Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > March 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3148A March 5, 1907 - ENRIQUE MARIA BARRETTO v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MLA

007 Phil 596:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3148A. March 5, 1907. 1 ]

ENRIQUE MARIA BARRETTO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA, Defendant-Appellant.

Modesto Reyes, for Appellant.

A. V. Herrero, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; GIFT; CONDITION PRECEDENT. — If the conditions under which a donation or gift of a lot was made were that no building was to be erected thereon, and that the said lot was to be used for the one purpose, and not other, of beautifying the city, which conditions, once accepted and the donor notified thereof, and the subsequent delivery of the lot donated made, together with the title deeds, to the donee for the purpose of executing the escritura or transfer, such conditions, by their nature and the acts of the donor, can not be considered as precedent.

2. ID.; ID.; OBLIGATIONS. — If, in addition to those conditions, and, for the purpose of compliance with the second condition, the donee was obligated to acquire the adjoining lots to that of the lot donated in sufficient number to form a public plaza with gardens and streets, the compliance with the latter is not only a condition but an indefinite obligation, inasmuch as the number of the lots to be acquired are not determined, and the location or directions in which said lots are to as well as from the fact the value of such lots could not be determined, it is evident that such obligation could only be considered a condition in the sense of "resolutoria" of the donation or gift when not complied with in its place and time.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; JUDGMENT. — Whatever may be its true nature, it can not be argued that the obligated party has not complied with such condition, the obligated party being at this time still with the power meanwhile or during the time that judicial remedy is not had providing for the improvidence or omission of the parties, mutual trust or the deference of the one to the other. Judgment or relief can not be had revoking or taking away a condition or state of right without it first having been evidenced or proven that an obligation has not been complied with, and this is impossible, in any manner, to establish or find in a judgment when it is simply known from what time the obligation should be complied with, but not known within what time or when such obligation should be complied with in full accomplishment of the same.


D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:



This is a written exception of the appellee wherein exception is entered against the final decision of this court together with appellee’s petition for a rehearing of this cause. After review of the grounds upon which this last petition is based we find:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Against the first ground: That the conditions under which the donor made the donation are not precedent. Such conditions are: (a) No to erect any building on the lot donated; (b) no to use the said lot for any other purpose than in beautifying the city, to which end he imposed upon the municipality the obligation of acquiring the lots adjoining the lot donated in sufficient number to form, together with the lot donated, a public plaza with gardens and streets. (Complain IV, p. 2, bill of exceptions.)

If the two conditions (a) and (b) were precedent the delivery of the lot would have been delayed and retarded until such times as the donee had complied with such conditions, which conditions are certainly negative and not consistent with a failure to perform or comply with the same; and it would not have been possible to have complied with such conditions without the delivery of the lot having first been made the donor and the donee put in possession of the same, and without perfecting and consummating the gift or donation. In contracts containing a condition precedent, no right or action is given or acquired until such condition is complied with; before the compliance with the condition is accomplished there exists nothing but the hope of acquiring such right, and this notwithstanding that the donor delivered to the donee the land donated. That two conditions are, therefore, "resolutorias."cralaw virtua1aw library

Against the second ground: It is not proven that the two conditions (a) and (b) have not been complied with; it has not been proven that the donee erected any building on the lot donated or that the lot has been used for any other object. The compliance with the obligation to acquire the adjoining lots in sufficient numbers to form or make a public plaza can be considered even less. This is a burden or obligation rather than a condition precedent and it is indefinite in that the number of lots to be acquired are not determined, nor what lots, that is to say, in what location said lots are to be or in what direction they shall run in forming, with the lot donated, the public plaza; nor could the value of such lots be determined so that the donee might judge whether such donation or gift was as act of liberality or a reciprocal contract, and this is burdensome enough, it being an obligation or promise to accomplish a thing or more value in itself than the value of the thing donated, all of which is not convenient to comply with by reason of being burdensome and orenous, and more convenient and practicable, when the time arrives, to rescind and cancel the said donation. It is evident that such obligation could only be considered a condition or obligation in a resolutoria sense of the donation or gift when not complied with in its place and time.

The supreme court of Spain in a judgment of January 7, 1861, hands down a decision entirely applicable to the donation, the subject-matter in question herein, made on June 16, 1885, and establishes this doctrine of jurisprudence: "That when a conditional donation is made, imposing in addition thereto a burden on the donee, this should not be taken into consideration as a condition but as a mere obligation, the nonfulfillment of which can not be taken advantage of by the person interested in the inefficacy of said donation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Against the third and fourth grounds: The donor, appellee herein, with respect to the donation of the subject-matter herein, claims that he is in the exercise of two rights, one to compel the donee to comply with the conditions imposed in the donation or gift, and the other the right to revoke or rescind that donation; and the court in its decision has no t denied to the appellee the option of exercising either one or the other of the two rights, and the court understood perfectly well that the actor (donor) chose that option, that is, for the revocation of the donation and the recovery of the thing donated, and this having been so understood by the court, it was not proper to impose upon the actor (donor) the burden of obligation of selecting by said donor. The court is completely in error wherein it, in decision, has deprived the actor (donor) of the right of option and has imposed upon him the exercise of one of the alternative rights which are given to him by law.

What the actor (donor) has done is to elect his right in the revocation of the donation, basing this revocation on the failure to comply with the conditions imposed; and in the decision of the court it is stated that there were no fit terms in law to value or consider this cause of action, that is to say, if there was or was not a failure to comply with the conditions imposed in the donation, inasmuch as the only thing appearing in the record of the case was from what time the donee had not comply with the same, if within a year, within ten or within twenty; and, when the debtor (obligated party) has no fixed time within which he should comply with an obligations, it is not possible to determine the moment he becomes delinquent, and in failing to comply with an obligation becoming liable therefor by reason of the nonexecution of the obligation not complied with, in such case, without being arbitrary, and such finding can be arrived at only when it is known from what time the obligation has not been complied with and from what date the creditor has the right of action. It was necessary, in all events, according to law, to have expressed a precise period or time from which the fact of failure to comply with the obligation could have been made known and from which an action could have been made effective. Therefore, while no expressed in the decision of the court it is implied that the actor (donor) worked without being with right of action, because in obligations calling for the fulfillment of certain things, although the action is borne from the date of the contract yet is not effective until the falling due of the obligation, and, where there is no stipulations as to the majority of an obligation, the courts will then fix such maturity or time; in other words, there are no fit terms or conditions expressed whereby it can be found or seen that such obligation has not been complied with or form what time an obligation of an indefinite term and having no maturity has not been fulfilled or complied with.

The court is also in error in granting a thing not prayed for by the defendant, inasmuch as the court has not given a time or period within which the obligations or conditions as imposed by the plaintiff can now be complied with and this against the claims of plaintiff. What the court has done is put the things in a state or condition whereby the parties could say what they can not say at this time — one thing is that the condition have not been complied with, the other, that the conditions have been complied with — a thing, one or the other can not be determined but form a given moment, that is from the falling due of the obligation to perform a given act. If the defendant has alleged that he has complied with the conditions imposed, it is because that, throughout the litigations or case, he has shown that he understood that there were no more than two conditions imposed, which in reality is true, without taking into consideration the obligation imposed, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the offer of the donor, but with respect to which, whatever may be its true nature, it can not be argued that the obligated party being at this time still with the power and right to comply within an indefinite time with said condition, during the time that judicial remedy is not had providing for the improvidence or omission of the parties or mutual trust or confidence, or the defense of the one to the other. Judgment or relief can not be had revoking or taking away a condition or a right without it having first been evidence or proven that an obligation has not been complied with, and it is impossible, in any way or manner, to establish or find in a judgment, when it is simply known from what time the obligation should be complied with, but not known within what time or when such obligation should be complied with in full accomplishment of the same.

And it is not rigorously or absolutely certain that law 6 of title 4 of the fifth Partida, the only law applicable to this case, grants an alternative or optional right, taking into consideration the decision of the supreme court of Spain of October 12, 1858, which says: "A donation can not be revoked for the person or because the donee be delinquent in the compliance of the accepted obligations, if the donor does not compel the compliance of the same judicially." So the phrase of the law, "and in case of noncompliance or in case of bad performance of the same, he can be compelled to do that which he agreed or promised to do, or cancel and rescind the donation made," does not authorize that one or another thing be done, but that both should be done. According to the terms of the said decision: "He should have demanded the compliance therewith, and that the only in case of denial to so do, should proceed with the cancellation of the donation, in accordance with the provision of law 6 of the same title and Partida." (Title 4, Partida 5.) In accordance with this decision the complaint should have been drawn in the sense of asking that the donee be compelled to comply with the obligation to purchase the adjoining lots in sufficient number to form a public plaza, and, in the event of the donee not doing so, that the donation be rescind and canceled.

By this is seen the manifest necessity of a term or period within which the donee should comply with such a burden some, vague, indeterminate, and indefinite obligation.

Against the fifth and sixth grounds: From the fact that the court has not declared the donation null or rescinded by reason of the nonexistence of a public instrument, it, the court, has not infringed or violated article 633 of the Civil Code, for the reason that he Civil Code with respect to the form of this donation could not prevail or govern a similar act carried out and executed in June, 1885, not having been in force and effect at that time but after; that is to say, from and after October, 1889.

Law 9, title 4 of the fifth Partida, is the law applicable to the form of the donation, which law exacts and requires a letter (carta) or holding or knowledge of a higher court, that is to say, written document and the exhibition of a public instrument for proper judicial approbation when the thing donated has for its value more than 500 maravedises (old Spanish coins) in gold; and there is not the least proof in this record that the land donated was worth more than 500 maravidesis in gold, or this sums equivalent in money of the country, an equivalent which would be determined judicially in accordance with the many decisions of the supreme court of Spain.

If it is expressed with all precision in the Civil Code as to the necessity of a public instrument for certain donation referred to in the former legislation, in order to judge the donation, the subject-matter herein," it can not be affirmed with certainty," says Manresa, "that a public instrument would be required as necessary, except for the purpose of effecting the inscription or registry in the office of the registrar of properties. There is no doubt," he continues, that the Partidas required and exacted a letter (instrument) for these donations (those donations exceeding in value more than 500 maravedises in god); but it is not very clear as to whether this word alluded or referred only to the written form or particularly to the public document or instrument." (5 Manresa, 100.) Nor can the authorities Laserna and Montalban, Sanchez Roman, and others accept the opinion of others authorities who interpret the word carta (letter) to mean a public instrument, when, according to law 1 of title 18 of the third Partida, carta (letter) is, in generic conception, that which is defined in said law as a public instrument, and that which is a public instrument, and the sort or kind is not of any of the classes or species included or intended under that law.

That which is certain is that the exhibition of the public instrument or judicial approbation or approval was necessary for that class of donations. More than that, according to the decision of the supreme court of Spain, of October 14, 1884, "law 9, title 4 of the fifth Partida is not violated or infringed if it does not appear that the sum donated exceed that of 500 maravedises in gold, which said law permits a donation without the necessity of exhibiting a public instrument before a court and for not having verified the price or value of the wheat donated at the time or period of the contract, which value, as is the case with all merchandise, is subject to alteration and change according to quality and the needs of exigencies of the market." And it must be taken into consideration in this decision that the party who interposed an abrogation of annulment under the direction and advice of a very reputable attorney, did not allege the absence of a public instrument (the donation having been made and consummated by means of a private document) but alleged only the necessity of the judicial approval or approbation, "the only thing that appears clear in the law," according to Manresa.

Against the law ground relative to the acceptance, the facts are evident in the record. We can not conceive how the appellee could have made the delivery of the land, and, as he pretends and alleges, the delivery of the titles of the property, or how the thing donated came to be in the possession of the donee for the large space or period of time as is alleged and set forth in the same complaint, if there had been no acceptance and notification of the acceptance and mutual consent and understanding between the donor and donee. It is not logical to infer in these premises that the donation was never accomplished, but, to the contrary, that the donation and ownership of thing donated was transmitted and transferred, and this, the thing donated possessed by the donee under a title of ownership and it is his, the donees, at the present time beyond all dispute the only thing disputable being the compliance of one obligation imposed in the donation in a resolutorio manner, the only point to be considered in this decision.

Therefore, we find, after taking into consideration the protest and exception against the decision herein, and the petition praying for a rehearing, that there are no grounds or sufficient reason for the granting of this petition. The petitions is denied with the costs against the petitioner.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. For the original case see p. 416, supra.




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






March-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1878 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NAVARRO

    007 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-3290 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS RABOR

    007 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3441 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO DE MESA, ET AL.

    007 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3262 March 11, 1907 - SATURNINA BAUTISTA v. SANTIAGO CALIXTO

    007 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-3188 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALEC KIENE

    007 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-3475 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TAN GEE, ET AL.

    007 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-3498 March 12, 1907 - BEHN v. ARNALOT HERMANOS

    007 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-1056 March 13, 1907 - AGUEDA BENEDICTO DE LA RAMA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA

    007 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-3064 March 13, 1907 - ARTHUR W. PRAUTCH, ET AL. v. HENRY M. JONES

    008 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1921 March 14, 1907 - ALEJANDRA SIGUIONG v. MANUEL SIGUIONG, ET AL.

    008 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-2458 March 14, 1907 - SALVADOR LANDA v. JUAN SANZ Y SANZ

    008 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-2784 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS GEMORA

    008 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3071 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO DE GUZMAN

    008 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-3167 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO CECILIO

    008 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3499 March 14, 1907 - TIRSO LOPEZ v. JOSE DELGADO

    008 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-2503 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. F. ALEXANDER

    008 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. L-2684 March 15, 1907 - FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM A. WILSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-3129 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. W.B. BARNES

    008 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. L-3443 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO DUMANDAN

    008 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-3241 March 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CABANAG

    008 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-3083 March 18, 1907 - RAFAELA PAVIA, ET AL. v. BIBIANA DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-3178 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO ALONSO

    008 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-3324 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO LUGO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2562 March 19, 1907 - MARIANO VELOSO v. MANUEL VELOSO

    008 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-3379 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO TORRERO

    008 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-3540 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LOPEZ BASA

    008 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3072 March 21, 1907 - LIONG-WONG-SHIH v. TOMAS SUNICO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-3143 March 21, 1907 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. JOSEFA ARAMBURO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3352 March 21, 1907 - JOSE CRISPULO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. CLOTILDE DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-3227 March 22, 1907 - PEDRO ALCANTARA v. AMBROSIO ALINEA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-3307 March 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GOYENECHEA

    008 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-3459 March 22, 1907 - CHIONG JOC-SOY v. JAIME VAÑO

    008 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3473 March 22, 1907 - J. CASANOVAS v. JNO. S. HORD

    008 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3257 March 23, 1907 - CAPISTRANO, ET AL. v. JOSEFA GABINO

    008 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-3280 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LUCIO CAMACHO

    008 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3593 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. C.W. NEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-2869 March 25, 1907 - MATEO CARIÑO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-3056 March 25, 1907 - PATRICIO PEREZ v. JOHN C. SWEENEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-3131 March 25, 1907 - HERRANZ & GARRIZ v. KER & CO.

    008 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3180 March 25, 1907 - MATEO OLONA v. ALEJANDRO PASCUA

    008 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-3375 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DONES

    008 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-3620 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-2993 March 27, 1907 - LUCINO ALMEIDA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ABAROA

    008 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-2995 March 27, 1907 - VICTORIANO SALAZAR v. CAYETANA SALAZAR

    008 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3158 March 27, 1907 - CIRIACO PILAPIL, ET AL. v. ROSENDO PONCIANO

    008 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3236 March 27, 1907 - SEBASTIAN ABIERA v. MIGUEL ORIN

    008 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3544 March 27, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. EDWIN CASE

    008 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-2383 March 25, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    008 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-3423 March 27, 1907 - DAMPFSCHIEFFS RHEDEREI UNION v. LA COMPAÑIA TRASATLANTICA

    008 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 3037 March 27, 1907 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    011 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. L-2978 March 2, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO DE LOS SANTOS

    007 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-3287 March 2, 1907 - PASTOR LERMA v. CIPRIANA DE LA CRUZ

    007 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-3433 March 2, 1907 - FELIPE ZAMORA v. CITY OF MANILA

    007 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. L-3406 March 4, 1907 - JOSE ITURRALDE v. SOTERO EVANGELISTA

    007 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-3148A March 5, 1907 - ENRIQUE MARIA BARRETTO v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MLA

    007 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-3247 March 5, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANGELO SAN JOSE

    007 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-3361 March 5, 1907 - SISENANDO EVANGELISTA v. BRIGIDO TABAYUYONG

    007 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-2940 March 6, 1907 - JOSE FIANZA v. J. F. REAVIS

    007 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. L-3186 March 7, 1907 - RED MEN v. VETERAN ARMY OF THE PHIL.

    007 Phil 685

  • G.R. No. L-3368 March 7, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MATEO TRINCHERA

    007 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-3467 March 7, 1907 - DOLORES SOTO, ET AL. v. DANIEL MORELOS

    007 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-2982 March 8, 1907 - MANUEL PEREZ Y GOMEZ v. ANTONIO HERRANZ Y CACERES

    007 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3092 March 8, 1907 - JOSE S. GABRIEL, ET AL. v. RAFAEL BARTOLOME

    007 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 3368A March 8, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MATEO TRINCHERA

    007 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. L-3418 March 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CHU NING CO

    007 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-1878 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NAVARRO

    007 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-3290 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS RABOR

    007 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3441 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO DE MESA, ET AL.

    007 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3262 March 11, 1907 - SATURNINA BAUTISTA v. SANTIAGO CALIXTO

    007 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-3188 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALEC KIENE

    007 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-3475 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TAN GEE, ET AL.

    007 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-3498 March 12, 1907 - BEHN v. ARNALOT HERMANOS

    007 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-1056 March 13, 1907 - AGUEDA BENEDICTO DE LA RAMA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA

    007 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-3064 March 13, 1907 - ARTHUR W. PRAUTCH, ET AL. v. HENRY M. JONES

    008 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1921 March 14, 1907 - ALEJANDRA SIGUIONG v. MANUEL SIGUIONG, ET AL.

    008 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-2458 March 14, 1907 - SALVADOR LANDA v. JUAN SANZ Y SANZ

    008 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-2784 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS GEMORA

    008 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3071 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO DE GUZMAN

    008 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-3167 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO CECILIO

    008 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3499 March 14, 1907 - TIRSO LOPEZ v. JOSE DELGADO

    008 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-2503 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. F. ALEXANDER

    008 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. L-2684 March 15, 1907 - FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM A. WILSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-3129 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. W.B. BARNES

    008 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. L-3443 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO DUMANDAN

    008 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-3241 March 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CABANAG

    008 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-3083 March 18, 1907 - RAFAELA PAVIA, ET AL. v. BIBIANA DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-3178 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO ALONSO

    008 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-3324 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO LUGO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2562 March 19, 1907 - MARIANO VELOSO v. MANUEL VELOSO

    008 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-3379 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO TORRERO

    008 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-3540 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LOPEZ BASA

    008 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3072 March 21, 1907 - LIONG-WONG-SHIH v. TOMAS SUNICO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-3143 March 21, 1907 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. JOSEFA ARAMBURO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3352 March 21, 1907 - JOSE CRISPULO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. CLOTILDE DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-3227 March 22, 1907 - PEDRO ALCANTARA v. AMBROSIO ALINEA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-3307 March 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GOYENECHEA

    008 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-3459 March 22, 1907 - CHIONG JOC-SOY v. JAIME VAÑO

    008 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3473 March 22, 1907 - J. CASANOVAS v. JNO. S. HORD

    008 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3257 March 23, 1907 - CAPISTRANO, ET AL. v. JOSEFA GABINO

    008 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-3280 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LUCIO CAMACHO

    008 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3593 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. C.W. NEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-2869 March 25, 1907 - MATEO CARIÑO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-3056 March 25, 1907 - PATRICIO PEREZ v. JOHN C. SWEENEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-3131 March 25, 1907 - HERRANZ & GARRIZ v. KER & CO.

    008 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3180 March 25, 1907 - MATEO OLONA v. ALEJANDRO PASCUA

    008 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-3375 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DONES

    008 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-3620 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-2993 March 27, 1907 - LUCINO ALMEIDA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ABAROA

    008 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-2995 March 27, 1907 - VICTORIANO SALAZAR v. CAYETANA SALAZAR

    008 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3158 March 27, 1907 - CIRIACO PILAPIL, ET AL. v. ROSENDO PONCIANO

    008 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3236 March 27, 1907 - SEBASTIAN ABIERA v. MIGUEL ORIN

    008 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3544 March 27, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. EDWIN CASE

    008 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-2383 March 25, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    008 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-3423 March 27, 1907 - DAMPFSCHIEFFS RHEDEREI UNION v. LA COMPAÑIA TRASATLANTICA

    008 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 3037 March 27, 1907 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    011 Phil 584