Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19227. February 17, 1968.]

DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (CEBU BRANCH), Defendant-Appellee.

Vicente Jaime, Regino Hermosisima and E. Lumontad, Sr., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Tomas Besa, R.B. de los Reyes and C. E. Medina, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CONTRACTS, PLEDGE; JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF ITS PROBATIVE WEIGHT. — The parties stipulated as a fact that Exhibit "A" and "1-Bank" is a pledge contract. Necessarily this judicial admission binds the plaintiff. Without any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it.

2. ID.; ID.; POSSESSION OF PLEDGED PROPERTY BY PLEDGOR; POSSESSION AS TRUSTEE. — Although plaintiff continued operating the vessels after the pledge contract was entered into, his possession was made "subject to the order of the pledgee." The pledgee can temporarily entrust the physical possession of the chattels pledged to the pledgor without invalidating the pledge. In this case, the pledgor is regarded as holding the pledged property merely as trustee for the pledgee.

3. ID.; ID.; VALIDITY OF PLEDGES; CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY SUFFICIENT. — Appellant would want this Court to rule that constructive delivery is insufficient to make a pledge effective. He points to a rule (Betita v. Ganzon, 49 Phil., 87) that there has to be actual delivery of the chattels pledged. In Banco Español-Filipino v. Peterson (7 Phil., 409) where the goods therein are the objects of the pledge, for purposes of showing the transfer of control to the pledgee, delivery to him of the keys to the warehouse was sufficient. In other words, the type of delivery will depend upon the nature and the peculiar circumstances of each case. Since the defendant Bank was, pursuant to the terms of the pledge contract, in full control of the vessels thru plaintiff, the former could take actual possession at any time during the life of the pledge to make more effective its security. Its taking of the vessels therefore was not unlawful.

4. ID.; ID.; FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS; PUBLIC SALE OF THING PLEDGED; BANK’S AUTHORITY TO BE PURCHASER IN FORECLOSURE SALE. — The rulings in the PNB v. De Poli, 44 Phil., 763 and El Hogar Filipino v. Paredes, 45 Phil., 178 are still authoritative despite the passage of Act 3135. This law refers only, and is limited, to foreclosure of real estate mortgages. So, whatever formalities there are in Act 3135 do not apply to pledge. Sec. 33 of Act 2612, as amended, provides that if the sale is public, the bank could purchase the whole or part of the property sold "free from any right of redemption on the part of the mortgagor or pledgor." And so, if the sale is private and the bank became the purchaser, the mortgagor or pledgor could redeem the property.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J. P., J.:


Plaintiff-appellant Diosdado Yuliongsiu 1 was the owner of two (2) vessels, namely: The M/S Surigao, valued at P109,925.78 and the M/S Don Dino, valued at P63,000.00, and operated the FS-203, valued at P210,672.24, which was purchased by him from the Philippine Shipping Commission, by installment or on account. As of January or February, 1948, plaintiff had paid to the Philippine Shipping Commission only the sum of P76,500 and the balance of the purchase price was payable at P50,000 a year, due on or before the end of the current year. 2

On June 30, 1947, plaintiff obtained a loan of P50,000 from the defendant Philippine National Bank, Cebu Branch. To guarantee its payment, plaintiff pledged the M/S Surigao, M/S Don Dino and its equity in the FS-203 to the defendant bank, as evidenced by the pledge contract, Exhibit "A" & "1-Bank", executed on the same day and duly registered with the office of the Collector of Customs for the Port of Cebu. 3

Subsequently, plaintiff effected partial payment of the loan in the sum of P20,000. The remaining balance was renewed by the execution of two (2) promissory notes in the bank’s favor. The first note, dated December 18, 1947, for P20,000, was due on April 16, 1948 while the second, dated February 26, 1948, for P10,000, was due on June 25, 1948. These two notes were never paid at all by plaintiff on their respective due dates. 4

On April 6, 1948, the bank filed criminal charges against plaintiff and two other accused for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents, because plaintiff had, as last indorsee, deposited with defendant bank, from March 11 to March 31, 1948, seven Bank of the Philippine Islands checks totalling P184,000. The drawer thereof — one of the co-accused — had no funds in the drawee bank. However, in connivance with one employee of defendant bank, plaintiff was able to withdraw the amount credited to him before the discovery of the defraudation on April 2, 1948. Plaintiff and his co-accused were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to indemnify the defendant bank in the sum of P184,000. On appeal, the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on October 31, 1950. The corresponding writ of execution issued to implement the order for indemnification was returned unsatisfied as plaintiff was totally insolvent. 5

Meanwhile, together with the institution of the criminal action, defendant bank took physical possession of the three pledged vessels while they were at the Port of Cebu, and on April 29, 1948, after the first note fell due and was not paid, the Cebu Branch Manager of defendant bank, acting as attorney-in-fact of plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the pledge contract, executed a document of sale, Exhibit "4", transferring the two pledged vessels and plaintiff’s equity in FS-203, to defendant bank for P30,042.72. 6

The FS-203 was subsequently surrendered by the defendant bank to the Philippine Shipping Commission which rescinded the sale to plaintiff on September 3, 1948, for failure to pay the remaining installments on the purchase price thereof. 7 The other two boats, the M/S Surigao and the M/S Don Dino were sold by defendant bank to third parties on March 15, 1951.

On July 19, 1948, plaintiff commenced action in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to recover the three vessels or their value and damages from defendant bank. The latter filed its answer, with a counterclaim for P202,000 plus P5,000 damages. After issues were joined, a pre-trial was had resulting in a partial stipulation of facts dated October 2, 1958, reciting most of the facts above- narrated. During the course of the trial, defendant amended its answer reducing its claim from P202,000 to P8,846.01, 8 but increasing its alleged damages to P85,000.

The lower court rendered its decision on February 13, 1960 ruling: (a) that the bank’s taking of physical possession of the vessels on April 6, 1948 was justified by the pledge contract, Exhibit "A" & "1-Bank" and the law; (b) that the private sale of the pledged vessels by defendant bank to itself without notice to the plaintiff-pledgor as stipulated in the pledge contract was likewise valid; and (c) that the defendant bank should pay to plaintiff the sums of P1,153.99 and P8,000, as his remaining account balance, or set-off these sums against the indemnity which plaintiff was ordered to pay to it in the criminal cases.

When his motion for reconsideration and new trial was denied, plaintiff brought the appeal to Us, the amount involved being more than P200,000.00.

In support of the first assignment of error, plaintiff-appellant would have this Court hold that Exhibit "A" & "1 -Bank" is a chattel mortgage contract so that the creditor defendant bank could not take possession of the chattels object thereof until after there has been default. The submission is without merit. The parties stipulated as a fact that Exhibit "A" & "1-Bank" is a pledge contract —

"3. That a credit line of P50,000.00 was extended to the plaintiff by the defendant sank, and the plaintiff obtained and received from the said Bank the sum of P50,000, and in order to guarantee the payment of this loan, the pledge contract, Exhibit "A" & Exhibit "1-Bank" ; was executed and duly registered with the Office of the Collector of Customs for the Port of Cebu on the date appearing therein;" (Emphasis supplied)

Necessarily, this judicial admission binds the plaintiff. Without any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. 9

The defendant bank as pledgee was therefore entitled to the actual possession of the vessels. While it is true that plaintiff continued operating the vessels after me pledge contract was entered into, his possession was expressly made "subject to the order of the pledgee." 10 The provision of Art. 2110 of the present Civil Code 11 being new-cannot apply to the pledge contract here which was entered into on June 30, 1947. On the other hand, there is authority supporting the proposition that the pledgee can temporarily entrust me physical possession of the chattels pledged to the pledgor without invalidating the pledge. In such a case, the pledgor is regarded as holding the pledged property merely as trustee for the pledgee. 12

Plaintiff-appellant would also urge Us to rule that constructive delivery is insufficient to make pledge effective. He points to Betita v. Ganzon, 49 Phil. 87 which ruled that there has to be actual delivery of the chattels pledged. But then there is also Banco Espanol Filipino v. Peterson, 7 Phil. 409 ruling that symbolic delivery would suffice. An examination of the peculiar nature of the things pledged in the two cases will readily dispel the apparent contradiction between the two rulings. In Betita v. Ganzon, the objects pledged — carabaos — were easily capable of actual, manual delivery unto the pledgee. In Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Peterson, the objects pledged — goods contained in a warehouse — were hardly capable of actual, manual delivery in the sense that it was impractical as a whole for the particular transaction and would have been an unreasonable requirement. Thus, for purposes of showing the transfer of control to the pledgee, delivery to him of the keys to the warehouse sufficed. In other words, the type of delivery will depend upon the nature and the peculiar circumstances of each case. The parties here agreed that the vessels be delivered by the "pledgor to the pledgor who shall hold said property subject to the order of the pledgee." Considering the circumstances of this case and the nature of the objects pledged, i.e., vessels used in maritime business, such delivery is sufficient.

Since the defendant bank was, pursuant to the terms of the pledge contract, in full control of the vessels thru the plaintiff, the former could take actual possession at any time during the life of the pledge to make more effective its security. Its taking of the vessels therefore on April 6, 1948, was not unlawful. Nor was it unjustified considering that plaintiff had just defrauded the defendant bank in the huge sum of P184,000.

The stand We have taken is not without precedent. The Supreme Court of Spain, in a similar case involving Art, 1863 of the old Civil Code, 13 has ruled. 14

"Que si bien la naturaleza del contrato de prenda consiste en pasar las cosas a poder del acreedor o de un tercero y no quedar en la del deudor, como ha sucedido en el caso de autos, es lo cierto que todas las partes interesadas, o sean acreedon, deudor y Sociedad, convinieron que continuaran los coches en poder del deudor para no suspender el trafico, y el derecho de no uso de la prenda pertenece al deudor, y el de dejar la cosa bajo au responsabilidad al acreedor, y ambos convinieron por creerlo util para las partes contratantes, y estas no reclaman perjuicios, no se infringio, entre otros, este articulo."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the second assignment of error imputed to the lower court, plaintiff-appellant attacks the validity of the private sale of the pledged vessels in favor of the defendant bank itself. It is contended first that the cases holding that the statutory requirements as to public sales with prior notice in connection with foreclosure proceedings are waivable, are no longer authoritative in view of the passage of Act 3135, as amended; second, that the charter of defendant bank does not allow it to buy the property object of foreclosure in case of private sales; and third, that the price obtained at the sale is unconscionable.

There is no merit in the claims. The rulings in Philippine National Bank v. De Poli, 44 Phil. 763 and El Hogar Filipino v. Paredes, 45 Phil. 178 are still authoritative despite the passage of Act 3135. This law refers only, and is limited, to foreclosure of real estate mortgages. 15 So, whatever formalities there are in Act 3135 do not apply to pledge. Regarding the bank’s authority to be the purchaser in the foreclosure sale, Sec. 33 of the Act 612, as amended by Acts 2747 and 2938 only states that if the sale is public, the bank could purchase the whole or part of the property sold "free from any right of redemption on the part of the mortgagor or pledgor." This even argues against plaintiff s case since the import thereof is that if the sale were private and the bank became the purchaser, the mortgagor or pledgor could redeem the property. Hence, plaintiff could have recovered the vessels by exercising this right of redemption. He is the only one to blame for not doing so.

Regarding the third contention, on the assumption that the purchase price was unconscionable, plaintiff’s remedy was to have set aside the sale. He did not avail of this. Moreover, as pointed out by the lower court, plaintiff had at the time an obligation to return the P184,000 fraudulently taken by him from defendant bank.

The last assignment of error has to do with the damages allegedly suffered by plaintiff-appellant by virtue of the taking of the vessels. But in view of the results reached above, there is no more need to discuss the same.

On the whole, We cannot say the lower court erred in disposing of the case as it did. Plaintiff-appellant was not all-too-innocent as he would have Us believe. He did defraud the defendant bank first. If the latter countered with the seizure and sale of the pledged vessels pursuant to the pledge contract, it was only to protect its interests after plaintiff had defaulted in the payment of the first promissory note. Plaintiff-appellant did not come to court with clean hands.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is, as it is hereby, affirmed. Costs against plaintiff-appellant. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Diosdado Yuliongsiu has, since December 6, 1962, died and been subsequently substituted by his widow Emerenciana A. Yuliongsiu, for herself and as guardian ad litem of their daughter Rose Yuliongsiu.

2. Par. 1, Pre-Trial Order of Oct. 2, 1958; Record on Appeal, p. 39.

3. Par. 3, Pre-Trial Order of Oct. 2, 1958; Record on Appeal, p. 40.

4. Par 4, Pre-Trial Order of Oct. 2, 1958; Record on Appeal pp. 40-43.

5. Pars. 8-9. Pre-Trial Order of Oct. 2, 1958; Record on Appeal, pp. 45-46.

6. Par. 6, Pre-Trial Order of Oct. 2, 1958; Record on Appeal, p. 44.

7. Par. 5, Pre-Trial Order of Oct. 2, 1958; Record on Appeal, pp. 43-44.

8. There was an 8th check, for P18,000, deposited by plaintiff and for which the drawer had no funds. This amount less plaintiff’s actual balance of P9,153.99 in his account gives the bank an P9,846.01 credit.

9. Sec. 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court.

10. Exh. "A" & "1-Bank" recites on par: ". . . the Pledgor . . . hereby gives Possession of such property for the purpose of this pledge to the Pledgor who shall hold raid property, subject to the order of the Pledgee." (Italics supplied)

11. Providing that if after the perfection of the pledge, the thing is found in the pledgor’s possession, it is presumed that the same was returned by the pledgee, thereby extinguishing the pledge.

12. 72 C.J.S. 40-41.

13. Which provides: "In addition to the requisites mentioned in Article 1857, it shall be necessary, in order to constitute the contract of pledge, that the pledge, be placed in the possession of the creditor or of a third person appointed by common consent."cralaw virtua1aw library

14. Sentencia del 23 de Abril de 1929, cited in 29 Scaevola 346.

15. Luna v. Encarnacion, 91 Phil. 531.




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






February-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA