Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13153 May 30, 1960 - GLICERIO ROMULO v. ESTEBAN DASALLA

108 Phil 346:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13153. May 30, 1960.]

GLICERIO ROMULO and ROQUE V. DESQUITADO, plaintiffs and appellees, v. ESTEBAN DASALLA and ERIBERTO A. UNSON, as Provincial Sheriff and Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Davao, defendants and appellants.

Habana, Desquitado & Acurantes for Appellees.

Miguel N. Lanzona for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. COSTS; STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH MODE FOR TAXING COSTS PROVIDED IN RULES OF COURT; WHEN WRIT OF EXECUTION AS TO AWARD OF COSTS IS NULL AND VOID. — The mode provided in Section 8, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court by which costs are taxed must be strictly complied with before execution as to costs may be had. Even if the decision wherein costs were granted has already become final, it does not hold true for the costs for the payment of which the law prescribes that certain steps be first taken, such as the assessment by the clerk of the court and the appeal, if any, from that assessment to the court, and unless these steps are taken, the judgment as to costs cannot be executed. If the writ of execution of the award for costs was issued by the clerk of court motu proprio, before costs were accused and their amount fixed, and while an appeal from the taxation made by the clerk of court was pending determination by the Court, such writ of execution as well as the sale at public auction made by the sheriff to implement it, are both null and void for having been carried out in contravention of Section 8, Rule 131, Rules of Court.

2. ID.; ID.; PROPER EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH MODE, WHAT CONSTITUTE. — Failure of a party to submit the assessment of costs made by the clerk of court indicates that taxation of the costs was never made by the clerk of court, because such assessment, together with the bill of costs is the proper evidence to prove that the required procedure has been followed.

3. ID.; JOINT LIABILITY OF DEFENDANTS UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN THE DECISION. — In this jurisdiction the established rule is that where the judgment in a case does not state that the defendants are liable to pay jointly and severally a given sum of money, none of them may be compelled to satisfy in full said judgment.

4. EXECUTION; WRITS OF; SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH JUDGMENT REQUIRED; WHEN NOT VALID. — The execution order must conform substantially with the decision of the court. It must not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. If it fails to harmonize with the judgment which gives it life, it is not valid, for to maintain otherwise would be to violate the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


Appeal involving questions of law from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao in Civil Case No. 2014.

The following circumstances emerge from the stipulation of facts entered into by the parties:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In Civil Case No. 564 of the Court of First Instance of Davao, entitled "Esteban Dasalla and Basilisa Budas, plaintiffs, versus Romeo Alisna, Hilaria Tampos and Glicerio Romulo, defendants", the Court of Appeals rendered judgment on August 30, 1954, reversing the lower court’s decision and declaring "the plaintiffs-appellants to be entitled to recover from defendants-appellees the possession of the property described in the complaint with costs." On January 15, 1955, Dasalla petitioned (Exhibit A) the lower court for execution of the judgment of the appellate court, to which petition was attached a verified bill of costs in the sum of P387.50 (Exhibit B), and asking, among others, that the three defendants in said case be ordered to pay jointly and severally said costs. On February 14, 1955, the court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution (Exhibit C). On February 22, 1955, the clerk of court issued a writ of execution in accordance with Dasalla’s petition for execution and for costs.

To satisfy the payment of costs in the sum of P387.50, the provincial sheriff of Davao, in pursuance of the writ of execution, attached two parcels of land owned by Glicerio Romulo. These two parcels of land are located in Babac, Samal, Davao, and, together with another parcel not included in the attachment, are covered by T.C.T. No. T-168, Register of Deeds of Davao. After levy and publication of the proper notices in the Davao Sentinel, the two parcels of land were sold at public auction on June 16, 1955 to Esteban Dasalla, the sole bidder, for the sum of P592.50 (Exhibit E) which covered costs of suit of P387.50, expenses of publication of P150.00 and sheriff’s fees and other expenses of P55.00. The sale was annotated at the back of T.C.T. No. T-168 as per entry No. 7525.

On March 27, 1956, Glicerio Romulo sold to Roque V. Desquitado the three parcels of land covered by T.C.T. No. T-168 for the sum of P7,000.00 (Exhibit D). The vendee took possession of the three parcels of land on March 27, 1956.

The year of redemption having expired without Romulo having redeemed the property, the provincial sheriff, on June 16, 1956, executed in favor of Dasalla an absolute deed of sale of the aforementioned two parcels of land (Exhibit F), which sale was duly registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Davao. On July 14, 1956, the lower court issued in Dasalla’s favor a writ of possession. Romulo filed two motions for reconsideration of this writ, while Desquitado moved to intervene in the proceedings. Upon denial of all three motions, Romulo and Desquitado appealed to the Court of Appeals (Exhibit G).

On July 5, 1956, Glicerio Romulo and Roque V. Desquitado filed the present action, Civil Case No. 2014, in the Court of First Instance of Davao, against Esteban Dasalla and Eriberto A. Unson, the latter in his capacity as provincial sheriff and clerk of court, praying mainly that the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 564, the attachment and sale of the three parcels of land described in the complaint and covered by T.C.T. No. T-168, and the execution of the absolute deed of sale of June 16, 1956, in Dasalla’s favor, be declared null and void.

After the parties had submitted their stipulation of facts and had presented additional evidence, the lower court rendered judgment that "the writ of execution prepared and issued by the Clerk of Court for the enforcement of the bill of costs is hereby declared null and void together with the levy on execution, the public auction sale and the absolute deed of sale of the two (2) parcels of land in favor of the defendant Esteban Dasalla, without special pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The case is now before us on appeal with the following issues: (1) whether the costs in Civil Case No. 564 had been properly taxed; (2) whether the writ of execution, the auction sale and the absolute sale are null and void; (3) whether the appellees still have the right to question the validity of said execution after the certificate of absolute sale had been executed in favor of appellant Dasalla; and (4) whether the matter in litigation in Civil Case No. 564 is the same as the matter brought up in the present case.

Appellants claim that the costs in Civil Case No. 564 has been duly taxed, pointing out that the bill of costs was attached to their petition for execution which was set for hearing on January 22, 1955, and which was duly heard on that date in the presence of appellee Romulo.

The Rules outline the mode by which costs are taxed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In inferior courts, the costs shall be taxed by the justice of the peace or municipal judge and include them in the judgment. In superior courts, costs shall be taxed by the clerk on five days written notice given by the prevailing party to the adverse party. With this notice shall be served a statement of the items of costs claimed by the prevailing party, verified by his oath or that of his attorney, objections to the taxation shall be made in writing, specifying the items objected to. Either party may appeal to the court from the clerk’s taxation. The costs shall be inserted in the judgment if taxed before its entry, and payment thereof shall be enforced by execution." (Section 8, Rule 131, Rules of Court).

This procedure must be strictly complied with before execution as to costs may be had. So, even if the decision wherein costs were granted, had already become final, that does not hold true for the costs, for the payment of which the law prescribes that certain steps be first taken, such as the assessment by the clerk of court, and the appeal, if any, from that assessment to the court, and unless these steps are taken, the judgment as to costs cannot be executed. If the writ of execution of the award for costs was issued by the clerk of court motu prorio, before costs were assessed and their amount fixed, and while an appeal from the taxation made by the clerk of court was pending determination by this Court, such writ of execution as well as the sale at public auction made by the sheriff to implement it, are both null and void for having been carried out in contravention of Section 8, Rule 131, Rules of Court [Del Rosario v. Sandico, Et Al., 97 Phil., 372; 51 Off. Gaz. (No. 8) p. 4027].

Herein, taxation of the costs was never made by the clerk of court. If costs had been properly taxed, appellants would have submitted the assessment of costs made by the clerk of court, for it, together with the bill of costs, is the proper evidence to prove that the required procedure had been followed (Lilius, Et. Al. v. Manila Railroad Co., 62 Phil., 56). Crispiniano Siega, deputy clerk of court, testified that the bill of costs was merely attached to the petition for writ of execution and that he prepared the writ of execution without costs having first been taxed by the clerk of court. Considering this, the writ of execution, and the sale at public auction and absolute sale grounded thereon, are all null and void.

Nullity of the execution and sale also proceeds from another fact. The appellate court’s decision declared "plaintiffs-appellants to be entitled to recover from defendants-appellees the possession of the property described in the complaint with costs" while the writ of execution ordered the sheriff that "of the goods and chattels of Romeo Alisna, Hilaria Tampos and Glicerio Romulo alias Glicerio Romulo (defendants), Bagsac, Samal, Davao, jointly and severally you cause to be made the sum of P387.50 as costs of suit."cralaw virtua1aw library

The decision simply states that it was "with costs", so the presumption is that the obligation of the three defendants for costs in said Civil Case No. 564, is simply joint (Articles 1207 and 1208, New Civil Code) and not joint and several as expressed by the writ of execution. In this jurisdiction the established rule is that while the judgment in a case does not state that the defendants are liable to pay jointly and severally a given sum of money, none of them may be compelled to satisfy in full said judgment (Contreras v. Felix, 78 Phil., 570).

A similar issue was raised in the case of De Leon v. Nepomuceno (37 Phil., 180) wherein it appears that the judgment in the election protest provided that "the costs and expenses on the contest will be paid by the protestee and the intervenor." As stated by this Court, the sole issue therein "is whether the judgment actually entered by the court below and affirmed upon appeal is or is not a ‘joint and several’ judgment", which issue was resolved thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Examining the language of the judgment for costs, which is set out in the foregoing statement of facts, it is manifest that it is merely a joint judgment against the protestado y tercerista, and does not permit construction or interpretation as a ‘joint and several’ judgment. No arguments is necessary. It is sufficient to cite here articles 1137 and 1138 of the Civil Code as to the rule in this jurisdiction." (now articles 1207 and 1208 of the new civil code).

There being a distinct disparity between the appellate court’s judgment which provides for joint liability and the writ of execution which made the three defendants solidarily liable, the latter is therefore null and void on that score. The execution order must conform substantially with the decision of the court (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Green, 48 Phil., 284). It must not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce (Ang Liu Chi v. Castelo, Et Al., 83 Phil., 263). If it fails to harmonize with the judgment which gives it life, it is not valid, for to maintain otherwise would be to violate the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law (Velez v. Martinez, 63 Phil., 231).

Appellant Dasalla also maintains that the judicial sale in his favor can no longer be assailed because the period of redemption has already expired and a writ of possession has been issued to him. The principle of estoppel does not apply herein, because appellees filed this action on July 5, 1956, barely a month from the execution of the deed of sale. Inasmuch as the absolute sale to Dasalla is null and void, Romulo’s right to annul it is not barred by his failure to redeem the properties within the redemption period. The redemption sale being null and void there was no need to redeem the property (Balagtas v. Arguelles, 57 Phil., 317). In the case of Lanci v. Yangco (52 Phil., 565), we had occasion to declare null and void the sale under execution made by the sheriff and the sheriff’s certificate pursuant thereto, although the action was filed after the lapse of the year of redemption.

Contrary to appellants’ contention, the matter litigated herein is not the same as that passed upon in Civil Case No. 564. The appellate court decided in said case that Dasalla was entitled to costs. His right to costs cannot be questioned, nor is it being questioned herein. What Romulo assailed was the amount of costs, the nature of his liability therefor, and the manner in which Dasalla’s right to costs had been exercised against him. Neither the plea of res judicata nor that pending action is available herein, the subject matter of Civil Case No. 564 being different from that of the present case.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción and Barrera, 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-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12007 May 16, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    108 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13831 May 16, 1960 - DIOSDADO CHAVEZ v. BUENAVENTURA GANZON

    108 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-13092 May 18, 1960 - EMILIA MENDOZA v. CAMILO BULANADI

    108 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-13208 May 18, 1960 - OREN IGO v. NATIONAL ABACA CORP.

    108 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-13783 May 18, 1960 - FRANCISCO CAPALUNGAN v. FULGENCIO MEDRANO

    108 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-15300 May 18, 1960 - MANUEL REGALADO v. PROVINCIAL CONSTABULARY COMMANDER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

    108 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-10948 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO MORTERO

    108 Phil 31

  • G.R. Nos. L-11795-96 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RECARIDO JARDENIL

    108 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-12446 May 20, 1960 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

    108 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-12546 May 20, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS P. PAREDES

    108 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-12726 May 20, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. VISITACION CONSUNTO

    108 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-13046 May 20, 1960 - EGMIDIO T. PASCUA v. PEDRO TUASON

    108 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13372 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO SABUERO

    108 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-13484 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR CAMERINO

    108 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13836 May 20, 1960 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-13846 May 20, 1960 - PANGASINAN EMPLOYEES, LABORERS AND TENANTS ASSN. v. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ

    108 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-14332 May 20, 1960 - KAPISANAN SA MRR CO. v. CREDIT UNION

    108 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-14355 May 20, 1960 - JOSE D. DACUDAO v. AGUSTIN D. DUEÑAS

    108 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-14388 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO DAYRIT

    108 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-14426 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN BAYONA

    108 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-9651 May 23, 1960 - POLICARPIO MENDEZ v. SENG KIAM

    108 Phil 109

  • G.R. Nos. L-10046-47 May 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON RODRIGUEZ

    108 Phil 118

  • G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400 May 23, 1960 - JOSE DE LA PAZ v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC.

    108 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-13806 May 23, 1960 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-13965 May 23, 1960 - CONSTANTINO LEDUNA, ET., AL. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

    108 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-14981 May 23, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

    108 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15339 May 23, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-15485 May 23, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-16445 May 23, 1960 - VICENTE ACAIN v. BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARMEN

    108 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-12624 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GANTANG KASIM

    108 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-12690 May 25, 1960 - ARCADIO M. QUIAMBAO v. ANICETO MORA

    108 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-12766 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. S. JACALA, ET., AL.

    108 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-12916 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO AQUIDADO

    108 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-13296 May 25, 1960 - SOFRONIO T. UNTALAN v. VICENTE G. GELLA

    108 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-13391 May 25, 1960 - AUREA MATIAS v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    108 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-13464 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-13651 May 25, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF JARO v. HIGINO MILITAR

    108 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-13711 May 25, 1960 - GREGORIO SALAZAR v. JUSTINIANA DE TORRES

    108 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-13819 May 25, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BLAS GUTIERREZ

    108 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-13933 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    108 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-14115 May 25, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SUPERIOR GAS AND EQUIPMENT CO.

    108 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-14134 May 25, 1960 - BISHOP OF LEGASPI v. MANUEL CALLEJA

    108 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-14214 May 25, 1960 - RICHARD VELASCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-14500 May 25, 1960 - QUIRINA PACHOCO v. AGRIPINA TUMANGDAY

    108 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-14515 May 25, 1960 - ENRIQUE ZOBEL v. GUILLERMO MERCADO

    108 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-14590 May 25, 1960 - FERNANDO DATU v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON

    108 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-14619 May 25, 1960 - MIGUEL YUVIENGCO v. PRIMITIVO GONZALES

    108 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-14722 May 25, 1960 - IGNACIO MESINA v. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA

    108 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-15132 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO B. CRUZ

    108 Phil 255

  • G.R. Nos. L-16341 & L-16470 May 25, 1960 - ADRIANO RABE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12150 May 26, 1960 - BENJAMIN CO., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12876 May 26, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL UNITED WORKERS, INC.

    108 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-13847 May 26, 1960 - DOMINADOR BORDA v. ENRIQUE TABALON

    108 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. L-14319 May 26, 1960 - EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. SUSANO R. NEGADO

    108 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-15073 May 26, 1960 - OPERATOR’S INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    108 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-15144 May 26, 1960 - ALFREDO A. AZUELO v. RAMON ARNALDO

    108 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-15777 May 26, 1960 - ANTONIO NIPAY v. JOSE M. MANGULAT

    108 Phil 297

  • G.R. Nos. L-14254 & L-14255 May 27, 1960 - STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 300

  • G.R. Nos. L-10371 & L-10409 May 30, 1960 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. DANIEL RAYALA

    108 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-11551 May 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALFONSO FAVIS

    108 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-12260 May 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT

    108 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-12627 May 30, 1960 - ALFONSO TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-12798 May 30, 1960 - VISAYAN CEBU TERMINAL CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    108 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-12907 May 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO AMBAHANG

    108 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960 - FAUSTINO IGNACIO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    108 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-12963 May 30, 1960 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. ALFONSO YUCHENGCO

    108 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-13034 May 30, 1960 - GREGORIO ARONG v. VICTOR WAJING

    108 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-13153 May 30, 1960 - GLICERIO ROMULO v. ESTEBAN DASALLA

    108 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-13223 May 30, 1960 - OSCAR MENDOZA ESPUELAS v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF BOHOL

    108 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. L-13412 May 30, 1960 - DESTILLERIA LIM TUACO & COMPANY, INC. v. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    108 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-13419 May 30, 1960 - CASIANO SALADAS v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY

    108 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-13662 May 30, 1960 - CEFERINO ESTEBAN v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    108 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. L-13793 May 30, 1960 - PACIFIC LINE, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-13845 May 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

    108 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-13910 May 30, 1960 - MANILA YELLOW TAXI-CAB, INC. v. EDMUNDO L. CASTELO

    108 Phil 394

  • G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149 May 30, 1960 - UY HA v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

    108 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-14280 May 30, 1960 - JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-14342 May 30, 1960 - CIRIACO L. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-14391 May 30, 1960 - GENARO SENEN v. MAXIMA A. DE PICHAY

    108 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14392 May 30, 1960 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PABLO CUNETA

    108 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-14459 May 30, 1960 - AGRINELDA N. MICLAT v. ELVIRA GANADEN

    108 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-14681 May 30, 1960 - ROSARIO PO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    108 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-14691 May 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO N. TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14700 May 30, 1960 - BENITO R. GUINTO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14800 May 30, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. CITY OF MANILA

    108 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-14949 May 30, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 469

  • G.R. Nos. L-14991-94 May 30, 1960 - JAIME T. BUENAFLOR v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORP.

    108 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-15044 May 30, 1960 - BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15198 May 30, 1960 - EDUARDO J. JALANDONI v. NARRA

    108 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. L-15344 May 30, 1960 - JOSE R. VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-15550 May 30, 1960 - AMADO TAGULAO v. FORTUNATA PADLAN- MUNDOK

    108 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15614 May 30, 1960 - GSISEA v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA

    108 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15696 May 30, 1960 - ELPIDIO LLARENA v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-15792 May 30, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. ANDRES REYES

    108 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. L-16837-40 May 30, 1960 - EUSTAQUIO R. CAWA v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO

    108 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-10843 May 31, 1960 - EVANGELINE WENZEL v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC.

    108 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-11555 May 31, 1960 - DELFIN CUETO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-11805 May 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC.

    108 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-12068 May 31, 1960 - EUFROCINA TAMISIN v. AMBROCIO ODEJAR

    108 Phil 560

  • G.R. Nos. L-13033 & L-13701 May 31, 1960 - LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-13295 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MARIO

    108 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13523 May 31, 1960 - ANICETO MADRID v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-13578 May 31, 1960 - MARCIANO A. ROXAS v. FLORENCIO GALINDO

    108 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. L-13858 May 31, 1960 - CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    108 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 13946 May 31, 1960 - MARSMAN AND COMPANY, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-14015 May 31, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

    108 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-14020 May 31, 1960 - MANILA LETTER CARRIER’S ASSN. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-14201 May 31, 1960 - OLEGARIO BRITO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GREGORIO MONTEJO

    108 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14749 May 31, 1960 - SILVESTRE PINGOL v. AMADO C. TIGNO

    108 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14885 May 31, 1960 - MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MARCELINO S. MANALO

    108 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-14907 May 31, 1960 - PURA M. DE LA TORRE v. VENANCIO TRINIDAD

    108 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-15074 May 31, 1960 - CARMEN FUENTES v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

    108 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-15122 May 31, 1960 - PAQUITO SALABSALO v. FRANCISCO ANGCOY

    108 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-15130 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLIMACO DEMIAR

    108 Phil 651