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
 

   
June-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47032 June 6, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE MIRANDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 222

  • G.R. Nos. 47038, 47039 & 47040 June 6 1941

    LUIS R. PIMENTEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 47260 June 6, 1941 - BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. EUGENIA M. SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 47454 June 6, 1941 - ADRIANO TRINIDAD v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI, ET AL.

    072 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 47317 June 10, 1941 - SISENANDO ABARRO v. TOMASA DE GUIA

    072 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 47519 June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO

    072 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 47549 June 10, 1941 - J. BENTON CLAUSEN v. ISABEL CABRERA

    072 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 47646 & 47657 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO BALTAZAR v. ANDRES LAYUG, ET AL.

    072 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 47684 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO A. MANEJA

    072 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 47686 June 10, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SANDIKO

    072 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 47689 June 10, 1941 - WILFRIDO MACEDA, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 47694 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 47756 June 10, 1941 - LUIS OCAMPO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 47762 June 10, 1941 - SILVERIO MORCO v. SALVADOR MUÑOZ

    072 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 47764 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO V. VILLARICA v. CONCEPCION MANIKIS

    072 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 47770 June 10, 1941 - SILVESTRE GALLANO v. PABLO S. RIVERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 47780 June 10, 1941 - CIRILO ALAFRIZ v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 47789 June 10, 1941 - FE CASTRO DE AGBAYANI v. JUSTICE OF PEACE OF THE CAPITAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 47816 June 10, 1941 - SABINO AGUILOS v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 47862 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. SINFOROSO TAGOC

    072 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 47863 June 10, 1941 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. JOSE VAÑO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 47892 June 10, 1941 - PABLO VALENZUELA v. VALERIO FLORES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 48027 June 10, 1941 - EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    072 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47421 June 13, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47734 June 13, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. CORNELIO PINEDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 47738 June 13, 1941 - ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47799 June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47965 June 13, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. MARIANO ABACAHIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 47072 June 17, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 47358 June 17, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 47432 June 17, 1941 - EUSTAQUIO FULE v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 47542 June 17, 1941 - LA FABRICA DE CERVEZA DE SAN MIGUEL v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    072 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47570 June 17, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE PAMPANGA v. ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO

    072 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47580 June 17, 1941 - SIMEON MANDAC v. COURT OF APPEALS

    072 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 47587 June 17, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. A. L. YATCO

    072 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 47660 June 17, 1941 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICENTE VERSOZA

    072 Phil 362

  • G.R. Nos. 47678 & 47679 June 17, 1941 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO, ET AL. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 47724 June 17, 1941 - HERMENEGILDO DEVEZA v. MANUEL RUIZ RUILOBA

    072 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 47745 June 17, 1941 - JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS v. MARIAÑO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 47771 June 17, 1941 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. GRACIANO DE LA RAMA

    072 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 47837 June 17, 1941 - SEGUNDO GARCIA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 47848 June 17, 1941 - BONIFACIO DANGALAN v. DOMINGO MARTICIO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 47889 June 17, 1941 - ANDRES JARDIN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA VILLAMAYOR

    072 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47972 June 17, 1941 - A. K. SPIELBERGER v. L. R. NIELSON

    072 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 47538 June 20, 1941 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. ARCO AMUSEMENT CO.

    072 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 47588 June 20, 1941 - JOSE L. LIWANAG v. TOLARAM MENGHRAJ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 47601 June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 47683 June 20, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. CONSOLACION M. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 47726 June 20, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL. v. VICTORINO DANGOY

    072 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 47797 June 20, 1941 - JOSEFA LABOT v. EDUVIGES LIBRADA

    072 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47819 June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 48100 June 20, 1941 - FLORENCIO PELOBELLO v. GREGORIO PALATINO

    072 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 46966 June 24, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE FILIPINAS v. CHUNG LIU & COMPANY

    072 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 47058 June 27, 1941 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL

    072 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 47189 June 27, 1941 - A. L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS

    072 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 47226 June 27, 1941 - PEDRO DE JESUS v. GUAN BEE CO.

    072 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 47338 June 27, 1941 - FRANCISCO EGMIDIO v. LEON REGALADO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 47354 June 27, 1941 - EL OPISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE NUEVA SEGOVIA v. EL MUNICIPIO DE SANTA CATALINA

    072 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47380 June 27, 1941 - ZACARIAS DE SADUESTE v. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

    072 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 47409 June 27, 1941 - ANGEL P. MIGUEL v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    072 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 47411 June 27, 1941 - J. A. WOLFSON v. MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE

    072 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 47465 June 27, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN

    072 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 47501 June 27, 1941 - FELIX B. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. GABRIEL LASAM, ET AL.

    072 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941 - IDONAH SLADE PERKINS v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 47641 June 27, 1941 - JOSEFA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. JUAN DE VERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 47701 June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 47731 June 27, 1940

    QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ

    072 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 47888 June 27, 1941 - MANUEL VILLARAMA vs.JUANITO MANLUSOC

    072 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47931 June 27, 1941 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. CALIXTO PILAPIL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. 47955 y 47993 June 27, 1941 - MARIANO B. ARROY, ET AL. v. ARSENIO DIZON

    072 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 47971 June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 48004 June 27, 1941 - CARLOS DORONILA v. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

    072 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 47179 June 28, 1941 - PHIL. ASS’N OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS v. M. JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 47269 June 28, 1941 - KUAN LOW & CO. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE ADUANAS

    072 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47424 June 28, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

    072 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 47586 June 28, 1941 - LIM BONFING, ET AL. v. TEODORICO RODRIGUEZ

    072 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 47966 June 28, 1941 - LOPE ATIENZA v. MAXIMINO CASTILLO

    072 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 47342 June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    073 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47446 June 30, 1941 - JOSE P. BANTUG v. MAMERTO ROXAS

    073 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 47637 June 30, 1941 - JOSE VISTAN v. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA

    073 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 47663 June 30, 1941 - JULIN GO v. EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    073 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 47768 June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941 - IN RE: EMILIANO GUZMAN

    073 Phil 51

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47601   June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 415

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 47601. June 20, 1941.]

    EDUARDO C. GUICO, Petitioner, v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL., Respondents.

    Crispin Oben for Petitioner.

    Ortega & Ortega for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    SECTION 45 (A) OF ACT No. 2874; REGISTRATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE; FINDING OF FACT OF COURT OF APPEALS. — Petitioner contends that P. L. de L., predecessor in interest, had an imperfect title fit for registration under section 45 (a) of Act No. 2874. This, undoubtedly, raises a question of fact in regard to which the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that "la solicitud de Pedro Lopez de Leon de composicion con el Estado no fue aprobada porque no pudo hacerse la medicion correspondiente", in its resolution under date of July 2, 1940, is final. We on serve that according to the finding of the Court of Appeals the oppositors mentioned in its decision "probaron que ellos y sus causantes poseyeron sus terrenos desde el tiempo del Gobierno Español, en concepto de dueños, publicos, pacifica, continuada y exclusivamente." (Decision, p. 35, appendix, petitioner’s brief.) Besides, it is to be noted that while abundant composition title by the original possessor, the record nowhere exhibits compliance with the operative requirement of said section 45 (a) of Act No. 2874, that "such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the filing of their application."


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    On November 4, 1930, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Eduardo C. Guico, the petitioner here, applied for the registration of a tract of land situated in barrio Tindig na Manga, Parañaque, Rizal, and particularly described in accompanying plan Psu-80886 as being subdivided into eleven lots. In his petition, applicant alleged that said land is included in a big parcel, covered by plan Psu-16400, which originally belonged to Pedro Lopez de Leon who acquired it by composition title from Spanish Government between years 1890 and 1894; and that Pedro Lopez de Leon, bequeathed the same to his son, Mariano Lopez de Leon, who, in turn, transferred a third portion of it in the north to the present petitioner. The following parties appeared to contest said application: Florentino Baltazar, as to lots Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11; Estanislao Mayuga, as to lots Nos. 4 and 5; the heirs of Narciso Mayuga, as to lots Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 11; Valeriano Miranda, as to lot No. 6; and thirty-five individuals including the instant nine respondents, hereinafter to be denominated as the Ortega oppositors, as to certain undetermined portions in the whole tract.

    On August 19, 1935, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered its decision, the dispositive part of which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "En meritos de todo lo expuesto, se ordena el registro de los lotes 1, 2 y 3 del plano Psu-47035 a nombre de Estanislao Mayuga, desestimando oposicion de Florentino Baltazar y Eduardo Guico con respecto a dichos lotes; tambien se ordena el registro de los lotes 1, 7, 8 y 9 del plano Psu-56007 y los lotes 8, 9 y 11 del plano Psu-80886 a favor de los herederos de Don Narciso Mayuga, desestimando la oposicion de Eduardo Guico con respecto a los lotes 7 y 8. Se sobresee toda la solicitud de Florentino Baltazar. Asi mismo se ordena el registro de los lotes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 y 10 del plano Psu-88086 a nombre de Eduardo Guico, desestimando la oposicion de Florentino Baltazar en cuanto a los lotes 3 y 6 de Guico, y finalmente se sobresee en su totalidad la oposicion presentada por Valeriano Miranda contra el lote 6 de Eduardo Guico, asi como la de los opositores apellidados Ygaya, Gawaran. Pañgilin y De la Cruz en los expedientes Nos. 657 y 758, y Jose Dollenton en el expediente 976, y una vez firme esta decision, expidanse los decretos correspondientes. Sin especial pronunciamiento en cuanto a las costas.

    "On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered the following decision, the dispositive part of which recites as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Por todas las consideraciones expuestas, confirmamos la decision apelada en cuanto adjudica a Estanislao Mayuga los lotes 1, 2 y 3 de su plano y que equivalen a los lotes 4, 5 y 6 del plano de Baltazar y 4 y 5 del plano de Guico.

    "Estimamos las oposiciones de Nicasio San Pedro, Jose Dollenton, Gregorio Arciaga, Donato Navarro, Leon Navarro, Dionisio Dollenton, Maximo Gawaran, Pio Pangilin, Alejandro de la Cruz, y Valeriano Miranda, revocando la decision en cuanto desestima dichas oposiciones. Si estos opositore desean registrar sus respectivas porciones a su nombre, deberan presentar un plano debidamente aprobado por el Director de Terrenos y contribuir a los gastos de solicitud y poblicacion proporcionalmente, los 9 primeros a los hechos por Eduardo C. Guico y los 5 ultimos a los de Florentino Baltazar.

    "Estimamos tambien la oposicion de Valeriano Miranda mal lote 6 de Baltazar y si el quiere inscribirle a su nombre, debera asimismo levantar un plano debidamente aprobado poor el Director de Terrenos y contribuir a los gastos de solicitus y publicacion hechos por dicho intestado de Baltazar.

    "Desestimamos las oposiciones de Raymundo San Pedro, Esteban Larica, Tiburcio de la Cruz o Simeon Ignacio y otros, Roberta Igaya y Leocadia Igaya, y de cuantos opositores cuyos nombres no aparecen entre aquellos cuyas oposicioner estimamos en la pagina entarior.

    "Adjudicamos a Eduardo C. Guico los lotes 2 y 3 de su plano y las porciones que quedan de las adjudicadas a el por el Juzgado inferior y que no estan comprendidos en los terrenos reclamados por Valeriano Miranda, Nicasio san Pedro, Jose Dollenton, Gregorio Arciaga, Donato Navarro, Leon Navarro, Dionisio Dollenton, Basilio Navarro, Bernardo Mellama y Lorenzo Dollenton, debiendo al efecto presentar un plano enmendado debidamente aprobado por el Director de Terrenos, confirmado asi la decision apelada en lo que estuvira conforme, y revocandola en lo que no estuviera.

    "Adjudicamos a los herederos de Narciso Mayuga, llamados Estanislao, Rafael, Nestor, Maura y Maria Mayuga, las porciones que el Juzgado inferior las adjudico, menos los reclamados por Maximo Gawaran, Pio Pañgilin y Alejandro de la Cruz, debiendo tambien de levantar, al efecto, un plano enmendado para excluir dichas porciones.

    "Y adjudicamos el intestado de Florentino Baltazar el lote 10 de su plano.

    "Sin especial pronunciamiento en cuanto a las costas."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Later, in a separate resolution promulgated on July 2, 1940, the same court denied the motions for reconsideration presented by Eduardo C. Guico, Florentino Baltazar and the Ortega oppositors and the motion for a new trial filed by Estanislao Mayuga, and ordered the registration of lot No. 6 in the name of Eduardo C. Guico.

    Eduardo C. Guico now seeks to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, and submits the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. El Honorable Tribunal de Apelaciones incurrio en error al declarar que no hubo titulo imperfecto a favor de Pedro Lopez de Leon, mediato predecesor en interes del aqui peticionario.

    "2. El Honorable Tribunal de Apelaciones incurrio en error al declarar que no hay cosa juzgada a favor de Mariano Lopez de Leon, immediato predecesor en interes del aqui peticionario.

    "3. El Honorable Tribunal de Apelacioner incurrio en error al declarar que ocho de los nueve respondentes no estan en estoppel."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In his first assignment of error, petitioner contends that Pedro Lopez de Leon, his predecessor in interest, had an imperfect title fit for registration under section 45 (a) of Act No. 2874. This, undoubtedly, raises a question of fact in regard to which the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that "la solicitud de Pedro Lopez de Leon composicion con el Estado no fue aprobada porque no pudo hacerse la medicion correspondiente", in its resolution under date of July 2, 1940, is final. (Guico v. Mayuga and Heirs of Mayuga, 63 Phil., 328; Mamuyac v. Abena (alias Inciong), XXXVIII O.G., 64; Bundoc v. Hilario and Zamora, G.R. No. 46852, February 27, 1940; Penales v. Garcia, G.R. No. 46905, June 17, 1940; Priscilla y Samar v. People, R. G. No. 47307, December 21, 1940.) We observe that according to the finding of the Court of Appeals the oppositors mentioned in its decision "probaron que ellos y sus causantes poseyeron sus terrenos desde el tiempo del Gobierno Español, en concepto de dueños, publicos, pacifica, continuada y exclusivamente." (Decision, p. 35, appendix, petitioner’s brief.) Besides, it is to be noted that while abundant proof is offered concerning the filing of the application for composition title by the original possessor, the records nowhere exhibits compliance with the operative requirement of said section 45 (a) of Act. No. 2874, that "such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the filing of their applications."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Res adjudicata in next invoked in favor of Mariano Lopez de Leon. This claim is predicated on the decisions of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Registration Case Nos. 375 and 672, instituted by Conrado Potenciano and by the spouses, Lorenzo Gana and Maria Juliana A. Carlos, respectively, and the order of the Director of Lands on December 19, 1930, which was presented by Eduardo C. Guico as Exhibit U. Upon this point, the Court of Appeals found (resolution on motions for reconsideration, July 2, 1940, pp. 46-47, appendix, petitioner’s brief.) :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Second paragraph. — El primero alega que Pedro Lopez de Leon tenia un titulo imperfecto de composicion con el Estado que hay res adjudicata a su favor y que los opositores, representados por el Sr. Ortega, estan en estoppel. La solicitud de Pedro Lopez de Leon de composicion con el Estado no fue aprobada porque no pudo hacerse la medicion correspondiente. La sentencia a que se refiere dicho mocionante fue una desicion desestimando ciertas solicitudes de registro en virtud de la oposicion de Mariano Lopez de Leon, y en la que no tomaron parte los opositores representados por el citado abogado Sr. Ortega. Y no consideramos que haya verdadero estoppel, al menos en favor de Guico, sino en todo caso en favor del Gobierno, porque sus solicitudes presentadas al Director de Terrenos pueden considerarse como debidas a su deseo de obtener un titulo mas barato."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We see no reason for reversing this finding of the Court of Appeals on mixed question of law and fact.

    It is unnecessary to consider the third assignment of error.

    The writ is dismissed and the judgment sought to be reviewed is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Diaz, Moran and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 47601   June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL. <br /><br />072 Phil 415


    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