 2, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES, ET AL. v. A.S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    008 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-3422 August 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL SAMONTE

    008 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-3576 August 3, 1907 - FLORENCIO TERNATE v. MARIA ANIVERSARIO

    008 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-3841 August 3, 1907 - CHUNG KIAT v. LIM KIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-2730 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO MORALES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-2837 August 7, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-2838 August 7, 1907 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-3419 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO POLINTAN

    008 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. L-3517 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE MAGNO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-3586 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINO VELASQUEZ

    008 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. L-3608 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO FLOIRENDO

    008 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-3842 August 7, 1907 - VICTORINO RON, ET AL. v. FELIX MOJICA

    008 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-4008 August 7, 1907 - AGUSTIN GARCIA GAVIERES v. WILLIAM ROBINSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-2836 August 8, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. L-2840 August 8, 1907 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-4002 August 8, 1907 - LO PO v. H.B. McCOY

    008 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. L-3507 August 9, 1907 - ISABELO AGUIRRE v. OCCIDENTAL NEGROS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-2841 August 10, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-3488 August 10, 1907 - C.S. ROBINSON, ET AL. v. THE SHIP "ALTA", ET AL.

    008 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-3456 August 14, 1907 - JOSEPH N. WOLFSON v. ELIAS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-3529 August 14, 1907 - ESTEBAN GUILLERMO v. RAMON MATIENZO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-2839 August 15, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-3562 August 15, 1907 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO VALLEJO

    008 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-3363 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-3554 August 17, 1907 - JULIANA BENEMERITO v. FERNANDO VELASCO

    008 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3572 August 17, 1907 - S.G. LARSON v. H. BRODEK

    008 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-3627 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. L-3664 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LEONA CINCO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. L-3200 August 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS COLOMBRO

    008 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-3625 August 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-3432 August 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO GASINGAN

    008 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-3567 August 20, 1907 - KAY B. CHANG, ET AL. v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE CORPORATION OF LONDON

    008 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. L-3626 August 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-3460 August 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LEON NARVASA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3557 August 22, 1907 - VICTORIANO GARCIA, ET AL. v. REMIGIO DIAMSON

    008 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-3173 August 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MODESTO GARCIA

    008 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3568 August 23, 1907 - ROMAN ESPAÑA v. LEONARDO LUCIDO

    008 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-3510 August 24, 1907 - HENRY O’CONNELL v. NARCISO MAYUGA

    008 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-3573 August 24, 1907 - HENRY BRODEK v. S.G. LARSON

    008 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-3604 August 24, 1907 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    008 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-3622 August 26, 1907 - H.W. PEABODY & CO., ET AL. v. PACIFIC EXPORT & LUMBER CO.

    008 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-3734 August 26, 1907 - JAMES J. PETERSON v. RAFAEL AZADA

    008 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-2871 August 29, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-3192 August 29, 1907 - LUISA ALVAREZ v. SHERIFF OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3458 August 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FIDEL GONZALEZ

    008 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-3526 August 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO MACAVINTA

    008 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-3636 August 29, 1907 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-3547 August 30, 1907 - LORENZA PAEZ v. JOSE BERENGUER

    008 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. L-3628 August 30, 1907 - MANUEL COUTO SORIANO v. BLAS CORTES

    008 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-3416 August 31, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PILAR JAVIER, ET AL.

    008 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-3561 August 31, 1907 - RITA GARCIA, ET AL. v. SIMEON BALANAO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-3630 August 31, 1907 - JOS. N. WOLFSON v. CAYETANO CHINCHILLA

    008 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-3637 August 31, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS, ET AL. v. ANASTASIO CUEVAS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 469