Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > July 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2264 September 28, 1907 - P. JOSE EVANGELISTA v. P. ROMAN VER

008 Phil 653:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2264. September 28, 1907. ]

P. JOSE EVANGELISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P. ROMAN VER, Defendant-Appellee.

Deogracias Reyes and Teodoro Gonzalez, for Appellant.

Hartigan, Marple, Solignac & Gutierrez, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. RELATIONS OF CHURCH OFFICIALS. — The relations of officials of a religious denomination to one another are those of ecclesiastical subordination to a common superior, rather tan of master and servant, principal and agent, or landlord and tenant.

2. CONTROL OF CHURCH PROPERTY BY SECEDING CURATE. — A curate in charge of a building owned by the Roman Catholic Church who secedes and becomes a member of another communion, accepting a new office elsewhere, can not thereafter recover possession of the church property from his former assistant, to whom he had delivered it before leaving and who has been appointed curate in his stead.

3. CHURCH RULES. — The canons and rules of a religious body are the proper subject of proof as governing its internal administration and the management of its property.


D E C I S I O N


TRACEY, J. :


This action to recover possession of the parish church at Loaog, in Ilocos Norte, was brought before a justice of the peace and, having been decided by him in favor of the plaintiff, was retried in the Court of First Instance, which rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant.

In November, 1902, the plaintiff, who had for nearly two years been the priest in control of the parish, left for Manila, turning over his charge to the defendant, who had been acting as his coadjutor or assistant. IT is clear that at this time the plaintiff had abandoned the Roman Catholic Church and was an avowed representative of the Independent Filipino Church. He himself testified that he made the change in October, 1902, when he signed a declaration of allegiance to the independent bishop of that district, by whom he was in writing appointed pastor on October 6, and about that time he publicly proclaimed his possession, under that appointment. By a local popular assembly in July, 1902, as well as by the municipal junta in August, 1902, he had been recognized as pastor neither of these bodies, however, in the resolutions adopted by them, making reference to the independent church or to any religious division. Up to this time he had undoubtedly acted as a minister of the Roman Catholic Church, as appears from his communications with the temporary occupant of the Episcopal See of Nueva Segovia the Most Reverend Fidel Larringa, to whom he wrote on January 8, 1901, accepting his provisional appointment to the administration of the curacy of Laoag, and an authorization to sign its official records. I appears from this letter, as well as from other testimony, that there being not permanent curate in the parish, it had for some time been cared for by three priests of the Roman communion and that in consequence of the illness of the eldest of the these, Padre Ciriaco Blanco, the duties of the curacy had fallen upon the plaintiff, who was assisted by the defendant.

While the attitude of the defendant toward the new organization is left somewhat in doubt, his own contention is that he never recognized it or adhered to it. The argument of the plaintiff to the contrary rests upon a declaration dated October 15, 1900, signed by both the plaintiff and defendant, together with several other priests of the province, pledging themselves to a course of conduct, in which there is nothing to indicate an adherence to one church or the other, unless the third clause, in which it is laid does that they should sustain the rights of the Philippine clergy over the Philippine Church. The time was one of great confusion, consequent upon war and insurrection, when the tenure of office by the clergy was beset with uncertainties, The signature of this document nearly two years in advance of the organization of the Independent Church in the province, which seem to have occurred in August, 1902, does not fairly prove the adherence of those signing it to the forthcoming organization, especially as it is plain that this very plaintiff continued during these two years to administer the rites of the elder church and to act under its appointment. There is contradictory oral testimony by witnesses concerning the part taken by the defendant at the time of the secession, not as to his overt acts, but as to his understanding of the position of the seceding priests, and as to the extent of his cooperation with them. We find nothing in the evidence seriously conflicting with his claim that he made and intended to make no change, except the admitted fact that he accepted the charge of the church from the plaintiff, whose public profession of an independent faith and whose avowed exercise of it ministry must have been known to him.

On the 28th day of February, 1903, the defendant formally assumed office as curate and was, by the Roman Catholic bishop, formally appointed permanent curate or parish priest on March 30, 1903. During all this time the plaintiff seems to have been absent from the locality, professing to act not as curate of Loaog, but as bishop of the diocese of Manila. It is not known that the vacancy in the curacy of the Independent Church, cause by his promotion and removal, ever has been filed.

The justice of the peace was of the opinion that the arrangement between these parties constituted a private contract under which the defendant having received possession of the property from the plaintiff was bound to return it to him on demand, being estopped from setting up an adverse title. In two cases in this court it has been held that a person taking possession of parish property in somewhat similar circumstances may not deny the title of his ecclesiastical superior from whom he received it. (Barlin v. Ramirez, 7 Phil. Rep., 41; Dougherty v. Evangelista, 7 Phil. Rep., 37.)

In the Barlin case it was said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As to the defendant, Ramirez, it appears that he took possession of the property as the servant or agent of the plaintiff. The only right which he had to the possession at the time he took it was the right which was given to him by the plaintiff, and he took possession under the agreement to return that possession whenever it should be demanded of him. Under such circumstances he will not be allowed, when the return of such possession is demanded of him by the plaintiff, to say that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property and is not entitled to have it delivered back to him. The principle of law that in section 333, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in the Spanish law, is applicable to a case of this kind. An answer of the defendant, Ramirez, in which he alleged that he himself was the owner of the property at the time he received it from the plaintiff, or in which he alleged that the pueblo was the owner of the property at that time, would constitute no defense. There is no claim made by him that since the delivery of the possession of the property to him by the plaintiff he has acquired the title thereto by other means, nor does in his own behalf make any claim whatever either to the property or to the possession thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is contended that either as a tenant to his landlord, a servant to his master, or an agent to his principal, the defendant is bound to the plaintiff for the restitution of the property. It is obvious that in applying to the relations of ecclesiastical officials these various terms we have done so by way of analogy only, not intending to place them in any one of these classes. Indeed, strictly speaking, they fall within no part of this classification. In the United States it has been held that the relation between a Roman Catholic bishop and a pastor of a church in his diocese is not that of master and servant (Baxter v. McDonnell, 155, N.Y., 83. p. 99), not that of hirer and hired, nor of principal and agent (Tuigg v. Sheehan, 1010 Pa.,. 363). They are fellow-servants of their church, for which the bishop acts merely as a superior agent and not as a principal. (Rose v. Vertin, 46 Mich., 457.) Nor are they landlord and tenant. (Chatard v. O’Donovan, 80 Ind., 20.) A like rule in respect of master and servant has been laid down as to bishops and clergy of the Methodist Episcopal Church. (Bristor v. Burr., 120 N.Y., 427.) By way of further illustration we may add that their relations is somewhat akin to that of principal and assistance teacher of a school, one of subordination without to the other directly, but only indirectly through the person of their common principal or master.

If the defendant had been an independent third person, not already charged with duties in regard to the property, he would have come into possession of it as representative of the plaintiff only, and then the question would have arisen whether under the law of the Barlin and Doughtery cases he was estopped to deny the title of his grantor or principal. The facts hereinbefore recited are sufficient to show that such was not the true relation of these parties. At the outset up to the month of October, 1902, they both, together with the sick priest, were in care of the parish, the plaintiff, however, by ecclesiastical authorization, performing the office of pastor. They both owed allegiance and duty of the Roman Catholic Church, a judicial person, which long had been the owner of the property. It is admitted that, as against the owner, neither of them separately could have set up an adverse claim to any part of the property, nor could both of them have been allowed to make such a claim jointly. Can it be what they could not do either jointly or separately they could compass by interaction, so that one of the them could free the other from his obligation or their common superior for the property committed to their care? It is not disputed that at the suit of the Roman Catholic Church the plaintiff, were he in possession, must yield up the property, but it is urged that in the first instance the defendant, although in occupation as a delegate of that church, must surrender it to him, leaving him in turn to be deprived of possession in an action by the defendant’s principal, the owner, thus involving the parties in two unnecessary lawsuits, a result that indicates the error in the argument. It is also said that the defendant, had no right to return to his former allegiance. The answer to this is that, in so far as it involves property rights and obligations, allegiance is not a thing to be shaken off at will, and the real owner being now in possession of the property and continuing to maintain the defendant there as its representative can not be temporarily ousted on the strength of any alleged act of disloyalty on his par. We do not think that the defendant ever lost his right, growing out of his duty, to defendant his possession in behalf of his principal, the owner of the property.

As a second obstacle to a recovery by the plaintiff, the defendant takes the ground that, according to the canons of the Roman Catholic Church, it is not within the powers of a pastor to alienate church property or to attorn for it to an adverse claimant, or to relieve his assistant from his duty in respect to it, or to vary his rights and obligations and that these acts are controlled by the rules of the church under which they were serving.

It is settled law in the United States that the canons and rules of a church will be enforced in adjusting property rights growing out of ecclesiastical relations. They enter into the contract and appointment of officers and members in the same manner as do the by-laws of a mercantile association or of both a club, and, when not in contravention of established law, they will be sustained by the courts. (Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S., 679; Baxter v. McDonnell, 155 N.Y., 83, p. 93; Leahey v. Williams, 141 Mass. 345; Roshi’s Appeal, 69 Pa., 462.)

In the new order of things in these Islands we perceive no reason why the same principle should not be applied here and to all religious alike. The constitution of the Roman Catholic Church, in so far as it is already recognized and defined under Spanish laws that have come down to us, can be taken cognizance of the courts up to the time of the American dominion, but as to the changes effected since that time, it also is a proper subject of proof. It is not clear, however, that in the instance we have before us there is sufficient proof to serve as the basis of judgment, on this ground.

A third defense arises out of the plaintiff’s own status. Such possession as he may have held or claimed after leaving the Roman Catholic Church, he did not seek to justify in his individual character, but rather by virtue of his appointment as pastor of the Independent Church, an office which, buy his removal and acceptance of another dignity, he may fairly be assumed to have vacated. If so, any right of his to demand possession from the defendant, would seem to have passed to his successor or to the possession of a church at Loaog, which is shown to be within the province of another Independent bishop. The rules of the Independent Church on the subject of appointment, tenure, and vacancies are not before us, and for this reason we prefer not to rest out judgment on this point, but to dispose of the case on the ground first considered.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed with costs.

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

Separate Opinions


WILLARD, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

After the plaintiff had been appointed by the bishop of the Independent Filipino Church the parish priest of Loaog, he took formal possession of the church building by virtue of such appointment on the 23d day of October, 1902. The defendant himself testified that this taking of possession was celebrated with all the ecclesiastical rites appropriate to such an act. By accepting such appointment and taking possession of the building as aforesaid, the plaintiff definitely separated himself by a formal act from the Roman Catholic Church. After that date he ceased to hold possession of the property as the representative of that church, but held possession thereof for the Independent Filipino Church. The Roman Catholic Church then lost the actual possession of the building, and thereafter the person in possession thereof was the Independent Filipino Church. This change of faith by the plaintiff could not, of course, deprive the Roman Catholic Church of its right to recover such possession, but the fact that it had then definitely lost if for the time being clear. If it had commenced an action against the plaintiff, this court would have applied the rule laid down in the cases of Barlin v. Ramirez (7 Phil. Rep., 41) and Doughtery v. Evangelista (7 Phil. Rep. 37), and would have held that the plaintiff, having received the possession of the property from the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, could not set up as a defense the claim of the Independent Filipino Church. By virtue of the rule laid down in those decisions he would have been bound to return the property to the person from whom he received it. No such action has, however, been commenced. The Roman Catholic Church has brought no action against the plaintiff to vindicate its rights to the possession.

The Independent Filipino Church was in the actual possession of the building on November 12, 1902. It was holding such possession by the plaintiff, the person whom it had appointed for that purpose. On that day the plaintiff delivered such possession to a third person to hold the same during the temporary absence of the plaintiff in Manila. On his return from Manila he brought this action under the provisions of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and within one year from November 12 to recover the possession so delivered by him to such third person. The only question is, whether or not in such an action the defendant will be allowed to prove that at the time he received the possession of the property from the plaintiff, the latter had not rights of possession.

To say nothing of the general principles of law applicable to such a case, it would seem that the question had been definitely decided in the case of Barlin v. Ramirez, and Dougherty v. Evangelista above cited. In the first of these cases this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As to the defendant, Ramirez, it appears that he took possession of the property as the servant or agent of the plaintiff. The only right which he had to the possession at the time he took it was the right which was given to him by the plaintiff, and he took possession under the agreement to return that possession whenever it should be demanded of him. Under such circumstances he will not be allowed, when the return of such possession is demanded of him by the plaintiff, to say that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property and is not entitled to have it delivered back of him. The principle of law, that a tenant can not deny his landlord’s title, which is found in section 333, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also in the Spanish law, is applicable to a case of this kind."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Dougherty v. Evangelista this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We consider that it is not open to the defendant, when the day of payment has come, to challenge the right which he did not question at the time of borrowing. From the Roman Catholic bishop of Nueva Segovia he took the money and to the Roman Catholic bishop of Nueva Segovia he must repay it, whatever may have been the title under which the latter held the funds of the cofradia."cralaw virtua1aw library

The distinction made by the court between these cases and the present one seems to rest upon these grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) It is said that on November 12, when the defendant received the possession of the church from the plaintiff, he, the defendant, was not a member of the Independent Filipino Church, but a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. The religious belief of the defendant, however, has no bearing on the question. His duty to return this property rests, not upon the fact that he was a member of the same church to which the plaintiff belonged, but upon the fact that he received it from the plaintiff. It is a matter of no importance whether the person receiving the property was a priest or a layman. Its receipt from the plaintiff imposed upon the defendant the duty of returning it to the person from whom he received it, whether he, the defendant, was a priest of one church or another. The fact that he was afterwards, in 1903, appointed parish priest by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church gave him no more right to deny the plaintiff’s title than he had before.

(2) It is further said that at the time the defendant received the property from the plaintiff he, the defendant, was already charged with duties in regard thereto; that he never lost his right to defend his possession in behalf of his principal, the owner of the property.

If by this it is intended to say that after October 23, when the plaintiff took formal possession of the building as the representative of the Independent Filipino Church, the defendant had any control over the same as the representative of the Roman Catholic Church, or was charged with any duties relating thereto by that church, then the evidence in the case does not support such statement. Whatever the relations of the defendant to the building may have been before October 23, it is certain that after that date he had no control over it, nor any right to interfere therewith, except such as may have derived from the plaintiff, the representative of the Independent Filipino Church. There was only one parish priest and he was the plaintiff. He was the only person in possession. The defendant testifies that after the plaintiff departed on November 12 the parish books were for some time still signed with the plaintiff’s name. If the defendant served in the church as a priest, and not by sufferance and permission of the plaintiff, and not by authority of the Roman Catholic Church. As the plaintiff says in his testimony, it is impossible to conceive of two priests working harmoniously in one church, one as the representative of the Filipino Independent Church and the other as the representative of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is said that the Roman Catholic Church is the owner of the building and that, of the plaintiff recover in this case, the Roman Catholic Church can at once commence an action to eject him, and that a decision in favor of the plaintiff would involve the parties in two unnecessary lawsuits. This suggestion would be equally applicable to any case where the owner of the property had violently and forcibly taken the possession thereof from his tenant, who seeks to be restored to the possession under the provisions of section 80 above cited.

(3) It is further said that the doctrines of the canon law and not those of the civil law are to be applied to the settlement of this question.

Without dwelling upon the fact that the contrary was held in the case of Barlin v. Ramirez, and that when property rights are brought before the civil courts for discussion they must be settled by the civil laws which governs such courts, it is sufficient to say in answer to this contention that an examination of the authorities cited by the court in support of this theory will probably show that such rules of the church were applied in suits between parties who belonged to the same religious organization. In such litigation, as in litigation between members of chambers of commerce, boards of trade, and fraternal societies, it is customary to apply the rules which the parties themselves have adopted to govern their relations with each other.

But these cases have nothing to do with the case at bar. This is not a controversy between persons belonging to the same organization. It is a controversy between the plaintiff, who belongs to and represents the Independent Filipino Church, and the defendant, who belongs to an represents the Roman Catholic Church. In substance it is controversy between the two churches, which are rival ecclesiastical organizations. In such a controversy, the rights of the plaintiff can not be determined by the rules which govern the relations of the defendant and his ecclesiastical superiors in the Roman Catholic Church. It might as well be said that the right of the defendant could be determined by the rules of the Independent Filipino Church which govern the relations between the plaintiff and his superiors.

It would be a strange doctrine to announce that a tenant who was sued by his landlord to recover possession of a dwelling house rented by the latter to the former might successfully defend the action alleging that he belonged to a religious society, to which the plaintiff was an entire stranger, by the rules of which any property, the possession of which is acquired by lease, he must turn over to the church to which he belonged and was forbidden by such rules to return it to the person from whom he received it. However binding such rules might be in litigation between the society and the defendant, they could in no way prejudice the rights of the plaintiff, a stranger to such society. To apply such a doctrine would be to say that the rule of the civil law, that a tenant can not deny his landlord’s title, has no application to a tenant who belongs to a society whose rules permit and require him to do so.

(4) It is also suggested that whatever rights the plaintiff might have had as a parish priest of Laoag, he was lost, because he has ceased to be such priest and is now a bishop of the Independence Filipino Church. No such question as this seems to have been raised by the pleadings in the court below. It is not mentioned in the briefs in this court. It seems probable that a failure of the defendant to claim in his answer that the proper representatives of the Independent Church had not brought the action would constitute a waiver of such a claim, if in any event it would be a defense to such an action as this, brought under section 80. (Code of Civil Procedure.)

Paraphrasing the quotation above made from the case of Dougherty v. Evangelista, and applying it to this case, we would have the following: We consider that it is not open to the defendant, when the day of return has come, to challenge the right which he did not question at the time of receipt. From the parish pries the Independent Church of Laoag he received the building, and to the parish priest of the Independent Church of Loaog he must return it, whatever may have been the title under which the latter held the property.

In my opinion the judgment should be reversed.




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






July-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G. R. No. L-3273. July 13, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. QUIRINO PERALTA and VICENTE PERALTA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. L-3556. July 13, 1907.] H. J. BLACK, Plaintiff, vs. CARL T. NYGREN, acting provincial treasurer of the Province of Pampanga, Defendant.

  • [G. R. No. L-3332. July 18, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HARRY B. MULFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. L-2646. July 25, 1907.] MARIA ROURA AND JUAN ROURA, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. L-3476. July 25, 1907.] DOROTEA MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CASIMIRO FULGENCIO and JOSE DE ASIS, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G. R. No. L-3348. July 26, 1907.] JULIAN NAVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HERMOGENES BENAVIDES, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. L-3563. July 26, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 3621. July 26, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MACARIO SAKAY, JULIAN MONTALBAN, LEON VILLAFUERTE, and LUCIO DE VEGA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. L-2997. July 27, 1907.] ANDRES BARTOLOME, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMEON MANDAC, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. L-3397. July 27, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BERNARDO ALAMEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. L-3431. July 27, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHU CHIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. L-3479. July 29, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILLIAM BOSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. L-3496. July 31, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. URBANA NACION, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. L-3273 July 13, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. QUIRINO PERALTA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-3556 July 13, 1907 - H.J. BLACK v. CARL T. NYGREN

    008 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. L-3332 July 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HARRY B. MULFORD

    008 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-3541 July 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN SEVILLA

    009 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2646 July 25, 1907 - MARIA ROURA, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-3476 July 25, 1907 - DOROTEA MENDOZA v. CASIMIRO FULGENCIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-3348 July 26, 1907 - JULIAN NAVAL v. HERMOGENES BENAVIDES

    008 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-3563 July 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO AUSTRIA

    008 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 3621 July 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO SAKAY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-2997 July 27, 1907 - ANDRES BARTOLOME v. SIMEON MANDAC, ET AL.

    008 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. L-3397 July 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO ALAMEDA

    008 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-3431 July 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CHU CHIO

    008 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-3479 July 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM BOSTON

    008 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-3496 July 31, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. URBANA NACION

    008 Phil 274

  • 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

  • G.R. No. L-3220 September 2, 1907 - MURPHY MORRIS & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3396 September 2, 1907 - STRUCKMANN & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2538 September 4, 1907 - MARIANO PAMINTUAN, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-3648 September 5, 1907 - LUTZ & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    008 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. L-3667 September 5, 1907 - NATALIA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    008 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3326 September 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LAURENTE REY

    008 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-3482 September 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME GRAY

    008 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. L-3489 September 7, 1907 - VICENTE NAVALES v. EULOGIA RIAS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-2526 September 10, 1907 - PEDRO PAMINTUAN, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    008 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-3301 September 10, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EMIGDIO NOBLEZA

    008 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-3616 September 10, 1907 - CIRILO PURUGANAN v. TEODORO MARTIN, ET AL.

    008 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. L-3221 September 11, 1907 - ATLANTIC, GULF & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. L-3708 September 12, 1907 - ELVIRA FRESSELL v. MARCIANA AGUSTIN

    008 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. L-3383 September 13, 1907 - TAN LEONCO v. GO INQUI

    008 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. L-3546 September 13, 1907 - PIA DEL ROSARIO v. JUAN LUCENA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. L-3132 September 14, 1907 - MANUEL SOLER, ET AL. v. EMILIA ALZOUA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. L-3146 September 14, 1907 - NICOLAS CO-PITCO v. PEDRO YULO

    008 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. L-3534 September 14, 1907 - TO GUIOC-CO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    008 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-3395 September 16, 1907 - PEDRO ARENAL, ET AL. v. CHARLES F. BARNES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-3067 September 17, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. LUENGO & MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. L-3434 September 18, 1907 - SAGASAG v. VICTORIA TORRIJOS

    008 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. L-3474 September 20, 1907 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-4244 September 20, 1907 - RAFAEL MOLINA v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-3575 September 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TRANQUILINO ALMADEN, ET AL.

    008 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. L-3672 September 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO EUSEBIO

    008 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-3675 September 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO AMANTE, ET AL.

    008 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 3527 September 23, 1907 - TAN TIOCO v. MARCELINA LOPEZ

    011 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. L-3726 September 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO MONZONES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. L-3369 September 24, 1907 - JONAS BROOK BROS. v. FROELICH & KUTTNER

    008 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-3597 September 24, 1907 - MANUEL MESIA v. PLACIDO MAZO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-3615 September 24, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BRIGIDO CASIN

    008 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. L-3669 September 24, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO BALTAZAR

    008 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-4138 September 24, 1907 - SY HONG ENG v. SY LIOC SUY

    008 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-3728 September 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO MAISA

    008 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. L-3207 September 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO GARCIA

    008 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-3373 September 26, 1907 - VICENTA JALBUENA v. GABRIEL LEDESMA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3535 September 26, 1907 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-3645 September 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EMETERIO DACANAY

    008 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-3439 September 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MONTANER

    008 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. L-1516 September 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINADOR GOMEZ

    008 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. L-2264 September 28, 1907 - P. JOSE EVANGELISTA v. P. ROMAN VER

    008 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. L-3629 September 28, 1907 - MATEA E. RODRIGUEZ v. SUSANA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 665

  • G.R. No. L-3684 September 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO NERI

    008 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. L-3767 September 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENTINO LEYBA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. L-3497 September 30, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. L. V. SMITH, ET AL.

    008 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. L-3584 September 30, 1907 - ARTADI & CO. v. CHU BACO

    008 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-3727 September 30, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENDO GADILA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-3543 October 1, 1907 - LA CAPELLANIA DEL CONVENTO DE TAMBOBONG v. GUILLERMO ANTONIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-3587 October 2, 1907 - FRANCISCO ALDAMIS v. FAUSTINO LEUTERIO

    008 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. L-2827 October 3, 1907 - MARIA LOPEZ Y VILLANUEVA v. TAN TIOCO

    008 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3409 October 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO BUSTAMANTE, ET AL.

    008 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-3515 October 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON MACK

    008 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-3520 October 3, 1907 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. JOSE ROBLES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-3571 October 3, 1907 - VALENTIN LACUESTA, ET AL. v. PATERNO GUERRERO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-3957 October 3, 1907 - DOMINGO REYES, ET AL. v. SOR EFIGENIA ALVAREZ

    008 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. L-3716 October 4, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO BORJA

    008 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3729 October 4, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ZACARIAS VALENCIA

    008 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3744 October 5, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS CASTAÑARES

    008 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 3067 October 7, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. LUENGO & MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-3642 October 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO XAVIER

    008 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-2558 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN MACALALAD

    009 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-4052 October 8, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    008 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-3715 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO BORJA

    009 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3749 October 8, 1907 - ARTADY & CO. v. CLARO SANCHEZ

    009 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-3807 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO CABIGAO

    009 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-4052 October 8, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    009 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-3752 October 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTO BASILIO

    009 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-4057 October 9, 1907 - MARIANO MACATANGAY v. MUN. OF SAN JUAN DE BOCBOC

    009 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3181 October 10, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA

    009 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-3438 October 12, 1907 - MANUEL LOPEZ Y VILLANUEVA v. EVARISTO ALVAREZ Y PEREZ

    009 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3594 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALLEN A. GARNER

    009 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-3609 October 12, 1907 - EULALIA ESPINO v. DANIEL ESPINO

    009 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-3660 October 12, 1907 - JOSE TAN SUNCO v. ALEJANDRO SANTOS

    009 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3887 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FLORES

    009 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. L-3961 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO BASE

    009 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-3224 October 17, 1907 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. STRUCKMANN & CO., ET AL.

    009 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-3796 October 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIA RAMIREZ

    009 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-3905 October 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO DONATO

    009 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 3810 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN ORERA

    011 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-2870 October 18, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    009 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-3766 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO LIMCANGCO

    009 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-3808 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO VICTORIA

    009 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. L-3873 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUSTO DACUYCUY

    009 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. L-3760 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. WALTER B. BROWN

    009 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3819 October 19, 1907 - JESUS SANCHEZ MELLADO v. MUNICIPALITY OF TACLOBAN

    009 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3853 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    009 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-3949 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

    009 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3532 October 21, 1907 - TY LACO CIOCO v. ARISTON MURO

    009 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-3644 October 21, 1907 - VICENTE QUESADA v. ISABELO ARTACHO

    009 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-3694 October 21, 1907 - JULIANA BONCAN v. SMITH

    009 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-3649 October 24, 1907 - JOSE GUZMAN v. WILLIAM X

    009 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. L-3761 October 24, 1907 - SALUSTIANO LERMA Y MARTINEZ v. FELISA MAMARIL

    009 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-3560 October 26, 1907 - MAGDALENA LEDESMA v. ILDEFONSO DORONILA

    009 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3619 October 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO CANAMAN

    009 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. L-3676 October 26, 1907 - PONS Y COMPANIA v. LA COMPANIA MARITIMA

    009 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3695 October 16, 1907 - ALEJANDRA PALANCA v. SMITH

    009 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-3745 October 26, 1907 - JUAN AGUSTIN v. BARTOLOME INOCENCIO

    009 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-3756 October 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ILDEFONSO RODRIGUEZ

    009 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-3633 October 30, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORA BORJAL

    009 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-3908 November 1, 1907 - ENRIQUE SERRANO v. LEANDRO SERRANO

    009 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3732 November 2, 1907 - CLEMENCIA FELIX v. MATEO A FELIX

    009 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-3427 November 6, 1907 - CAPELLANIA DEL CONVENTO DE TAMBOBONG v. HIPOLITO CRUZ

    009 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-3623 November 6, 1907 - RUPERTO RELOVA v. ELENA LAVAREZ

    009 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-3661 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LAUREANO RODRIGUEZ

    009 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-3985 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANANIAS CERVO, ET AL.

    009 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-3986 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO GESMUNDO

    009 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-3996 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN BAILON

    009 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-3852 November 11, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO MONTIEL

    009 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3779 November 13, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. OTIS G. FREEMAN

    009 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-3787 November 14, 1907 - TEODORICA ENDENCIA v. EDUARDO LOALHATI

    009 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-3754 November 15, 1907 - ANGELA OJINAGA v. ESTATE OF TOMAS R. PEREZ

    009 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3516 November 16, 1907 - FELISA NEPOMUCENO v. CIRILO A. CARLOS

    009 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-3838 November 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-3840 November 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO BORSED

    009 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-3878 November 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ATANACIO MACASPAC

    009 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4123 November 16, 1907 - LA YEBANA COMPANY v. TIMOTEO SEVILLA

    009 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-4018 November 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DEMETRIO SALUDO

    009 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-3144 November 19, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    009 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-3638 November 19, 1907 - FAUSTINO GUERRA v. BLANCO SENDAGORTA, ET AL.

    009 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3662 November 19, 1907 - VICENTA ACUÑA v. THE CITY OF MANILA

    009 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3610 November 20, 1907 - JOSE CAMPS v. PEDRO A. PATERNO

    009 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-3774 November 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    009 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-4069 November 20, 1907 - JUAN JAUCIAN v. ROBERTO FLORANZA

    009 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. L-2786 November 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO ASEBUQUE

    009 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-3900 November 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO

    009 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4357 November 21, 1907 - MIGUEL PAVON v. PHIL. ISLANDS TELEPHONE, ET AL.

    009 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 3747 November 22, 1907 - YU CHENGCO v. ALFONSO TIAOQUI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-3755 November 23, 1907 - C. C. PYLE v. ROY W. JOHNSON

    009 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-3823 November 23, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS v. MARIA DE LA PAZ MIJARES

    009 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-3750 November 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUSTO GAMIS

    009 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-3964 November 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN MALABANAN

    009 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-3973 November 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN SOL

    009 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3741 November 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. AFRONIANO FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-3702 November 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESCOLASTICO DE LA CRUZ

    009 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-4338 December 2, 1907 - ALFRED B. JONES v. J. E. HARDING

    009 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-3738 December 3, 1907 - JOSE ACOSTA v. ANDRES DOMINGO

    009 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-3190 December 4, 1907 - ASUNCION ALBERT Y MAYORALGO, ET AL v. MARTINIANO PUNSALAN

    009 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-3935 December 4, 1907 - UY PIAOCO v. SERGIO OSMENA

    009 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-3378 December 5, 1907 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    009 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-3713 December 5, 1907 - UNION FARMACEUTICA FILIPINA v. FRANCISCO ICASIANO

    009 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-3826 December 7, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

    009 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-3847 December 7, 1907 - LEOPOLDO FERRER v. RAMON NERI ABEJUELA

    009 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-3704 December 12, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. FRANCISCO MUÑOZ

    009 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-3895 December 14, 1907 - In the matter of A. K. JONES

    009 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3899 December 16, 1907 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS

    009 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. L-3933 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO SAN ANDRES

    009 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-3959 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO PARAS

    009 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-3972 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO GUANZON

    009 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3596 December 17, 1907 - LUCHSINGER & CO. v. CORNELIO MELLIZA

    009 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3688 December 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN HAZLEY

    009 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-3891 December 19, 1907 - ELENA MORENTE v. GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA

    009 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-3505 December 20, 1907 - ARCADIO MAXILOM v. GAUDENCIO TABOTABO

    009 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. L-3980 December 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO GOROSPE, ET AL.

    009 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-4061 December 20, 1907 - MANUEL TAGUINOT v. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAY

    009 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-3483 December 21, 1907 - BENITO MOJICA v. JUANA FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-3788 December 21, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS v. JULIA TUASON

    009 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-3936 December 21, 1907 - JOSE VILLEGAS v. NICOLAS CAPISTRANO

    009 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3991 December 21, 1907 - SIMEON ROQUE v. RUFINO NAVARRO

    009 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-3992 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAGDALENO MENDEZ

    009 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-4086 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO BRELLO

    009 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-4201 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESPIRIDION ROTA

    009 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-3570 December 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO C. GARCIA

    009 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-3948 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

    009 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3969 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO SANTILLAN

    009 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-3212 December 28, 1907 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITIES OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    009 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-3273 July 13, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. QUIRINO PERALTA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-3556 July 13, 1907 - H.J. BLACK v. CARL T. NYGREN

    008 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. L-3332 July 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HARRY B. MULFORD

    008 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-3541 July 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN SEVILLA

    009 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2646 July 25, 1907 - MARIA ROURA, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-3476 July 25, 1907 - DOROTEA MENDOZA v. CASIMIRO FULGENCIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-3348 July 26, 1907 - JULIAN NAVAL v. HERMOGENES BENAVIDES

    008 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-3563 July 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO AUSTRIA

    008 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 3621 July 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO SAKAY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-2997 July 27, 1907 - ANDRES BARTOLOME v. SIMEON MANDAC, ET AL.

    008 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. L-3397 July 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO ALAMEDA

    008 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-3431 July 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CHU CHIO

    008 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-3479 July 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM BOSTON

    008 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-3496 July 31, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. URBANA NACION

    008 Phil 274