ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
February-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10173 February 1, 1916 - MARIANO VELASCO & Co. v. GOCHUICO CO.

    033 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 10935 February 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO E. VELASQUEZ

    033 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 9184 February 2, 1916 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    033 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 10129 February 2, 1916 - CLARA TAMBUNTING v. EDILBERTO SANTOS

    033 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 10744 February 2, 1916 - ANTONIO RAYMUNDO v. AMBROSIO CARPIO

    033 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 10841 February 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    033 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 11086 February 2, 1916 - MARTINIANO VALDEZCO SY CHIOK v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 11399 February 2, 1916 - REAL MONASTERIO DE SANTA CLARA v. PANFILO VILLAMAR

    033 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 10121 February 3, 1916 - MAURICIA SOTO v. DOMINGA ONG

    033 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 10107 February 4, 1916 - CLARA CEREZO v. ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC COMPANY

    033 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 8769 February 5, 1916 - SMITH, BELL & CO. v. MARIANO MARONILLA

    041 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 9802 February 5, 1916 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    041 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 10345 February 5, 1916 - KUENZLE & STREIFF (LTD.) v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    041 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 10078 February 5, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELINO DACAIMAT

    033 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 9038 February 7, 1916 - PEDRO MAGAYANO v. TOMAS GAPUZAN

    033 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 10280 February 7, 1916 - ENGRACIO CORONEL v. CENON ONA

    033 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 8166 February 8, 1916 - JORGE DOMALAGAN v. CARLOS BOLIFER

    033 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 10548 February 9, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNO DE IRO

    033 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10104 February 10, 1916 - ROMANA CORTES v. FLORENCIO G. OLIVA

    033 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 10251 February 10, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO.

    033 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 10619 February 10, 1916 - COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO.

    033 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9596 February 11, 1916 - MARCOS MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO DE LEON

    033 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 11048 February 11, 1916 - LIM PUE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 11081 February 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MOHAMAD

    033 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 9977 February 12, 1916 - DOROTEO KARAGDAG v. FILOMENA BARADO

    033 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 11065 February 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LOPE K. SANTOS

    033 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 9966 February 14, 1916 - TRINIDAD DE AYALA v. ANTONIO M. BARRETTO

    033 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 10427 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SOY CHUY

    033 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10666 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. QUE SIANG

    033 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 10951 February 14, 1916 - K.S. YOUNG v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    033 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 8914 February 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA

    033 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 9277 February 15, 1916 - ANDRES CALON y MARTIN v. BALBINO ENRIQUEZ

    033 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 9822 February 15, 1916 - BENIGNO SOLIS v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    033 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 10722 February 18, 1916 - DOLORES A IGNACIO v. FELISA MARTINEZ

    033 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 10516 February 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO SOLAÑA

    033 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 10323 February 21, 1916 - PETRA DE CASTRO v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF BOCAUE

    033 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 9204 February 24, 1916 - LAZARO PASCUAL v. FELIPE PASCUAL

    033 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 10531 February 25, 1916 - JULIANA MELIZA v. PABLO ARANETA

    033 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 10672 October 26, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. CARMEN IBAÑEZ

    033 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 8271 February 26, 1916 - PETRONILA MARQUEZ v. FLORENTINA SACAY

    034 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10934 February 26, 1916 - PP. AGUSTINOS RECOLETOS v. GALO LICHAUCO ET AL.

    034 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 10675 February 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YAP TIAN JONG

    034 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9665 February 29, 1916 - IN RE: AMBROSIO RABALO v. GABINA RABALO

    034 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 10244 February 29, 1916 - SANTIAGO CRUZADO v. ESTEFANIA BUSTOS

    034 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 11006 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO BALBIN

    034 Phil 38

  • G.R. Nos. 11055 & 11056 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ANG

    034 Phil 44

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 9204   February 24, 1916 - LAZARO PASCUAL v. FELIPE PASCUAL<br /><br />033 Phil 603

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 9204. February 24, 1916. ]

    LAZARO PASCUAL ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FELIPE PASCUAL ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

    N. Segundo for appellants

    Vicente Llanes for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. DAMAGES; CONCLUSIVENESS OF FORMER ADJUDICATION. — An Action brought primarily to recover damages, wherein the right to damages is not insisted upon, will be a bar to a subsequent action for damages where the facts upon which the parties rely are exactly the same as in the first action.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte, on the 28th of July, 1911. It was submitted to the Supreme Court for decision on the 11th day of January, 1916. The record contains no explanation of the long delay in its final decision.

    The purpose of the action was to recover of the defendants the sum P586, the value of the rent of a certain piece of parcel of land, to which reference is made in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 2 of the complaint, which was made a part of the complaint.

    After several complaints, amended complaints demurrers, etc., the defendants answered the final amended complaint, and interposed a general and special defense, as well as the defense of prescription and of res adjudicata. After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Dionisio Chanco, judge, reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the sum demanded, and absolved the defendants from all liability under the complaint, with costs against the plaintiffs. From that judgment the plaintiffs appealed to this Court, and made several assignments of error.

    The facts which gave rise to the present action are undisputed and are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. In the year 1907, the exact date not appearing of record, an action was commenced by Felipe Pascual against Apolinario Pascual, for the purpose of recovering a sum of money. (The exact amount does not appear of record.)

    2. In the action a judgment was rendered, at the close of the trial, in favor of Felipe Pascual and against Apolinario Pascual.

    3. In the same year (1907) an execution was issued upon said judgment and was levied upon the property in the present litigation and the same was advertised for sale at public auction.

    4. Some time before the date fixed for the sale of said property Domingo Pascual appeared and notified the sheriff, in writing, that some of the land attached belonged to him and not to Apolinario Pascual, the judgment debtor.

    5. After said notice had been given by Domingo Pascual to the sheriff, the plaintiffs herein, except Pablo Antonio, who was the sheriff, executed and delivered the bond required by law to guarantee the sheriff against loss. Upon the execution and delivery of said bond the sheriff proceeded to sell the said parcels of land, and the same were sold to Paulino Acosta.

    6. Later an action was commenced by the said Domingo Pascual against Felipe Pascual, and Paulino Acosta, for the purpose of having said sheriff’s sale declared null and void, to recover the possession of the parcels of land, together with damages, and costs. At the close of the trial in that action, the lower court rendered a judgment absolving the defendants from all liability under the complaint. From that judgment Domingo Pascual appealed to the Supreme Court.

    7. Upon a consideration of said appeal (R. G. No. 5431, Pascual v. Pascual and Acosta, 18 Phil. Rep., [notes], 594) the judgment of the lower court was reversed and it was declared that Domingo Pascual was the owner of the lands in question and that they had been sold illegally at the sheriff’s sale, above indicated.

    8. Domingo Pascual died, the exact date not appearing of record. The plaintiffs are his legal heirs.

    In the action by Domingo Pascual against Paulino Acosta the plaintiff claimed damages, resulting from the illegal sale, based upon the amount of rents and profits which he had lost by reason of said illegal sale. The lower court not only denied that he was the owner of the lands in question but also denied that he was entitled to damages. In the appeal to this court Domingo Pascual, as appellant, waived his right to damages in said action. He made no claim, in that appeal, that he was entitled to damages. Having waived his right to recover damages in an action commenced primarily for that purpose, we hold that to be a bar to his right to recover damages in a subsequent action, where the facts upon which he relies are exactly the same as in the first action.

    Moreover, it will remembered that the present action was brought for the purpose of recovering rent for the parcels of land in question. There is no proof in the record that any of the defendants had received any of the rent nor that any one of them had been in possession of the property. Had the present action been based upon the bond which the defendants herein gave to the sheriff, in order to obtain the sale of lands at public auction, there might have been some merit in the contention of the plaintiffs. No such pretention is made by the plaintiffs.

    After a full consideration of the facts in the present case and the fact that the question herein litigated has been heretofore litigated, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed with the costs. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 9204   February 24, 1916 - LAZARO PASCUAL v. FELIPE PASCUAL<br /><br />033 Phil 603


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED