Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15074 May 31, 1960 - CARMEN FUENTES v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

108 Phil 640:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-15074. May 31, 1960.]

CARMEN FUENTES and GO TEK, Petitioners, v. HON. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch I and AYALA SECURITIES INC., Respondents.

Gonzalo G. Padua, for Petitioners.

Salvador J. Lorayes for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. ACTIONS; NOT FIXED BY THE PARTIES TO AN AGREEMENT; DETERMINED BY LAW. — The action that may be instituted under an agreement to enforce its terms is not a matter that can be fixed by the agreement or the will of the parties; that question is determined by law, according to which the nature of the questions and issues actually involved determines the nature of the action appropriate to resolve the same and the court that may take cognizance thereof.

2. UNLAWFUL DETAINER; APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN ISSUE IS THAT OF POSSESSION; NOT APPLICABLE WHEN ISSUE REFERS TO RIGHTS OVER REAL PROPERTY. — An action of unlawful detainer which is a summary proceeding to wrest possession from one who has no right thereto, is applicable only when the issue is that of possession. When the issues involved refer to rights over real property, as when plaintiff contends that a certain agreement is a contract to sell, said action is not applicable.

3. COURTS; JURISDICTION; COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE AND JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS WITH RESPECT TO REAL PROPERTY. — Courts of first instance have original jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real property, of any interest therein, . . . except actions of forcible entry into and detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction of which is conferred by this Act upon justice of the peace courts and municipal courts. (Sec. 43, Rep. Act 296) On the other hand, justice of the peace courts are granted jurisdiction to try all civil actions in his municipality or city, and not exclusively cognizable by the court of first instance. (Sec. 88, rep. Act 296)

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; IF QUESTION OF TITLE IS INVOLVED. — If in deciding the right of plaintiff to eject the defendant it becomes necessary to determine whether or not defendant is the owner of the property in question, or has a right to possession thereof, or interest therein, the action necessarily involves the title of the defendant and his interest in the property. For this reason the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance as provided for in Section 43 of the Judiciary Act.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the judge of, and the proceedings before, the Court of First Instance of Rizal in its Civil Case No. 4590, entitled Ayala Securities Incorporated, plaintiff v. Carmen Fuentes and Go Tek, Defendants, to annul the proceedings in said case and enjoin the enforcement of certain orders of the court in the case. It is alleged in the petition that both the Justice of the Peace Court, which originally took cognizance of and decided the case of unlawful detainer, as well as the Court of First Instance, to which the decision of the Justice of the Peace was appealed, had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the said action, which is one of unlawful detainer. It is also alleged that the Court of First Instance had issued an order for the demolition of certain buildings and other constructions made by the defendants on the land subject of the action, and that this demolition order was beyond the court’s power to issue.

Upon the filing of the petition, We gave due course thereto and issue a writ of preliminary injunction, prohibiting the court below from carrying out the order of demolition mentioned above and from proceeding with the hearing of the case.

The record discloses that on February 7, 1956 the Ayala Securities and Carmen Fuentes signed three separate Agreements wherein the former had agreed and contracted to sell Lots Nos. 23, 24 and 25, Block No. 26, in Makati, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 16339 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, and the latter had in turn bound herself to pay the initial installments and the consecutive monthly installments on the purchase prices specified for the lots at the office of the owner in Manila, without the need of demand. The other pertinent provisions of the Agreements are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"4. The PURCHASER/S will be allowed to enter into and take possession of the property upon the payment of one-fourth (1/4) of the purchase price unless sooner allowed by the OWNER, provided, however, that the PURCHASER/S possession under this section shall only be that of a tenant or lessee and subject to ejectment proceedings during all the period of this agreement.

"5. Upon taking possession of the property, the PURCHASER/S shall not erect thereon any building or permanent improvements at a distance of less than two (2) meters from the boundaries of the property which face the street/s or proposed street/s.

"All the buildings which may be constructed at any time on the property must be of strong materials, with modern sanitary installations connected either to a public sewer or to an approved septic tank, and must be constructed at a distance of more than two (2) meters from the boundaries of the property which face the streets or proposed street/s. All such constructions must be approved by the health, fire and police authorities of the city or locality where the property is situated.

x       x       x


"The OWNER, in its absolute discretion, may require that all the buildings and permanent improvements which may be constructed on the property conform to a certain type of architecture or to certain designs approved by the OWNER, as to be in harmony with the surrounding landscape or general vicinity of the property.

"9. The PURCHASER/S hereby agree/s that representatives of the OWNER shall have the right to enter the property at any time for the purpose of inspection, measurement, relocation, survey, laying of monuments or of necessary lines for water, gas, electric power, telephone and other public services, and any inconvenience or disturbance thus caused shall not be a cause for the rescission of this contract or an action for damages.

x       x       x


"13. Should the PURCHASER/S fail to make the payment of any of the monthly installments together with the interests thereon as agreed herein, within ninety (90) days from its due date, this contract shall, by the mere fact of non-payment expire by itself and become cancelled without necessity of notice to the PURCHASER/S or of any judicial declaration to that effect, and any and all sums of money paid under this contract shall be considered and become rentals on the property and in this event, the PURCHASER/S should she be in possession of the property, become mere intruder/s or unlawful detainer/s of the same and may be ejected therefrom by the means provided for by law for trespassers or unlawful detainers. Immediately after the expiration of the ninety (90) days provided for in this section, the OWNER shall be at liberty to dispose of and sell said parcel/s of land to any other person in the same manner as if this contract had never been executed or entered into.

x       x       x


On January 15, 1957, the plaintiff filed an action in the Justice of the Peace court of Makati, Rizal, alleging that the defendant had failed to pay any and all the monthly installments which become due and payable on and after March, 1956; that defendant Carmen Fuentes and her co-defendant Go Tek are in actual physical possession of the lots and they failed and refused and still fail and refuse to vacate the same and to remove therefrom the buildings, bodegas, pieces of machinery, junks and other surplus materials existing thereon, in violation of Clause No. 13 of the Agreements. Plaintiff prayed that it be restored to the possession of the lots sold; that the defendants vacate the premises and removed therefrom the bodegas garages, pieces of machinery, etc. found standing or deposited thereon; that defendants pay plaintiff the amount of P1,800.00 for the use and occupation of the land, and to pay the costs and attorney’s fees.

After rendition of the above judgment, the defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance and when the records were elevated to this court, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on two grounds, namely, that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. The second grounds for the motion to dismiss was due to the fact that in 1955 the plaintiff filed another action against the defendants for the recovery of the land for their failure to pay the installments from June, 1954 up to April, 1955, as provided in the original contracts dated January 21, 1954. However, the case ended in a compromise and the parties executed the Agreements on February 7, 1956, already mentioned above.

Plaintiff objected to the motion to dismiss and cited the provisions of Section 13 of the Agreements, wherein it is stated that should the purchasers fail to pay any of the monthly installments together with interest thereon within 90 days, the contracts shall be cancelled and the purchaser shall be considered as mere intruder and may be ejected therefrom. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that under Section 1, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, the right of possession of defendants had terminated by virtue of her failure to pay the monthly installments, so that the action of ejectment may be cognizable by the Justice of the Peace court. On December 5, 1958, upon application of the plaintiff, the Court of First Instance issued a demolition order, commanding the Sheriff of Rizal to demolish the houses, bodegas, garages and other improvements of said defendants on Lots Nos. 23, 24 and 25, at their own expense. A motion to reconsider this order was denied and as all attempts by defendants to stop the proceedings and the demolition order were in vain, the present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction was presented.

In the answer filed by the Ayala Securities Inc. as respondent before this Court, it is claimed that Clause No. 13 of the Agreements is valid; that the Agreements constitute a contract to sell and not a contract of sale, for which reason Article 1592 of the Civil Code can not be applicable. It is also alleged in the answer that the immediate execution of the judgment of the Justice of the Peace is authorized in Section 8 of Rule 72.

The sole and only question to decide in this case is whether the action instituted by the respondent Ayala Securities, Inc. in the Justice of the Peace Court, which is a summary action of unlawful detainer, is the proper remedy. Were we to follow the terms used in Clause No. 13 of the Agreements, that upon the failure of the purchaser to pay the installments due within 90 days, the purchaser shall become a mere intruder and may be ejected therefrom, as an unlawful trespasser, it would seem the remedy was the proper one. However, the action that may be instituted under the Agreements to enforce their terms is not a matter that can be fixed by the agreement or the will of the parties; that question is determined by law, according to which the nature of the questions and issues actually involved determine the nature of the action appropriate to resolve the same and the court that may take cognizance thereof. A perusal of the terms of the Agreements shows various provisions, the interpretation and construction of which are demanded before the nature of said Agreements can be determined. The Agreements allow the purchaser to enter upon the premises and to construct buildings thereon and she in fact constructed the garages, warehouses, etc. An action of unlawful detainer, which is a summary proceeding to wrest possession from one who has no right thereto, is applicable only when the issue is that of possession; but rights of property in the land created by the Agreements, especially the relative rights and obligations of the parties to the improvements are directly involved. The provisions of the Agreements themselves need judicial interpretation as to their scope and effect; the delivery of the possession of the land and the grant of permission to construct buildings thereon require the determination of the respective rights of the purchaser-builder and the owner-vendor on the land and on the buildings and constructions. Plaintiff contends that the Agreements are contracts to sell; the defendants, that they are contracts of sale (with a resolutory clause). These questions and issues are beyond the scope or competence of the Justice of the Peace and clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance as the issues involved refer to rights over real property.

The present case is parallel to a case of seduction which under the criminal law is triable in the Justice of the Peace court because the penalty therefor is within the Justice of the Peace court’s jurisdiction; but as the judgment to be rendered may affect the status of the offspring resulting from the offense of seduction, the offense falls beyond the jurisdiction of the justice of the Peace court. Similarly, the suit filed in the case at bar is only one of possession, but inasmuch as various questions as to the nature and scope of the transaction, whether it is a contract of sale or a mere contract to sell, and the respective rights of the vendor and the vendee to the land, the possession thereof and the constructions thereon, are involved and related to the matters in dispute, the case is beyond the power and authority of the Justice of the Peace court to try and decide. In other words, various necessary issues incident to the action are beyond the Justice of the Peace court’s jurisdiction, hence the Justice of the Peace court has no power to try the action.

Let Us first examine the law defining the respective jurisdictions of the courts of first instance and the justice of the peace courts, with respect to real property. Courts of first instance have original jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, . . . except actions of forcible entry into and detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction of which is conferred by this Act upon justice of the peace courts and municipal courts." (Sec. 43 Rep. Act 296). On the other hand, justice of the peace courts are granted jurisdiction to try all civil actions in his municipality or city, and not exclusively cognizable by the court of first instance. (Sec. 88, Rep. Act 296). The pleadings and papers submitted by the petitioner before the Court of First Instance show that while counsel for plaintiff claims that the contract contained in the three Agreements is a contract to sell, counsel for the defendants argues that said Agreements are a contract of sale. The determination of this very question which affects title, is necessary to resolve in the case at bar; hence the case falls beyond the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace court. A case decided by this Court which closely resembles the case at bar is that of Aquino v. Deala, 63 Phil., 582. This Court, thru Mr. Justice Recto, stated the rule to be followed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The other point to be resolved is whether or not the municipal court had jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case after the defendant had raised the question of ownership therein. We have repeatedly held that the mere fact that the defendant, in his answer, claims to be the owner of the property from which the plaintiff seeks to eject him is not sufficient to divest a justice of the peace court of its summary jurisdiction in actions of forcible entry and detainer, because were the principle otherwise, the ends of justice would be frustrated by making the efficacy of this kind of actions depend upon the defendant in all cases. However, we have also held (Supia and Batioco v. Quintero and Ayala, 59 Phil., 312), favorably citing Pertit v. Black (13 Neb. 142, 154), and Green v. Morse (57 Neb. 391), that the foregoing rule does not hold when the evidence shows that the question of title is actually involved in the litigation and that the defendant’s contention according to said evidence, is meritorious. In this case the records do not disclose the nature of the evidence presented in the municipal court of origin in connection with the question of ownership raised by the defendant and, therefore, we are not in a position to rule that said court was without jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case. We find, however, that the evidence presented in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where the case was brought on appeal, shows that the title to the disputed property was correctly questioned. Therefore the Court of First Instance should have declared itself without jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case on appeal after examining said evidence, and ordered the dismissal thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

We do not decide herein what kind of contract has been entered into, whether it is one of sale or to sell. But in deciding the right of plaintiff to eject defendants, it is necessary to determine if the defendant Carmen Fuentes is the owner of the property, or has a right to possession thereof, or interest therein. The action therefore necessarily involves the title of the defendants and their interest in the property subject matter of the action. So the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance as provided for in Section 43 of the Judiciary Act.

For the foregoing considerations, we hold that as the issues involved in the case refer to real rights created by the Agreements, matters which are beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace court to resolve, the remedy availed of by the respondent Ayala Securities, Inc., which is a simple and summary action for possession, is not the proper remedy, as the Justice of the Peace court has no jurisdiction to try and decide said issues. The proceedings in the court below are hereby declared null and void and the case, dismissed. The preliminary injunction issued by Us is hereby made permanent, with costs against the Respondent.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, 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






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