Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > May 1956 Decisions > Name[G.R. No. L-7555. May 18, 1956.] JOHN D. SINGLETON, as guardian of the property of the incompetent WALTER E. HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-7555.  May 18, 1956.]

JOHN D. SINGLETON, as guardian of the property of the incompetent WALTER E. HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

 

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA, J.:

On 28 March 1941, Walter E. Hicks, then a resident of Manila, and the Philippine Trust Company, a domestic corporation, entered into a trust agreement whereby, for and in consideration of the trust assumed by the trustee, the Philippine Trust Company, as well as of the sum of P1 paid by the grantor, Walter E. Hicks, to and received by the trustee, the grantor granted, bargained, sold, assigned, transferred and set over, and by the trust agreement did grant, bargain, sell, assign, transfer and set over unto the trustee, its successors and assigns the properties therein enumerated and described. The trustee accepted and entered upon the administration of the trust as stipulated in the trust agreement. On 8 December 1941 the Pacific war broke out. Walter E. Hicks became incompetent and the People’s Bank and Trust Company was appointed guardian of the estate of the incompetent. On 4 September 1947, the Court approved the action of the guardian in advising the Philippine Trust Company, as trustee, of the revocation of the trust and ordered the latter to turn over to the guardian the remaining assets of the incompetent after deducting the stipulated compensation. On 23 October 1947, the Philippine Trust Company, as trustee, turned over to the People’s Bank and Trust Company, as guardian, corporate shares and bank deposits which were held by the Defendant, as trustee, in compliance with the order of 4 September 1947. On 11 May 1949, John D. Singleton was appointed guardian of the estate of the incompetent in lieu of the People’s Bank and Trust Company in Special Proceedings No. 59253 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. After his appointment he inquired into the assets of the incompetent and discovered that the trustee, Philippine Trust Company, had failed to turn over to the former guardian, the People’s Bank and Trust Company, the sum of P44,286.27, representing a balance as of 31 October 1941 belonging to the estate of the incompetent in possession of the trustee under the trust agreement at the outbreak of the war on 8 December 1941. Demand was made by the present and former guardians of the estate of the incompetent for the delivery of the said trust fund but the trustee failed, neglected and refused to pay any or part of said amount alleging as excuse therefor that the said trust fund had been transferred to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., on 29 September 1944, in obedience to the order of the Japanese Military Administration, “ZAI” No. 257, promulgated on 4 October 1943. In truth and in fact, however, the amount allegedly transferred by the trustee to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. on 29 September 1944 was entirely different from and unrelated to the cash funds amounting to P44,286.27 held by the Defendant on December 1941 in trust for the estate of the incompetent and for which the trustee is accountable under the law and terms of the trust agreement of 28 March 1941. Stripped of arguments and conclusions, these are the substantial facts pleaded in the complaint filed on 2 February 1950 by John D. Singleton, as guardian of the estate of the incompetent Walter E. Hicks against the Philippine Trust Company as trustee. The Plaintiff prayed that after hearing judgment be rendered ordering the Defendant to pay to him, as guardian of the estate of the incompetent Walter E. Hicks, the sum of P44,286.27, together with lawful interest thereon from 31 October 1941 to the date of payment, and costs. He also prayed for such other and further relief as law, equity and justice may warrant.

On 15 January 1951 Walter E. Hicks was declared competent by the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, and arrived in Manila on 2 July 1951. Upon motion of the guardian the guardianship in the Manila Court was terminated, the guardian discharged and the incompetent released from guardianship on 6 August 1951 (Special Proceedings No. 59253, Court of First Instance of Manila).

In its answer the Defendant admits and denies certain facts pleaded in the complaint and alleges that on 23 October 1947 it turned over to the People’s Bank and Trust Company, as guardian of the incompetent, all the remaining assets in full compliance with the aforesaid order of the probate court of 4 September 1947; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the former guardian, the People’s Bank and Trust Company, knew that the sum of P44,286.27 sought to be recovered by the Plaintiff had been transferred to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. by order of the Japanese Military Administration on 29 September 1944 and denies specifically the allegation of the Plaintiff that the money allegedly transferred by the trustee to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. on 29 September 1944 was entirely different from and unrelated to the sum of P44,286.27 held by the Defendant on December 1941 allegedly in trust for the estate of the said incompetent Walter E. Hicks, as set forth by the Plaintiff in paragraph 7 of his complaint. As affirmative defenses and counterclaim the Defendant alleges that in accordance with the trust agreement it, as trustee, deposited on 10 January 1941 the cash fund in question in a current account with the Philippine Trust Company, a commercial bank, in the name of “W. E. Hicks, Trust No. 1098; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the former guardian of the estate of the incompetent Walter E. Hicks, the People’s Bank and Trust Company, had knowledge of and did not object to said current account deposit; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat on 4 October 1943 the Director of the Department of General Affairs of the Japanese Military Administration in the Philippines promulgated “ZAI” No. 257 ordering all deposit accounts of hostile people (including that of W. E. Hicks, Trust No. 1098) to be transferred to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., as depository of the Bureau of Enemy Custody; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat on or about 2 March 1944 the Defendant bank was ordered by the Japanese Military Administration to open and transact business and on 29 September 1944 it was compelled to transfer and turn over to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., pursuant to “ZAI” No. 257, all deposit accounts of hostile people including that of W. E. Hicks, Trust No. 1098, and that in compliance with the said order the Defendant turned over to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. the aforesaid balance of current account in the name of “W. E. Hicks, Trust No. 1098;” that on 28 September 1949 the Philippine Trust Company received a letter from the guardian of the estate of Walter E. Hicks requesting the remittance of the sum of P44,286.27; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat in reply to said letter, on 8 October 1949 the Philippine Trust Company by its counsel wrote a letter informing the guardian of the decision of the Supreme Court in Everett Steamship Corporation vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 47 Off. Gaz. 165, which released the Philippine Trust Company from any obligation or responsibility to Walter E. Hicks regarding the said sum; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that in spite of said information about the decision of the Supreme Court in the said case, the Plaintiff brought this frivolous action against the Defendant causing the latter damage in the sum of 5,000. It prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the Plaintiff be ordered to pay the Defendant the sum of P5,000 as damages, and costs.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that there was another sum of P5,090.06 accountable by the Defendant and due to the Plaintiff. So on 6 October 1951 the Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to plead another cause of action for the recovery from the Defendant of the sum of P5,090.06, but the motion for allowance of an amended complaint was denied on 5 November 1951.

On 14 December 1951 the Defendant moved for a summary judgment on the ground that on 29 July 1949 the Plaintiff, in his capacity as guardian of the estate of the incompetent Walter E. Hicks, filed a notice of claim for payment of debt with the Philippine Alien Property Administration and swore that the claim for the sum of P44,286.27 was the cash balance of the deposit in the name of Walter E. Hicks in the Philippine Trust Company and transferred to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. on 29 September 1944 by order of the Japanese Military Administration; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat for that reason the Philippine Trust Company had denied responsibility for such amount transferred to the Bank of Taiwan, - Ltd., and that the claim was filed because Walter E. Hicks had no recourse against the Philippine Trust Company. He further swore that in compliance with the order of the probate court on 23 October 1947, the Philippine Trust Company transferred all the assets of Walter E. Hicks to the People’s Bank and Trust Company, the guardian of the estate of the incompetent Walter E. Hicks, except the cash balance of P44,286.27, and that the Defendant disclaimed any responsibility for it because of the transfer made of said sum or cash balance to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. In the motion for summary judgment the Defendant contended that the admission made by the guardian was binding upon the ward and that in view of the admission, except as to the amount of damages sought to be recovered by the Defendant in its counterclaim, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and for that reason prayed for such judgment to which it was entitled as a matter of law, dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint with costs. Despite objection of the Plaintiff to the motion for summary judgment, as set out in his pleading of 26 January 1952 and of 8 February 1952 attaching thereto an affidavit executed by John D. Singleton on 31 January 1952, wherein he swore that all the facts stated in the claim filed by him, in his capacity as guardian of the estate of the incompetent Walter E. Hicks, with the Philippine Alien Property Administration, had been obtained and secured from the Defendant Philippine Trust Company, and of several other pleadings to the same effect, on 10 March 1952 the Court entered an order granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint without costs. The Defendant’s counterclaim also was dismissed. Motion to set aside the judgment was denied. Hence this appeal. The Court of Appeals certified the case to this Court on the ground that only questions of law are raised.

The Appellant assigns as error the denial by the Court below of a motion to allow an amended complaint so as to include a second cause of action for the recovery of the sum of P5,090.06 which the Plaintiff learned was due to the estate of the incompetent Walter E. Hicks only after the filing of the complaint. We cannot pass upon this alleged error because from such denial no appeal has been taken by the Plaintiff.

Section 2, Rule 36, provides —

A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof.

Section 3 of the same Rule provides —

 cralaw The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

The last quoted provisions which give courts authority to grant relief by summary judgment are intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits. But if there be a doubt as to such facts and there be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties neither one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. For that reason section 5 prescribes and requires that “supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” Depositions and affidavits are those supporting or denying the facts stated in the pleadings by the parties to an action, and from which it may clearly be drawn that certain facts pleaded by either party are certain, undisputed and indubitable which dispense with the hearing or trial of the case. Admissions that may be availed of to pray for a summary judgment are those made in pleadings filed by the parties or made by a party to an action, as provided for in Rule 23. The fact stated in the sworn declaration executed by the guardian of the incompetent to support his claim filed with the Philippine Alien Property Administration that the cash balance of P44,286.27 of the deposit in the name of Walter E. Hicks in the Philippine Trust Company was transferred to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., on 29 September 1944 by order of the Japanese Military Administration is neither an admission on file referred to in section 3, Rule 36, nor an affidavit contemplated in section 5 of the same Rule, because the facts stated therein were not made on personal knowledge but were obtained, secured or derived from the Defendant itself and the facts stated therein being hearsay the affiant is not competent to testify to such facts. The affidavit of John D. Singleton of 31 January 1952 attached to the Plaintiff’s pleading of 8 February 1952 shows that the facts stated in the claim filed by him with the Philippine Alien Property Administration had been obtained from the Defendant. And this must be true because all such facts were only known to the officer of the Defendant in charge of those transfers or the officer of the receiving bank, the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd.

Aside from what has just been stated, paragraph 7 of the complaint alleges —.

That in truth and in fact, the money allegedly transferred by Defendant to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. on September 29, 1944 was entirely different from and unrelated to the cash funds amounting to P44,286.27 held by the Defendant on December, 1941 in trust for the estate of said Walter L. Hicks and for which it is still accountable under the law and the terms of the aforesaid Trust Agreement of March 28, 1941 (p. 4, record on appeal.).

This allegation at least raises a cloud and creates a doubt on or as to the certainty of the transfer by the Defendant to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. of the cash balance of P44,286.27 of the deposit in the name of Walter E. Hicks a cloud and doubt which withdraw the case from the operation of Rule 36 and must be removed and cleared by holding a trial of the case.

The summary judgment rendered by the trial court at the instance and upon motion of the Defendant is erroneous under the provisions of Rule 36 providing for entry of summary judgments.

The judgment appealed from is set aside and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with law, with costs against the Appellee.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, 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






May-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-8873. May 2, 1956.] CIPRIANO AMORA, CONRADO MATONDO, APOLONIO SIGNAR, FLORENTINO LOVETE, LORETO CINCO, APOLINAR ROSAL and FILOMENO TABLO, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. FRANCO BIBERA, FRANCISCO TAVERA, MELECIO AGUILAR, SINFORIANO SERIDAN, ANTONIO BRIONES, ANTONIO RED, ISABELO REMOLADOR and FLORENCIO AGUILAR, Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7155. May 4, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESUS AGASANG, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8049. May 9, 1956.] BUKLOD �G SAULOG TRANSIT, Petitioner, vs. MARCIANO CASALLA, ET ALS., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7261. May 11, 1956.] THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, PASIG, RIZAL, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. HEIRS OF HI CAIJI and ELISEO YMZON, Oppositors-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7902. May 11, 1956.] MANILA PRESS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARCELINO SARMIENTO, as City Treasurer of the City of Manila, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8399. May 11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO UMALI, ET AL., Defendants. BIENVENIDO UMALI, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8718. May 11, 1956.] MALATE TAXICAB & GARAGE, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND NATIONAL LABOR UNION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8787 & L-8788. May 11, 1956.] BIENVENIDO PACIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. VICENTE VI�AS and GUILLERMO ORBETA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8830 & L-8837-39. May 11, 1956.] BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL M. MEJIA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9048. May 11, 1956.] MARIANO BEYSA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAGAYAN, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7031. May 14, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUSEBIO MOLIJON, ET AL., Defendants, EUSEBIO MOLIJON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7088. May 16, 1956.] BACOLOD ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. NEGROS ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO. INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7240. May 16, 1956.] LADISLAO PALMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HONORATO GRACIANO, THE CITY OF CEBU, HON. MIGUEL CUENCO AND THE PROVINCE OF CEBU, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-5995. May 18, 1956.] MANUEL CHUA KAY, Petitioner, vs. LIM CHANG, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7409. May 18, 1956.] INTERWOOD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD & VENEER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES (INTERWOOD), Respondent.

  • Name[G.R. No. L-7555. May 18, 1956.] JOHN D. SINGLETON, as guardian of the property of the incompetent WALTER E. HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7880. May 18, 1956.] RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION Co., INC., Petitioner, vs. TEOFILO CERDA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8101. May 18, 1956.] MARIANO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8133. May 18, 1956.] MANUEL C. MANARANG and LUCIA D. MANARANG, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. MACARIO M. OFILADA, Sheriff of the City of Manila and ERNESTO ESTEBAN, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8147. May 18, 1956.] ALFONSO BACSARPA, VENANCIO LAUSA and FERNANDO MACAS, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8328. May 18, 1956.] MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. SOTERO REMOQUILLO, in his own behalf and as guardian of the minors MANUEL, BENJAMIN, NESTOR, MILAGROS, CORAZON, CLEMENTE and AURORA, all surnamed MAGNO, SALUD MAGNO, and the COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8340. May 18, 1956.] ANGEL ALAFRIZ, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PRIMITIVO GONZALES, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8551. May 18, 1956.] AUGUSTO C. DE LA PAZ, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. CDR RAMON A. ALCARAZ, as Commander, Service Squadron, Philippine Navy, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8596. May 18, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JULIANA UBA and CALIXTA UBA, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8789. May 18, 1956.] ANG KOO LIONG, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8826. May 18, 1956.] ISABELO I. PACQUING and CARMEN B. PACQUING, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. HONORABLE LAURO C. MAIQUEZ, Acting Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila and AUYONG HIAN, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8874. May 18, 1956.] GAVINO CONJURADO and JORGIA MORALES, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Surigao, and VEDASTO R. NIERE, Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Surigao, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8934. May 18, 1956.] ANASTACIO T. TEODORO, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ARMANDO MIRASOL, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8660. May 21, 1956.] ISAAC NAVARRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTE BARREDO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7991. May 21, 1956.] PAUL MACDONALD, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7746. May 23, 1956.] FRANCISCO PULUTAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. HONORABLE TOMAS DIZON, as Mayor, the MUNICIPAL BOARD, City of San Pablo, and SIMON MAGPANTAY, City Treasurer of San Pablo City, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8041. May 23, 1956.] JOSEPH ARCACHE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. B. S. CHAINANI, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8292. May 23, 1956.] RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. TEODOLFO ASCA�O, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8349. May 23, 1956.] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MACAPANGA PRODUCERS INC., Defendant. PLARIDEL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8898. May 23, 1956.] PLACIDO PEREZ, Petitioner, vs. HON. ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ, Judge, Court of First Instance of Davao, and APOLONIO PAGARAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8945. May 23, 1956.] THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAMILING, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DIEGO Z. LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8991. May 23, 1956.] FELIX GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ISABEL VDA. DE ARJONA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-6930. May 23, 1956.] ROBERT JANDA, as administrator of the estate of Walter C. Wurdeman, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7532. May 25, 1956.] PEDRO MALONG and LOURDES MALONG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. MACARIO OFILADA and A. B. MENDOZA, Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff of Manila, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7821. May 25, 1956.] Heirs of Gervacio D. Gonzales, namely: PILAR GONZALES DE DARCERA, FELIX GONZALES, RICARDO GONZALES, JOSE GONZALES, FRANCISCO GONZALES and CHARLITOS GONZALES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ARCADIO ALEGARBES, EUSEBIO BANDEBAS and JUANITO QUIRANTES, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7916. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTURO R. SILO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8055. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MORO JUMDATAL, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8227. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TOMAS QUITAN, ET AL., Defendants. TEOFILO ANCHITA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8579. May 25, 1956.] PALINKUD SAMAL, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and GREGORIA VDA. DE PALMA GIL, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8586. May 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CONRADO MANALO Y GUANLAO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8589. May 25, 1956.] THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN�S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND DOMINGO PANALIGAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8669. May 25, 1956.] VICENTA REYES, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. GUARDALINO C. MOSQUEDA and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8681. May 25, 1956.] LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, Petitioner, vs. LEON C. PINEDA AND PINEDA�S LIGHTER TRANSPORTATION, INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8744. May 25, 1956.] THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. MAGDALENA A. VDA. DE SAYSON, ETC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8759. May 25, 1956.] SEVERINO UNABIA, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR, CITY TREASURER, CITY AUDITOR and the CITY ENGINEER, Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8820 & L-8821. May 25, 1956.] MARCIAL PUNZALAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9306. May 25, 1956.] SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELISEO BARBOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7570. May 28, 1956.] PHILIPPINE REFINING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO PONCE (President of the Employees and Laborers Association, Philippine Refining Co., Inc.), ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6938. May 30, 1956.] J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MIGUEL DE GUZMAN and LUCIA SANCHEZ, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7151. May 30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELIGIO JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7273. May 30, 1956.] THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7444. May 30, 1956.] CEBU ARRASTRE SERVICE, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8025. May 30, 1956.] JOSE AMAR, ESPERANZA AMAR, ILDEFONSO AMAR, TORIBIO AMAR, BERNARDO AMAR, DOLORES AMAR and ANTONIO AMAR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. TIMOTEO PAGHARION, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8056. May 30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO BUENAFE Y CALUPAS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8150. May 30, 1956.] HILARION TOLENTINO, LUIS LAMONDA�A, NERIO MONCES, ALFONSO SERRANO, LAURO GARCES, ENRIQUE COSTALES, JUSTINIANO ORTEGA and TEOFILO MARTINES, Petitioners, vs. RAMON ANGELES, FELIX MAPILI, MANULI SALVADOR and DOMINADOR BOLINAO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8505. May 30, 1956.] THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8640. May 30, 1956.] JOSE FERNANDEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. KEE WA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8690. May 30, 1956.] JULIAN FLORENTINO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8775. May 30, 1956.] LEONCIO DAYATA, alias SEE SING TOW, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. HONORABLE VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, as Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8962. May 30, 1956.] DIONISIO FENIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ANDRES F. CORDERO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9325. May 30, 1956.] ROSARIO MATUTE, Petitioner, vs. HON. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, and ARMANDO MEDEL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6858. May 31, 1956.] FERNANDO IGNACIO and SIMEON DE LA CRUZ, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. THE HONORABLE NORBERTO ELA, Mayor of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7096. May 31, 1956.] IN RE: PETITION to Change Citizenship Status from Chinese to Filipino Citizen on Transfer Certificates of Title issued to Heirs of Ricardo Villa-Abrille Lim; AND/OR, in the alternative, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment to determine Citizenship status, LORENZO VILLA- ABRILLE LIM, GUI�GA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, ROSALIA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, ADOLFO VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, SAYA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, LUISA VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, and CANDELARIA VILLA-ABRILLE TAN, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7544. May 31, 1956.] Intestate Estate of Joaquin Navarro and Angela Joaquin, deceased. RAMON JOAQUIN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO, Oppositor-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-7996-99. May 31, 1956.] ESTATE OF FLORENCIO P. BUAN, Petitioner, vs. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY AND LA MALLORCA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8264. May 31, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTEMIO GARCIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8352. May 31, 1956.] JUANA BAYAUA DE VISAYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO SUGUITAN and CATALINA BLAZ, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8477. May 31, 1956.] THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as Guardian of the Property of the minor, MARIANO L. BERNARDO, Petitioner, vs. SOCORRO ROLDAN, FRANCISCO HERMOSO, FIDEL C. RAMOS and EMILIO CRUZ, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8619. May 31, 1956.] MANUEL ARICHETA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA, HONORABLE MARIANO CASTA�EDA, Justice of the Peace of Mabalacat, Pampanga, NOLI B. CASTRO, PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES and ANTOLIN TIGLAO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8697. May 31, 1956.] CHUA CHIAN, in her capacity as widow of her deceased husband NG YOC SIU, and in behalf of her children with said deceased, NG SIU HONG and MARCELINO NG SIU LIM, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, in his capacity as presiding Judge of Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8749. May 31, 1956.] DOMINGO MAYOL and EMILIO MAYOL, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE EDMUNDO S. PICCIO in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, JULIAN MAYOL and IRENEA LASIT, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8967. May 31, 1956.] ANASTACIO VIA�A, Petitioner, vs. ALEJO AL-LAGADAN and FILOMENA PIGA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9282. May 31, 1956.] EMILIO ADVINCULA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and ENRIQUE A. LACSON, Respondents.