Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1941 > April 1941 Decisions > G.R. No. 47315 April 25, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESO DUMON

072 Phil 41:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 47315. April 25, 1941.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERESO DUMON, Defendant-Appellant.

Gullas, Leuterio, Tanner & Laput for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Cuyugan for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; HUSBAND WHO MISTOOK A MARRIED COUPLE FOR HIS WIFE AND PARAMOUR; HOMICIDE. — It is conceded on all sides that the appellant mistook the deceased for his wife and her paramour, and the dispute has reference only to the circumstances under which the fatal shots were fired. The trial court found, upon the appellant’s testimony, that after the appellant had entered the room in question and had become convinced that the woman lying in bed was his wife, he proceeded to lift the mosquito net, whereupon the couple rose from their bed; that it was only after the appellant saw the woman look for something and after the man had given him blows on the shoulder and had tried to wrest his gun from him that the appellant fired the fatal shots. After mature reflection, we are inclined to adopt this finding.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DWELLING. — The circumstance of dwelling cannot be considered because the house in which the deceased were killed was not the dwelling place of the appellant’s wife and her paramour whom he believed to have killed.

3. ID., ID., ID., DWELLING. — The aggravating circumstance of night-time cannot be taken into account, on the ground that the appellant, upon leaving Cebu for Bacolod, did not know the exact time he would arrive at his destination.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 247, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 49 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE; CONSENT. — The appellant, however, argues the he found the deceased couple in the act of carnal intercourse and that, as he mistook them for his wife and her paramour, he should be sentenced only to distierro, pursuant to article 247, in relation to article 49, of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court refused to believe that the deceased were found in the act of copulation. We do not find it necessary to pass upon this copulation of the lower court in the light of the divided opinion of this court in People v. Gonzalez (G.R. No. 46310, promulgated October 31, 1939); and People v. Soriano (G.R. No. 46775, promulgated June 28, 1940; vide, also, People v. Ramiro, C.A. 34 Off. Gaz., 1516), for, even assuming that the deceased were engaged in the sexual act, article 247 of the Revised Penal Code cannot still be applied, since the appellant had expressly licensed his wife to commit adultery, in that after the appellant had learned from the very mouth of his wife that the latter was in love and preferred to live with D.V., he signed Exhibit O wherein he ordered his wife to look for and live with another man. In our opinion, this is consent sufficient, under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code to have barred the appellant for instituting a prosecution against his wife if the latter had in fact committed adultery thereafter.

5. ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 365 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. — There is no basis for the appellant’s further contention that article 365 of the Revised Penal Code may be made applicable and that he should be convicted only of homicide through simple imprudence, because the act of firing the fatal shots was intentional on his part and even if the appellant had actually killed his wife and paramour, he would still be guilty of a felony.


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


The defendant, Tereso Dumon, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental with the crime of double murder for having shot and killed, in the municipality of Bacolod, the spouses Manuel Magbanua and Loreto Magalona. On November 23, 1938, the said Court of First Instance, presided over by Judge Sotero Rodas, in a well-prepared decision, convicted the defendant of double homicide and sentenced him, for each homicide, to the indeterminate penalty ranging from four years, two months and one day of prision correcional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, to indemnify the heirs of each of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The court also ordered the confiscation of the defendant’s revolver and ammunition. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals and therein recapitulated his contention as follows: That he should be discharged from the information on the ground that he acted in self-defense; or he should be given the benefit of the exceptional circumstance provided in article 247, in relation to article 49 of the Revised Penal Code and accordingly sentenced only to destierro in the maximum degree; or he should be convicted only of homicide through simple imprudence, if it be found that he was guilty of some slight negligence in ascertaining in the identity of the deceased spouses who were killed purely by accident. On the other hand, the Solicitor-General summed up the Government’s case as follows: "The crimes committed by the appellant are two distinct and separate murders, there having occurred in the commission of the homicidal acts the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated against the appellant. As we have stated at the outset, the circumstance of evidence premeditation may be inferred from the chain of facts and circumstances, although not well marked. The trial court appreciated in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstances of obfuscation could be appreciated in favor of the appellant because the now deceased did nothing to make him lose his reason. Even if they were his wife and her supposed paramour, still he had no reason to be obfuscated because he drove his wife from the conjugal home and expressly ordered her to look for another man with whom to live and be happy. Disregarding premeditation and offsetting the aggravating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the prescribed penalty should, therefore, be imposed in its medium period — reclusion perpetua — in each case."cralaw virtua1aw library

On February 27, 1940, the Court of Appeals certified the case to this Court pursuant to the provisions of section 145-K of the Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth Acts Nos. 3 and 259, it appearing that some of its members were of the opinion that the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed upon the appellant for the crime of double murder. The case was argued in this Court on July 26, , when, acting upon a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant for the purpose merely of permitting him to present as additional evidence certified copies of decisions of the Court of First Instance of Cebu in Criminal Case No. 2568 convicting his wife, Felicisima Maramara, and Benito Aguipo of adultery, and the opposition interposed thereto by the Solicitor-General, it ordered that said motion be attached to the record for consideration when the case is decided on the merits.

It appears that after thirteen years of more or less stormy and loveless married life during which two children were nevertheless born, the appellant first suspected and eventually learned from his own wife, Felicisima Mararmara, that the latter was in love and preferred to live with one Delfin Villaluz. Matters came to a head when, on July 31, 1937, a document (Exhibit O) was prepared and, though intended to be executed by the appellant and his wife, was signed only by the appellant. In said document the latter and his wife agreed to live apart, and the appellant, as husband, ordered his wife to look for another man with whom she could live and be happy and, in turn, Felicisima Maramara, as wife, commanded the appellant to look for another woman with whom he could live. While the ensuing separation was punctuated by occasional visits of the wife to the conjugal home, sometimes at the instance of the children and sometimes at the instance of the appellant, the spouses were never again reconciled. On or about August 17, 1938, Felicisima left Cebu and, on the pretext that she was bound for Manila, proceeded to Talisay, Negros Occidental. There she requested one Silveria Patalinhug de Maramara to accompany her to Bacolod to look for her paramour, Delfin Villaluz. Unable to find the latter, she stayed in the house of the newly married couple, Manuel Magbanua and Loreta Magalona, at No. 16 Smith Street, Bacolod, where she was seen to have been visited by a man who took her out not infrequently.

Shortly before noon on August 24, 1938, the appellant received in Cebu an anonymous letter (Exhibit 4) informing that his wife was staying at No. 16 Smith Street, Bacolod, Occidental Negros. Armed with a revolver and accompanied by Marcial Hipolito, the appellant hurriedly left for Bacolod, arriving there at about two o’clock the following morning. Upon finding the premises sought, The appellant, through the window, entered the room where Manuel Magbanua and Loreta Magalona were lying together in one bed and thereafter shot and killed them. It is conceded on all sides that the appellant mistook the deceased for his wife and her paramour, and the dispute has reference only to the circumstances under which the fatal shots were fired. Thus the prosecution claims that the appellant killed the Magbanua spouses while they were asleep, thereby holding him to the precise tenor of his affidavit (Exhibit B) signed shortly after the fatal occurrence wherein he partly stated the following: "I looked for the house No. 16. I stepped on a little shack. I peeped on the room through the open window and saw a man and a woman lying together on the floor inside the mosquito net. I got into the room through the window. The girl looked to me to be my wife specially because I saw her clothes to be in the room. I shot them." On the other hand, the trial court found, upon the appellant’s testimony, that after the appellant had entered the room in question had become convinced that the woman lying in bed was his wife was his wife, he proceeded to lift the mosquito net, whereupon the couple rose from their bed; that it was only after the appellant saw the woman look for something and after the man had given him blows on the shoulder and had tried to wrest his gun from him that the appellant fired the fatal shots. After mature reflection, we are inclined to adopt this finding. No eye-witness was presented to contradict in any way the appellant’s testimony during the trial , and the prosecution relies solely upon the appellant’s affidavit (Exhibit B) and upon the testimony of police sergeant Roman Pampora to the effect that, shortly after the commission of the homicidal act, the appellant told him that "el disparo contra aquellos que estaban alla dormidos." It is not improbable that at the time the appellant made his sworn statement and gave the alleged information to Roman Pampora, he was still upset in mind as to be unable to detail the circumstances of the incident. Moreover, to find flaws in the appellant’s testimony and to base conviction upon Exhibit B and the testimony of Ramon Pampora, without more, is to find the appellant guilty upon the weakness of his defense rather than upon the required conclusiveness of the evidence of the prosecution. It results that there is no merit in the suggestion of the Solicitor-General that the qualifying circumstance of treachery elevates the offense to double murder.

In this instance the Solicitor-General does not insist in the presence of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, and it is merely urged that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated against the appellant. We agree with the trial court that this circumstance cannot be considered because the house in which the deceased were killed was not the dwelling place of the appellant’s wife and her paramour whom he believed to have killed. We also agree with the trial court that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be taken into account, on the ground that the appellant, upon leaving Cebu for Bacolod, did not know the exact time he would arrive at his destination. On the other hand, the trial court correctly found the presence of the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation and voluntary surrender.

The appellant, however, argues that he found the deceased couple in the act of carnal intercourse and that, as he mistook them for his wife and her paramour, he should be sentenced only to destierro, pursuant to article 247, in relation to article 49, of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court refused to believe that the deceased were found in the act of copulation. We do not find it necessary to pass upon this conclusion of the lower court in the light of the divided opinion of this Court in People v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 46310, promulgated October 31, 1939; and People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 46775, promulgated June 28, 1940 (vide, also, People v. Ramiro C.A. XXXIV O.G. 1516), for, even assuming that the deceased were engaged in the sexual act, article 247 of the Revised Penal Code cannot still be applied, since the appellant had expressly licensed his wife to commit adultery, in that after the appellant had learned from the very mouth of his wife that the latter was in love and preferred to live with Delfin Villaluz, he signed Exhibit O wherein he ordered his wife to look for and live with another man. In our opinion, this is consent sufficient, under article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, to have barred the appellant from instituting a prosecution against his wife if the latter had in fact committed adultery thereafter. (Cf. People v. Guinucod and Tagayan, 58 Phil., 621-624.) Consequently, it becomes unnecessary to pass upon the appellant’s motion for rehearing.

There is no basis for the appellant’s further contention that article 365 of the Revised Penal Code may be made applicable and that he should be convicted only of homicide through simple imprudence, because the act of firing the fatal shots was intentional on his part and even if the appellant had actually killed his wife and her paramour, he would still be guilty of a felony. Neither is there basis for the alternative contention that the appellant acted in self- defense, for the reason that, apart from the circumstance that his intrusion constituted sufficient provocation and the weapon employed by him was not reasonably necessary, the measures taken by the deceased upon finding appellant in their room cannot be considered unlawful aggression.

The motion of new trial filed with this court by the appellant on July 26, 1940, is denied.

The appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz and Horrilleno, 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






April-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45706 April 8, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. FLORENCIO GONZALEZ DIEZ

    071 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 46894 April 8, 1941 - FRANCISCA NADAYAG v. PABLO R. PADILLA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 46944 April 8, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC. v. EL COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS

    071 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. 47068 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO JOYA, ET AL. v. PEDRO TIONGCO

    071 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 47126 April 8, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MEDINA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 47280 April 8, 1941 - JUAN KABIGTING v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    071 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 47301 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO ADIARTE v. PASTOR DOMINGO

    071 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 47346 April 8, 1941 - FRANCISCO B. REYES v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    071 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 47381 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO S. MARTINEZ v. JAIME HERNADEZ

    071 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 47404 April 8, 1941 - AURORA HERNADEZ v. JOSE AUGUSTO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

    071 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. 47408 April 8, 1941 - POTENCIANA REBOTOC v. JUAN A. BENITEZ

    071 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 47428 April 8, 1941 - ALFONSO ALBORNOZ v. DOLORES ALBORNOZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 47442 April 8, 1941 - JOSEPH K. ICARD v. CLARO MASIGAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 47456 April 8, 1941 - ASUNCION PEREZ VDA. DE DE LA VIÑA v. SIMON BUENAVENTURA

    071 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 47461 April 8, 1941 - TIRSO GARCIA v. ARSENIA ENRIQUEZ

    071 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 47493 April 8, 1941 - VICTOR AGUILAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    071 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 47521 April 8, 1941 - PEDRO REMOCAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    071 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 47525 April 8, 1941 - FORTUNATO MAGLEO v. FELIPE VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 47578 April 8, 1941 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ESTEBAN I. VAZQUEZ

    071 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47725 April 8, 1941 - JOSE GAVINO v. EL MUNICIPIO DE CALAPAN, MINDORO

    071 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 47763 April 8, 1941 - JOSE ARCE, ET AL. v. ROMAN AFABLE

    071 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 47830 April 8, 1941 - PLACIDO SUMINTAC v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL

    071 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 47869 April 8, 1941 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. CO KIM, ET AL.

    071 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 47896 April 8, 1941 - AURELIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE P. BANTUG

    071 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 47919 April 8, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. AMADO JORGE

    071 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 47960 April 8, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN MEMPIN

    071 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 47398 April 14, 1941 - RAYMUNDA SANTOS v. BENITO STO. DOMINGO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 47413 April 14, 1941 - MARIANO MOLO v. ALFREDO L. YATCO

    071 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 47459 April 14, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GERALD J. MASSE, ET AL.

    071 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 47516 April 14, 1941 - MARIANO A. DE CASTRO v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO.

    071 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 45769 April 14, 1941 - CORAZON VELOSO DE TORRES v. TREASURER OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    071 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47625 April 14, 1941 - AURELIO REYES v. EUGENIO EVANGELISTA

    071 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 47709 April 14, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID C. SANTOS

    071 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 47723 April 14, 1941 - CORNELIO EBRO v. FERNANDO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 47743 April 14, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    071 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 47806 April 14, 1941 - LEONCIO GABRIEL v. MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL.

    071 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 47828 April 14, 1941 - CRISTOBAL OLAIVAR v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

    071 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 47882 April 14, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO NERIA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46936 April 18, 1941 - GREGORIO REYES UY UN v. MAMERTA PEREZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46937 April 18, 1941 - MANILA GAS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    071 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. 46999 y 47000 April 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PRICILA LAUREANO, ET AL

    071 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 47022 April 18, 1941 - F. C. SOMBITO v. MAMERTO FERARIS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47249 April 18, 1941 - CANDIDA SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. TEODORA A. RUIZ

    071 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46817 April 18, 1941 - TEODORO KALAW NG KHE v. LEVER BROTHERS CO.

    083 Phil 947

  • G.R. No. 47252 April 18, 1941 - APOSTOLIC PREFECT OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE v. EL TESORERO DE LA CIUDAD DE BAGUIO

    071 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 47261 April 18, 1941 - GUILLERMO AMANTE, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MANZANERO

    071 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 47351 April 18, 1941 - DOLORES BUENDIA DE ALCALA v. LORENZO DE VILLA

    071 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. 47386 April 18, 1941 - VIVENCIA LAGUNA v. AMBROSIA LEVANTINO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 47438 April 18, 1941 - ANDRES B. ESPINA v. MARGARITA R. VIUDA DE ESPINA

    071 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 47523 April 18, 1941 - LUY LAM & CO. v. MERCANTILE BANK OF CHINA

    071 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 47653 April 18, 1941 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION

    071 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 47736 April 18, 1941 - COSME PROFETA, ET AL. v. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID

    071 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47784 April 18, 1941 - LEVY HERMANOS v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    071 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 47962 April 18, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD v. TOMAS ROBERTO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 47557 April 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARTIN CONWI

    071 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 47583 April 22, 1941 - RUFINO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    071 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 47658 April 22, 1941 - CLEMENTE TANJANGCO v. JOSE DE BORJA

    072 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47677 April 22, 1941 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON

    072 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 47796 April 2, 1941 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION

    072 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 46946 April 25, 1941 - PETER JOHNSON v. MOISES UBAÑA

    072 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 47033 April 25, 1941 - JOSE DINGCONG v. HALIM KANAAN

    072 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 47076 April 25, 1941 - SALUD BALUYUT v. EL BANCO DE LAS FILIPINAS

    072 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 47101 April 25, 1941 - GODOFREDO BUCCAT v. LUIDA MANGONON DE BUCCAT

    072 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 47127 April 25, 1941 - ISABEL BIBBY VIUDA DE PADILLA v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    072 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 47213 April 25, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FIL. v. EL JUEZ DEL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE MASBATE

    072 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 47215 April 25, 1941 - LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE COROMINAS

    072 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 47217 April 25, 1941 - JOAQUIN J. GONZALES, ET AL. v. PROCESO SEBASTIAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 47281 April 25, 1941 - ALEJANDRO MALLARI v. MANUEL ESTIPONA

    072 Phil 35

  • G.R. No. 47283 April 25, 1941 - CRISOGONO JERREOS v. CONSTANTINO Z. CANTO

    072 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 47315 April 25, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESO DUMON

    072 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47320 April 25, 1941 - W. R. GIBERSON v. JUAN POSADAS

    072 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 47379 April 25, 1941 - AMADA DACANAY v. LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS

    072 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 47483 April 25, 1941 - H. HAHN, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

    072 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 47551 April 25, 1941 - VICENTE LOPEZ, ET AL. v. ROMUALDO F. VIJANDRE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 47590 April 25, 1941 - ARCADIO DUMLAO, ET AL. v. SIMEON RAMOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 47606 April 25, 1941 - FERNANDO VILLAABRILLE, ET AL. v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 47626 April 25, 1941 - GREGORIA R. DE MESA v. CIPRIANO V. DE GALICIA

    072 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 47631 April 25, 1941 - CO HO v. QUIRICO ABETO

    072 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 47705 April 25, 1941 - CONCORDIA GO v. ANGELA REDFERN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 47760 April 25, 1941 - NEGROS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CARLOS JAYME, ET AL.

    072 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 47821 April 25, 1941 - SOFIA CABUCO v. JOHN C. BEYERSDORFFER

    072 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 47856 April 25, 1941 - EDUARDA TAPANG v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 48024 April 25, 1941 - PAGSANJAN AGRICULTURAL ASS’N INC. v. SOR JOSEFA SORIANO

    072 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 47373 April 28, 1941 - ÑGO HOK CHEF v. VICENTE AQUINO

    072 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 47655 April 28, 1941 - H. H. STEINMETZ v. JOSE VALDEZ

    072 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 47690 April 28, 1941 - IRINEO YUMUL v. ANTONIO JULIANO

    072 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 47741 April 28, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTIAGO S. VELASQUEZ

    072 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 47788 April 28, 1941 - DIEGO MARIANO, ET AL. v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. 47639 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. VALENTIN NICOLAS

    072 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 47645 April 30, 1941 - DOMINGO MABUNAY v. MODESTO BALLEZA

    072 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 47721 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. TEODORO RULL Y OTRO

    072 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. 47732 April 30, 1941 - CORNELIO BALMACEDA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 47791 April 30, 1941 - JOSE S. DE OCAMPO v. AMBROSIO SANTOS

    072 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 47836 April 30, 1941 - ANICETO ALEJANDRO v. DIEGO LOCSIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 47898 April 30, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. P. M ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 47914 April 30, 1941 - JUAN S. RUSTIA v. QUIRICO ABETO ET AL.

    072 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 47920 April 30, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. SERGIO M. SILO

    072 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 47921 April 30, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. ENCARNACION ESCUDERO

    072 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 47959 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAXIMO TACAD, ET AL.

    072 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 47961 April 30, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MANUEL CONCORDIA

    072 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 47991 April 30, 1941 - SISENANDO MACALINDOG v. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA

    072 Phil 163