May 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > May 1956 Decisions > [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.:




EN BANC

[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.

 

D E C I S I O N

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Gavino Conjurado and Jorgia Morales against Respondents Judge Modesto R. Ramolete of the Court of First Instance of Surigao, and Assistant Provincial Fiscal Vedasto R. Niere of the same province. The following facts pertinent to the case are not disputed.

On November 27, 1950, Petitioners herein were accused of frustrated murder in the Justice of the Peace Court (later referred to as Peace Court) of Dapa, Surigao, in Criminal Case No. 4388. The corresponding warrant of arrest was issued and sent to the Court of First Instance for certification for service in another province. The district Judge believing that the crime charged in the complaint was that of serious physical injuries instead of frustrated murder, returned the warrant to the Peace Court, without certification. Thereafter, the Chief of Police of Dapa amended the charge from frustrated murder to serious physical injuries and another warrant was issued by the Peace Court. The warrant, however, was never served because the whereabouts of the Petitioners-accused were unknown. So, on April 4, 1951, the Chief of Police moved for the provisional dismissal of the case (Criminal Case No. 4388) which was granted on the same day.

On December 11, 1952, Respondent Fiscal revived the case in the same Peace Court by charging Petitioners with the crime of serious physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 4449, which was later amended on April 17, 1953. Petitioners-accused in said Criminal Case No. 4449 moved to quash the amended information on the ground that the Peace Court had no jurisdiction over their persons for the reason that the first stage of the preliminary investigation had not been conducted by the said court. Said motion to quash was denied, the court holding that the first stage of the preliminary investigation conducted in Criminal Case No. 4388 which had been dismissed, served the same purpose. Petitioners-accused brought an action for prohibition before the Court of First Instance against the Justice of the Peace, Civil Case No. 639. In a decision dated February 15, 1954, Judge Francisco Arca held that when Criminal Case No. 4388 was dismissed, all proceedings had therein by the Justice of the Peace were erased and terminated; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryconsequently, the first stage of the preliminary investigation conducted in said case could not be applied to Criminal Case No. 4449, and there was need of another preliminary investigation, because Criminal Case No. 4449 was a new case. Judge Arca granted the petition for prohibition and directed the Justice of the Peace to refrain from further taking cognizance of Criminal Case No. 4449 without conducting the first stage of the preliminary investigation. He further held that after the first stage of the preliminary investigation was conducted and probable cause was found, Respondent may issue the corresponding warrant of arrest against the accused therein, and “after the accused are arrested or have filed their bond, then and only then can the Respondent (Justice of the Peace) proceed with the hearing of Criminal Case No. 4449 in his court.”

On March 1, 1954, Respondent Fiscal filed an amended information in Criminal Case No. 4449 with the Peace Court charging Petitioners with frustrated murder. After conducting the first stage of the preliminary investigation the Peace Court issued the corresponding warrant of arrest against the accused and the latter filed bond for their provisional release. The Peace Court proceeded to conduct the second stage of the preliminary investigation but the accused (Petitioners herein), after entering a plea of not guilty waived their right to the preliminary investigation and the case was sent up to the Court of First Instance where Respondent Fiscal filed the corresponding information for frustrated murder on April 28, 1954, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1575. When arraigned in said case on January 31, 1955, Petitioners moved to quash the information on several grounds, among them that the court had no jurisdiction over the case; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the criminal action had prescribed; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the Fiscal had committed grave abuse of discretion in amending the information in Criminal Case No. 4449 charging frustrated murder; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand because of double jeopardy.

In an order dated February 9, 1955, Respondent Judge Ramolete found and held that there was no prescription for the reason that on the basis of the information, the crime committed was frustrated murder, the period of prescription of which was 15 years; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat it was perfectly proper for the Fiscal to file the new information in Criminal Case No. 4449 for the reason that in Criminal Case No. 4388, the accused were never arrested and no rights of theirs had been placed at stake and so, as to them nothing happened and the situation stood as if no case at all had been filed against them; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat as to the amendment of the information, under the authority of section 13, Rule 106, of the Rules of Court, the information may be amended in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the Defendant pleads; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand as to the alleged lack of jurisdiction, the court acquired said jurisdiction because the case was sent up to the Court of First Instance by the Justice of the Peace after he had conducted the first stage of the preliminary investigation to justify his issuance of the warrant of arrest and that after being arrested and after entering a plea of not guilty, they (Petitioners) waived their right to the preliminary investigation. Acting on a motion for reconsideration Respondent Judge denied the same in an order dated February 26, 1955.

The present petition for certiorari and prohibition was brought in order to annul the orders of February 9 and 26, 1955, and to set aside the amended information filed by the Respondent Fiscal on March 1, 1954, in Criminal Case No. 4449 of the Peace Court and the information filed on April 28, 1954, in Criminal Case No. 1575 of the Court of First Instance of Surigao, “and to restrain the said Respondent Assistant Provincial Fiscal from further harassing the herein Petitioners with new information.”

Considering the proceedings before the Justice of the Peace Court of Dapa, Surigao, and in the Court of First Instance of Surigao as above related, we see no irregularity or error, much less abuse of discretion on the part of Respondent Judge or Respondent Assistant Provincial Fiscal. In filing Criminal Case No. 4449 in the Justice of the Peace Court, there was no double jeopardy as against Petitioners for the reason that they were never placed in jeopardy in the first case, Criminal Case No. 4388, for the accused therein were never arrested and arraigned. For the same reason Respondent Fiscal was perfectly warranted in amending the information in Criminal Case No. 4449, charging frustrated murder instead of serious physical injuries, having done so before the accused pleaded. (Rule 106, Section 13, Rules of Court.) Respondent Judge acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 1575 of this Court, because the Fiscal filed the corresponding information in said case after Criminal Case No. 4449 had been elevated to him and to Respondent Judge by the Peace Court after the latter had conducted the first stage of the preliminary investigation against the Petitioners and after the latter had waived their right to a preliminary investigation.

In view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby denied, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, 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.