Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > April 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15609 April 29, 1960 - RAFAEL MARCELO v. EULOGIO MENCIAS ETC., ET AL.

107 Phil 1071:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15609. April 29, 1960.]

RAFAEL MARCELO, Petitioner, v. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

A. E. Dacanay for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS; APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT. — The provisions of the Rules of Court are applicable to land registration cases in a suppletory character (Rule 132).

2. ID.; WRIT OF POSSESSION; WHO MAY ASK FOR, AND AGAINST WHOM WRIT MAY BE ISSUED. — After the registration of the land is decreed in favor of the applicant, the latter may ask the proper court for the issuance of a writ of possession, provided the same has not been issued before. (Manlapas v. Llorente, 48 Phil., 298). The writ of possession may be issued, not only against the person who has been defeated in the registration case but also against anyone occupying the land or portion thereof during the registration proceeding. (Pasay Estate Co. v. Del Rosario, 11 Phil., 391).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; WRIT OF POSSESSION WITHOUT WRIT OF DEMOLITION IS INEFFECTIVE. — If the writ of possession issued in a land registration proceeding implies the delivery of possession of the land to the successful litigant therein (Demorar v. Ibañez, 51 Off. Gaz., 2872; Pasay Estate Co. v. Del Rosario, supra; Manlapas v. Llorente, Supra), a writ of demolition must, likewise, issue, especially considering that the latter writ is but a complement of the former which, without said writ of demolition, would be ineffective.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SEPARATE ACTION TO OBTAIN POSSESSION IS UNNECESSARY. — To require a successful litigant in a land registration case to institute another action for the purpose of obtaining possession of the land adjudged to him, would be a cumbersome process. It would foster unnecessary and expensive litigations and result in multiplicity of suits.

5. ID.; AUTHORITY OF THE LAND REGISTRATION COURT TO ISSUE WRIT OF DEMOLITION. — As already stated, provisions of the Rules of Court are applicable to land registration cases in a suppletory character. Thus, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 124, of the Rules of Court, the respondent court, sitting as a land registration court, has the power to issue all auxiliary writs, including the writ of demolition sought by petitioner, processes and other means necessary to carry into effect the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law in land registration cases to issue a writ of possession to the successful litigant, the petitioner herein.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


The issue in this petition for certiorari and mandamus is whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal, sitting as a land registration court, has jurisdiction or authority to order the demolition of improvements, as a consequence of a writ of possession issued by it.

On June 9, 1954, petitioner Rafael Marcelo applied for registration in his name, 3 parcels of land (lots 1, 2, and 3) located at Taguig, Rizal. His application was opposed by Leocadio Pagsisihan, father and predecessor-in-interest of respondent Clemente Pagsisihan.

On February 28, 1955, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, sitting as a land registration court, rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, declaring him to be the owner of only 1 of the 3 lots applied for; denying the opposition of the then oppositor Leocadio Pagsisihan; and declaring the 2 other lots to be public lands. Not satisfied with the decision, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals; not so the oppositor Pagsisihan. The appellate court reversed the decision of the land registration court, holding that petitioner is also the owner of the 2 other lots which were declared public lands.

After said judgment of the Court of Appeals became final and executory, respondent Judge, upon petitioner’s motion, issued an order for the issuance of a decree in favor of the latter, and forthwith a certificate of title was issued for all said lots in the name of petitioner.

Since respondent Clemente Pagsisihan refused to deliver possession of the 2 lots (lots 2 and 3) which were occupied by him, petitioner filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession, which petition was duly opposed by said Respondent. On March 14, 1959, respondent Judge granted the petition, stating.

"Rafael Marcelo, applicant in the above-entitled land registration case, filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession and particularly over that portion of the land occupied by Leocadio Pagsisihan. Counsel for one Clemente Pagsisihan (herein respondent) who is not a party to the case objected to the petition stating that Leocadio Pagsisihan who opposed the application is not in possession of any portion of the property object of the case as he died on August 28, 1958. In the case of Manlapas v. Llorente, 48 Phil., 298, it was held that after the registration of the land is decreed in favor of the applicant, the latter may ask the proper court for the issuance of a writ of possession provided the same has not been issued before. In the case of Pasay Estate Company v. Del Rosario, 11 Phil., 391, as well as in the above cited case, it was held that the writ of possession maybe issued not only against the person who has been defeated in the registration case but also against anyone occupying the land or portion thereof during the registration proceeding. In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion that the petition is well-taken."cralaw virtua1aw library

In spite of the issuance of the writ of possession to petitioner, respondent Clemente Pagsisihan refused to surrender the possession of said lots 2 and 3 and to remove his house standing thereon. Petitioner, therefore, filed a petition for demolition. On May 2, 1959, respondent Judge denied the same, in an order of this tenor:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Court, acting as Land Registration Court not having jurisdiction to order the demolition sought for in the present petition, thereby denied the said petition."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this order, Petitioner, on May 19, 1959, filed a motion for reconsideration (Annex A) contending, inter alia, that under the jurisprudence on the matter, the court has jurisdiction to issue an order of demolition which is simply the coercive process or remedy to render effective the writ of possession already issued by it. On June 8, 1959, said motion was denied by the court, in an order which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ORDER"

‘This is a motion for reconsideration of the order of this Court dated May 2, 1959 denying movant’s motion praying for the issuance of a writ of demolition directed against the house of one Clemente Pagsisihan (herein respondent) on the ground that this Court acting as a land registration court does not have jurisdiction to order the demolition prayed for. Movant contends that this Court under the authority of decisions rendered in Demorar v. the Hon. Judge Ibañez, Et Al., 51 Off. Gaz., No. 6, p. 2872; Pasay Estate Co., Ltd. v. the Hon. Judge del Rosario, 11 Phil., 391; and Follosco v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-4991, March 23, 1953, has jurisdiction to issue an order of demolition. The first two cases speak of the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the movant in the case. The last cited case is not in point. The doctrine speaks of a final judgment involving delivery or restitution of property. Under Section 13, Rule 39, the officer called upon to enforce such judgment according to the doctrine laid down may do so by placing the plaintiff in possession of such property and a special order of demolition may be issued after the defendant has failed to remove the improvements on the property within a reasonable time to be fixed by the court and after such defendant shall have been given a due hearing. The instant case is not an action involving delivery or restitution of property but one for the purpose of determining whether applicant or the oppositor is the owner of the property sought to be registered and to order the registration of the title of the person who is found to have a registrable title thereto. As a matter of fact, in the first case cited by movant, it speaks only of the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the successful claimant. Section 13 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the opinion of the Court refers only to ordinary action involving the delivery or restitution of property and not to proceedings under the Land Registration Law. The provision of the Land Registration Law are silent on the point.

"In view of all the foregoing considerations, the Court resolves to deny the motion for reconsideration. "So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, this petition for certiorari and mandamus. Respondents court and oppositor have filed no answer to this petition.

It is contended that respondent Judge erred in denying the petition for demolition. To this we agree. Section 13, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 13. How execution for the delivery or restitution of property enforced. — The officer must enforce an execution for the delivery or restitution of property by placing the plaintiff in possession of such property, and by levying as hereinafter provided upon so much of the property of the judgment debtor as will satisfy the amount of the costs, damages, rents, and profits included in the execution. However, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove the improvements made by the defendant or his agent on the property, except by special order of the court, which order may only issue upon petition of the plaintiff after due hearing and upon the defendant’s failure to remove the improvements within a reasonable time to be fixed by the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondent Judge is of the view that the above-quoted provision of the Rules of Court applies only to ordinary actions involving the delivery or restitution of property, and not to proceedings under the land registration law which, according to him, is silent on the point. The view is not correct, for the reason that the provisions of the Rules of Court are applicable to land registration cases in a suppletory character (Rule 132). Put differently, if the writ of possession issued in a land registration proceeding implies the delivery of possession of the land to the successful litigant therein (Demorar v. Ibañez, 97 Phil., 72; 51 Off. Gaz., 2872; Pasay Estate Company v. Del Rosario, Et Al., 11 Phil., 391; Manlapas v. Llorente, 48 Phil., 298), a writ of demolition must, likewise, issue, especially considering that the latter writ is but a complement of the former which, without said writ of demolition, would be ineffective.

Apparently, respondent Judge, in refusing to issue the writ of demolition to petitioner, was of the belief that the latter has another remedy, namely, by resorting to ordinary civil actions in the regular courts, such as that of forcible entry and detainer, or the recovery of possession, in which instances, said courts would then be competent to issue said writ. Such a situation, in our opinion, could not have been intended by the law. To require a successful litigant in a land registration case to institute another action for the purpose of obtaining possession of the land adjudged to him, would be a cumbersome process. It would foster unnecessary and expensive litigations and result in multiplicity of suits, which our judicial system abhors. In this connection, this Court on one occasion, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"But this construction of the law entirely defeats its purpose. It would compel a successful litigant in the Court of Land Registration to commence other actions in other courts for the purpose of securing the fruits of his victory. The evident purpose of the law was to prevent that very thing; . . . (Pasay Estate Co. v. Del Rosario, Et Al., supra.)

Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 124, of the Rules of Court states that —

"When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court of judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears most conformable to the spirit of said rules."cralaw virtua1aw library

As already stated, provisions of the Rules of Court are applicable to land registration cases in a suppletory character. Pursuant to the provision just quoted, respondent Judge has the power to issue all auxiliary writs, including the writ of demolition sought by petitioner, processes and other means necessary to carry into effect the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law in land registration cases to issue a writ of possession to the successful litigant, the petitioner herein.

Lastly, in the case of Shioji v. Harvey, 43 Phil., 333, we pointed out that "Independent of any statutory provision, . . every court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction." 1 In line with this doctrine, it may be stated that respondent judge, in the instant case, has the inherent power to issue the writ of demolition demanded by petitioner. Needless to say, its issuance is reasonably necessary to do justice to petitioner who is being deprived of the possession of the lots in question, by reason of the continued refusal of respondent Clemente Pagsisihan to remove his house thereon and restore possession of the premises to petitioner.

Wherefore, the orders of respondent Judge dated May 2, 1959 and June 8, 1959 are set aside, and the case remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings on petitioner’s petition for an order of demolition, pursuant to Section 13, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court. Respondent Clemente Pagsisihan will pay the cost. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Suanes v. Chief Accountant, 81 Phil., 818 see also Eraña v. Vera, 74 Phil., 272. Fernando v. Aragon, 76 Phil., 609.




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