Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > April 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15435 April 27, 1960 - VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL. v. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

107 Phil 763:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15435. April 27, 1960.]

VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL., Respondents.

S. Emiliano Calma, for Petitioners.

Gonzalo D. David for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS; PREMATURE PETITION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION FILED BY MORTGAGE CREDITOR; WHEN OF NO CONSEQUENCE. — The premature petition for writ of execution filed by a mortgage creditor is of no consequence where it appears that the auction sale took place actually much after the expiration of the 90-day period prescribed by Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. This is more so where it is not shown that the mortgage debtor made any attempt to settle his obligation during the intervening period, or made a deposit of the money as required by law to prevent the execution sale.

2. ID.; LACHES; FAILURE OF MORTGAGE DEBTOR TO ASSERT RIGHT EXCEPT AFTER THE FILING OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION BY CREDITOR. — A mortgage debor who did not oppose the petition filed by the mortgage creditor for writ of execution or the sale of the mortgaged property within the 90-day reglementary period, or the auction sale announced by the sheriff, as well as the petition for the confirmation of the sale and the approval of the certificate issued by the sheriff to the purchaser, but only woke up to impugn the validity of the proceedings when the mortgage creditor who bought the property at the auchtion sale filed a motion for writ of possession of the property, is guilty of laches and as such should alone be blamed for the consequences.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari praying that the order of respondent judge dated August 9, 1958 directing the issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 22757 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and all subsequent proceedings incident thereto, including the issuance of a new title covering the property involved by the office of the register of deeds, be declared null and void.

Petitioners allege that on May 30, 1958, this Court rendered decision in G. R. No. L-12081, entitled Lorenzo Lerma v. Victoriano L. Reyes, Et Al., (103 Phil., 1027; 56 Off. Gaz. [15] 3059) affirming that on the trial court ordering that "at the expiration of ninety (90) days from the date of this decision has become final and upon defendants’ failure to satisfy this decision, the sheriff shall proceed to sell the property mortgaged at public auction, as the law provides, and the decision, after the expense of the sheriff has been deducted from said proceeds." Copy of this decision was received by petitioners on June 9, 1958. On July 22, 1958, the record of the case was remanded to the court of origin.

On August 9, 1958, respondent judge issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the judgment, and on September 29, 1958 the Sheriff of Manila sold at public auction the mortgaged property to satisfy the judgment in accordance with law. On November 11, 1958, respondent judge issued an order confirming the sale. And on January 6, 1959, the mortgaged creditors who bought the properties at the auction sale filed a petition for writ of possession.

Upon receipt of this petition for writ of possession, petitioners filed an opposition thereto praying for the annulment of the auction sale as well as all other proceedings had in the case incident thereto contending that the same are contrary to Rule 70, Section 3 of the Rules of Court which gives to the mortgaged debtors the right to redeem the land within the period of one year from the date of the sale. This opposition was later supplemented by a reply on February 7, 1959 wherein petitioners contended that the period of 90 days provided in the decision has not yet expired when plaintiffs filed their petition for writ of execution and the trial court issued its order granting the same as well as when the auction sale took place on September 29, 1958, all contrary to the provisions of Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. This opposition, as well as the motion for annulment of all the proceedings, was denied by the trial reconsideration was denied, they interposed the present petition for certiorari.

Respondents, in their answer, set up the following defenses: (1) that a complete history of the case will show that they are already the legal owners of the property in question and that the requisite periods prescribed by law had been complied with; (2) that all the orders issued by the trial court are legal and proper and were made pursuant to Rule 70, Sections 2 and 3, of the Rules of Court, and defendants, now petitioners, not having appealed from said orders, the same have become final and incontestible; (3) that petitioners are guilty of estoppel in not objecting to the petition for execution, to the auction sale carried out by the sheriff, to the petition to confirm said auction sale filed by respondents, and to the petition for withdrawal of the certificate of title so that a new one may be issued in the name of respondents; (4) that petitioners are guilty of laches and cannot be heard to complain against the orders which they have allowed to pass unchallenged for a long time during which the transfer of ownership to respondents has been accomplished and consolidated;;and (5) the petition for annulment of the auction sale and of all proceedings incident thereto dated January 22, 1959 is without merit for it is based on the claim that they have a period of one year from the sheriff’s auction sale within which to redeem the foreclosed property, and that the new ground on which they now predicate the present petition for certiorari that the 90-day period mentioned in the decision has not yet expired when the motion for execution was filed, is irrelevant and immaterial, for they are now precluded from raising the same under the Rules of Court.

The issue posed by petitioners is whether or not the period of 90 days granted in the decision within which they may pay their obligation before foreclosure sale, may be omitted or ignored, or whether petitioners may be deprived of their right thereto. They contend that they cannot be deprived of that right for that would be contrary to the letter of Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

Here, they contend, they were deprived of that right, for, as the record shows, the case was remanded to the trial court on July 22, 1958 while respondent judge issued the order of execution on August 9, 1958, which shows that the intervening period is less then 90 days, as in fact only 18 days had elapsed from July 22, 1958. The same is true with regard to the public auction sale made by the sheriff on September 29, 1958, because from July 22, 1958 to September 29, 1958 only 60 days had elapsed. Likewise, the 90-day period had not yet expired from July 22, 1958 to October 8, 1958, when the Sheriff of Manila issued the certificate of sale of the mortgaged property, as 78 days only have elapsed between the intervening period.

Respondents, however, contend that all the orders issued by the trial court are legal and proper and were made pursuant to Rule 70, Sections 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court, and in support of their contention, they advanced the following facts: According to the decision which is sought to be enforced, "at the expiration of ninety (90) days from the date of this decision has become final and upon defendants’ failure to satisfy this decision, the sheriff shall proceed to sell the property mortgaged at public auction." Here the decision became final on June 24, 1958, for, as the record shows, both parties received copy of the decision on June 9, 1958. The decision says that the sheriff shall proceed to sell the property upon the expiration of 90 days from the finality of the decision if no payment is forthcoming, and as no payment was forthcoming, upon petition of respondents, the sheriff proceeded to sell the property on September 29, 1958, or after the lapse of 97 days from June 24, 1958. The sale, therefore, was made not only in accordance with the decision, but also with the Rules of Court.

We agree with the claim of respondents. Since it appears from the decision that the sheriff may proceed to sell the property mortgaged after the decision has become final and petitioners have not paid their obligation within the period of 90 days, there is nothing improper for the sheriff to carry out the sale on September 29, 1958 considering that on that date the 90-day period has already elapsed from the finality of the decision. It is true that when respondents filed their motion for writ of execution or to sell the mortgaged property on July 29, 1958 the reglementary period of 90 days has not yet expired, which indeed is premature for it has a tendency to deprive petitioners of the benefit of that period, but the ones to be blamed therefor are petitioners themselves who did not oppose the granting of that petition on legal grounds although their attorney merely appeared to ask for postponement of its consideration. And so the petition was granted. Then came the auction sale announced by the sheriff, and again no opposition came from petitioners, or their counsel. And when the sheriff filed a petition for the confirmation of the sale and the approval of the certificate he issued to the purchaser, neither petitioners, nor their counsel, opposed the petition despite the fact that they were served with a copy of the same. They only woke up to assert their right when respondents filed a motion praying that they be placed in possession of the property. It was only then that petitioners impugned for the first time the validity of the proceedings claiming that the same have been undertaken contrary to the provisions of Rule 70, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. They are, therefore, guilty of laches, if not of estoppel, in the protection of their right, and as such they alone can be blamed for the consequences.

We are of the opinion that the premature petition for writ of execution filed by respondents is of no consequence it appearing that the respondents is of no consequence it appearing that the auction sale took place actually much after the expiration of the 90-day period prescribed in the rule. This is more so when there is nothing in the record to show that petitioners have made any attempt to settle their obligation during the intervening period, or have made any tender of payment thereof, or made a deposit of the money as required by law to prevent the execution sale. All this cannot but engender the suspicion that the steps taken by petitioners are merely dilatory in nature and were taken in an attempt to prolong their stay in the properties in question to the prejudice of respondents. The present petition, therefore, is without merit.

Wherefore, the petition is denied, with costs against petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepción, Endencia, Barrera and Gutiérrez David, 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-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12170 April 18, 1960 - PEOPLE’S SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. PAZ PUEY VDA. DE LIMCACO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO

    107 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14133 April 18, 1960 - INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA v. PHIL. PORTS TERMINAL, INC.

    107 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-14159 April 18, 1960 - DANILO CHANNIE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. L-13282 April 22, 1960 - LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. L-12973 April 25, 1960 - BARENG v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS., ET AL.

    107 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-13317 April 25, 1960 - R. S. PAÑGILINAN & CO. v. HON. JUDGE L. PASICOLAN, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. L-13557 April 25, 1960 - DONATO LAJOM v. HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO

    107 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-13981 April 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS RODRIGUEZ

    107 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-14224 April 25, 1960 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. LUCIO JAVILLONAR, ET AL.

    107 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-14889 April 25, 1960 - NORBERTO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. AMADO SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-14901 April 25, 1960 - VERONICA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., v. MANUEL SAGALES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. L-11797. 27 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO BELTRAN

    107 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-12058 April 27, 1960 - JOSE BERNABE & CO., INC. v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC.

    107 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-12410 April 27, 1960 - MIGUEL G. PACTOR v. LUCRECIA P. PESTAÑO

    107 Phil 685

  • G.R. No. L-12639 April 27, 1960 - PABLO A. VELEZ v. PAV WATCHMEN’S UNION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    107 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-12679 April 27, 1960 - MARIA C. VDA. DE LAPORE v. NATIVIDAD L. PASCUAL

    107 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-12917 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL LABATETE

    107 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. L-13222 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO ARAGON and RAMON LOPEZ

    107 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-13224 April 27, 1960 - PEDRO TAN CONA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-13315 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA BULING

    107 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-13496 April 27, 1960 - Dy Shui Sheng v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-13653 April 27, 1960 - MUN. TREASURER OF PILI, CAMARINES SUR, ET AL. v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ETC AND PALACIO

    107 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-13680 April 27, 1960 - MAURO LOZANA v. SERAFIN DEPAKAKIBO

    107 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-13708 April 27, 1960 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO., INC. v. GLOBE ASSURANCE CO., INC.

    107 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-14191 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE NARVAS

    107 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. L-14246 April 27, 1960 - TAN SENG PAO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

    107 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-14414 April 27, 1960 - SEVERINO SALEN and ELENA SALBANERA v. JOSE BALCE

    107 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-14576 April 27, 1960 - JOSE GONZALES, ET AL. v. BENIGNO ALDANA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-14967 April 27, 1960 - ORLANDO DE LEON v. HON. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. L-15435 April 27, 1960 - VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL. v. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-10831 28 April 28, 1960 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MARIANO GONZAGA

    107 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-12741 28 April 28, 1960 - DEMETRIA FLORES v. PHIL. ALIEN PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR

    107 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-13118 April 28, 1960 - MACONDRAY & COMPANY, INC. v. DELGADO BROS. INC.

    107 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. L-13172 April 28, 1960 - GILBERT RILLON v. FILEMON RILLON

    107 Phil 783

  • G.R. No. L-13313 April 28, 1960 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE ASSN. OF HINIGARAN v. ESTANISLAO YULO YUSAY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-13385 April 28, 1960 - SOCORRO KE. LADRERA v. SEC. OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

    107 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-13501 April 28, 1960 - JOSE V. VILLASIN v. SEVEN-UP BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHILS.

    107 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-13718 April 28, 1960 - DEOGRACIAS REMO and MUN. OF GOA, CAM. SUR v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO AND ANGEL ENCISO

    107 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-13911 April 28, 1960 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-14151 April 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENCARNACION JACOBO

    107 Phil 821

  • G.R. No. L-14248 April 28, 1960 - NEW MANILA LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14434 April 28, 1960 - EUSEBIO ESPINELI, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-14606 April 28, 1960 - LAGUNA TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

    107 Phil 833

  • G.R. No. L-14713 April 28, 1960 - MARIAN AFAN v. APOLINARIO S. DE GUZMAN

    107 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-15012 April 28, 1960 - ANTONIO DIMALIBOT v. ARSENIO N. SALCEDO

    107 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. L-15416 April 28, 1960 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 849

  • Adm. Case No. 275 April 29, 1960 - GERVACIO L. LIWAG v. GILBERTO NERI

    107 Phil 852

  • G.R. No. L-7133 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN LAROSA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. L-9532 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO CATAO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-10675 April 29, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. ERNESTA CABAGNOT VDA. DE HIO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. L-11754 April 29, 1960 - SATURNINO D. VILLORIA v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. L-11773 April 29, 1960 - JUAN T. CHUIDIAN v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    107 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-12089 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRIA E. YANZA

    107 Phil 888

  • G.R. No. L-12165 April 29, 1960 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. ANTONIO VILLARAMA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 891

  • G.R. No. L-2180 April 29, 1960 - SOLOMON A. MAGANA v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-12189 April 29, 1960 - FRANCISCA GALLARDO v. HERMENEGILDA S. MORALES

    107 Phil 903

  • G.R. No. L-12270 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO CANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-12256 April 29, 1960 - MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ETC. ET AL.

    107 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12503 April 29, 1960 - CONFEDERATED SONS OF LABOR v. ANAKAN LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-12538 April 29, 1960 - GAUDENCIO LACSON v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

    107 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12644 April 29, 1960 - KOPPEL (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. RUSTICO A. MAGALLANES

    107 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12817 April 29, 1960 - JULIO D. ENRIQUEZ, SR. v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ

    107 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-12872 April 29, 1960 - DELGADO BROS., INC. v. LI YAO & COMPANY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 939

  • G.R. No. L-12945 April 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARIANO R. LACSON

    107 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-12965 April 29, 1960 - CARMELINO MENDOZA v. JOSEFINA DE CASTRO

    107 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-13030 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MITRA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 951

  • G.R. Nos. L-13099 & L-13462 April 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO.

    107 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. L-13101 April 29, 1960 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. SILVERIO BLAQUERA

    107 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-13334 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO M. DURAN, JR.

    107 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-13459 April 29, 1960 - DEOMEDES S. ROJAS v. ROSA PAPA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. L-13500 April 29, 1960 - SUN BROTHERS & COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-13569 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO RESPECIA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-13667 April 29, 1960 - PRIMITIVO ANSAY, ETC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

    107 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-13753 April 29, 1960 - DOMINGO CUI, ET AL. v. LUCIO ORTIZ, ETC.

    107 Phil 1000

  • G.R. No. L-13778 April 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-13888 April 29, 1960 - NATIONAL SHIPYARD AND STEEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-14092 April 29, 1960 - SOLEDAD A. VERZOSA v. AUGUSTO BAYTAN, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-14271 April 29, 1960 - YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    107 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-14298 April 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BRICCIO INCIONG, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-14323 April 29, 1960 - ANTERO SORIANO, JR. v. EMILIO L. GALANG

    107 Phil 1026

  • G.R. No. L-14334 April 29, 1960 - CARLOS GOZON v. ISRAEL M. MALAPITAN, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-14347 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO LOPEZ

    107 Phil 1039

  • G.R. No. L-14487 April 29, 1960 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. DIEGO PEREZ

    107 Phil 1043

  • G.R. No. L-14548 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIO ANDRES

    107 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-14677 April 29, 1960 - MARGARITA LEYSON LAURENTE v. ELISEO CAUNCA

    107 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-14880 April 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS

    107 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-15048 April 29, 1960 - MARIANO QUITIQUIT v. SALVADOR VILLACORTA

    107 Phil 1060

  • G.R. No. L-15125 April 29, 1960 - FRANCISCA ROMASANTA v. FELIX SANCHEZ

    107 Phil 1065

  • G.R. No. L-15372 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE B. QUESADA

    107 Phil 1068

  • G.R. No. L-15609 April 29, 1960 - RAFAEL MARCELO v. EULOGIO MENCIAS ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 1071

  • G.R. No. L-15689 April 29, 1960 - MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, ET AL. v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1078

  • G.R. No. L-15838 April 29, 1960 - CAYETANO DANGUE v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1083

  • G.R. No. L-15966 April 29, 1960 - MAXIMA ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1088

  • G.R. No. L-12090 April 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1091

  • G.R. No. L-12716 April 30, 1960 - JOSE BALDIVIA, ET AL. v. FLAVIANO LOTA

    107 Phil 1099

  • G.R. No. L-12880 April 30, 1960 - FLORA A. DE DEL CASTILLO, ET AL. v. ISABEL S. DE SAMONTE

    107 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-12892 April 30, 1960 - CITY OF CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

    107 Phil 1112

  • G.R. No. L-13340 April 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUZMAN

    107 Phil 1122

  • G.R. No. L-13429 April 30, 1960 - LUIS SANCHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-13493 April 30, 1960 - LUCIANO DE LA ROSA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    107 Phil 1131

  • G.R. No. L-14117 April 30, 1960 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. JUANITO NASTOR

    107 Phil 1136

  • G.R. No. L-14277 April 30, 1960 - MANUEL L. FERNANDEZ v. ELOY B. BELLO

    107 Phil 1140

  • G.R. No. L-14580 April 39, 1960 - BEOFNATO ATAY, ET AL. v. DIEGO H. TY DELING, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1146

  • G.R. No. L-14714 April 30, 1960 - ARISTON ANDAYA, ET AL. v. MELENCIO MANANSALA

    107 Phil 1151

  • G.R. Nos. L-14881 & L-15001-7 April 30, 1960 - JOSE B. YUSAY v. HILARIO ALOJADO, ET. AL.

    107 Phil 1156

  • G.R. No. L-14925 April 30, 1960 - MARTA VDA. DE DE LA CRUZ v. GENARO TAN TORRES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1163