Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > November 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-50548 November 25, 1982 - CONCHING ALVARO, ET AL. v. HOSPICIO ZAPATA, ET AL.

204 Phil. 356:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-50548. November 25, 1982.]

CONCHING ALVARO, SEGUNDINO BACANI, ANGELITO BALINGIT, DANILO BANAL, MARIANO BRAGIL, TOMAS CALMA, BONIFACIO DABU, VIRGILIO DABU, EDUARDO DIWA, ANDUNG ESCOTO, Et Al., Petitioners, v. Honorable Judge HOSPICIO ZAPATA, in his capacity as Municipal Judge of Lubao, Pampanga, ALBIERTO V. ARRASTIA and GIL B. BALUYUT, Respondents.

Jaime F. Estrabillo, for Petitioners.

Arturo Castillo Reyes for respondent Arrastia.

Moises Sevilla Ocampo for respondent Baluyut.

SYNOPSIS


On February 13, 1979, a complaint for forcible entry and damages with prayer for restraining order was filed by private respondents against petitioners before the Municipal Court of Lubao, Pampanga. After an ex- parte hearing on the application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injection, the trial judge on February 28, 1979 issued the writ upon private respondents’ filing of an injunction bond. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of said order granting the writ and filed a manifestation that the insurance company that posted the bond for respondents has no authority to issue judicial bonds. After conducting a hearing on the motion to lift the injunction, respondent judge, on April 30, 1979, issued an order denying said motion, thus the present recourse.

The Supreme Court held that it is improper to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction prior to the final hearing except in cases of extreme urgency; that private respondents’ legal right over the property is very doubtful since the supporting papers attached to their comment refer to other parcels of land and not to the lands involved in this case; that the leasehold contracts submitted by petitioners prima facie show that they are entitled to remain in possession of the land; that respondent judge in issuing the writ and in refusing to dissolve the same, in effect, decided the merits of the case without a hearing, in complete disregard of the documentary evidence presented by petitioners; that when petitioners moved for the lifting of the writ, with supporting papers, it is incumbent upon the judge to dissolve the writ, after all, the issuance or recall thereof is an interlocutory matter that remains at all times within the control of the court and it becomes more imperative for the judge to recall the writ when his attention was called to the fact that the bond posted by the First Integrated Bonding and Insurance Co., Inc. has not been authorized to issue judicial bonds.

Petition granted.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDY; WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ISSUANCE THEREOF PRIOR TO FINAL HEARING IMPROPER; EXCEPTIONS. — The preliminary mandatory injunction by respondent judge was issued with undue haste and without regard to petitioners’ right to hearing. It was issued in grave abuse of discretion and showed partiality on the part of said judge in favor of private respondents. It has always been said that it is improper to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction prior to the final hearing, except in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant’s favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT BE USED TO OUST PARTY IN POSSESSION IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER WHOSE RIGHT HAS NOT BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED; CASE AT BAR. — On the other hand, petitioners in their motion for reconsideration and/or to dissolve or lift the order of February 28, 1979 and subsequent pleadings have claimed that they are the duly constituted farmer-tenants of the landholdings even long before Arrastia became the administrator; that they have planted crops thereon and have their old houses on their farmlots; and in support thereof, they have submitted to the lower court and to this Court some of their respective copies of the leasehold contracts. Admittedly, the genuineness of said contracts has to be proved in the trial court. However, said contracts prima facie show that they are entitled to remain in possession of the lands. Thus, in issuing the writ and in refusing to dissolve the same, respondent judge, in effect, decided the merits of the ease without hearing. It granted private respondents’ prayer for the ejectment of petitioners from the land and for the transfer of the possession of said land to them in disregard of the claim of petitioners, supported by documentary evidence, that they are the tenants of respondent Arrastia. By issuing said writ, respondent judge ignored the fundamental rule in Our jurisdiction that a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be used to oust a party from his possession of a property and to put in his place another party whose right has not been clearly established.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RECALL THEREOF IS AN INTERLOCUTORY MATTER WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE COURT AT ALL TIMES. — When petitioners filed their pleadings, subsequent to the issuance of the writ of injunction, alleging therein that they are bonafide tenants of the land in question with supporting documents attached to the answer with motion to lift the mandatory injunction, it was incumbent upon the judge to dissolve the writ; after all, the issuance or recall of a preliminary writ of injunction is an interlocutory matter that remains at all times within the control of the court. It becomes more imperative for the judge to recall the writ when his attention was called to the fact that the bond posted by the First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Company, Inc. has not been authorized by Us to issue judicial bonds.


D E C I S I O N


DE CASTRO, J.:


For Our determination in this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction is the propriety of the issuance of the preliminary mandatory injunction by the Municipal Court of Lubao, Pampanga.

This case stemmed from the complaint for forcible entry and damages, with prayer for a restraining order filed on February 13, 1979 by private respondents against petitioners alleging that private respondent Alfredo V. Arrastia is a co-owner and administrator for himself and his co-heirs of parcels of sugarland in Lubao, Pampanga, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 6771, 6772, 6773 and 6775 and Tax Declaration No. 10176, comprising a total area of 116 hectares; that sometime or about the 30th day of April, 1978, Arrastia executed a contract of lease over said parcels of land in favor of respondent Gil B. Baluyut, but when the latter began agricultural operations and activities in May, 1978, on the said hacienda, Petitioners, by means of force, violence, intimidation, threats and stealth, illegally occupied the hacienda, "transferring houses thereon, making construction thereon, making agricultural activities and virtually squatting thereon," thereby depriving private respondents of their prior, peaceful, actual, open and continuous possession of the said hacienda; and that avid petitioners are not tenants or lessees but mere squatters and intruders. Attached to the complaint is a motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

After conducting an ex parte hearing on the application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, respondent judge, on February 28, 1979, issued an order granting the writ in favor of private respondents upon the latter’s filing of an injunction bond. 1

Petitioners filed on March 8, 1979 a motion for reconsideration and/or dissolve or lift the injunctive order, claiming that as the order affects some 103 legitimate farmers, the order should have been issued with prior notice, and that they, and not private respondents have been in prior, actual and physical possession of the land in question 1 even before the assumption of Arrastia, as administrator of the property and long before the alleged executor of the lease contract.

On March 13, 1979, petitioners filed a manifestation and motion praying that they be allowed to reap and harvest their produce. On March 21, 1979, petitioners filed their answer to the complaint with a motion to lift the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

On April 4, 1979, petitioners filed a manifestation that the First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Company, Inc. that posted the bond for private respondents has no authority to issue judicial bonds, including injunction bonds, in any court in the Philippines, as certified to by a letter certification by this Court; 2 and consequently, the aforesaid bond is a nullity.

On April 30, 1979, after respondent judge had conducted a hearing on the motion to lift the injunction, he issued an order denying said motion which reads:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"x       x       x

"The record shows that in the preliminary hearing set on February 27, 1979, for the issuance of a restraining order and or order of preliminary mandatory injunction, the plaintiffs testified and their witness, one Gregorio Bautista in support thereto and submitted documentary exhibits from Exhibits "A" to "I" with their sub-markings. Exhibit "G" is a certification of the Department of Agrarian Reform now Ministry of Agrarian Reform, dated October 12, 1977, certifying that the land in question is purely devoted in the production of sugarcane and administered by the owner through mechanized farming and the landholding is not covered by P.D. 29. Exhibit "F 1" is a certification issued July 28, 1978, of Assistant Minister Miguel M. Sesa, of the Ministry of Agriculture, certifying that the land in question is found to be non-tenanted as contemplated under P.D. 27 as amended. Exhibit "F-2" dated July 31, 1979, addressed to the plaintiff Alfredo Arrastia and signed by Chief Agrarian Reform Unit Jose P. Nituliano, is an authority given to plaintiff Alfredo Arrastia to shift to other crops pursuant to P.D. No. 1066 and its implementing rules and regulations, DA Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1977." 3

Meanwhile, the First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Company, Inc. through its branch manager, filed a motion to cancel plaintiffs’ bonds, which, however was also denied by respondent judge on May 4, 1979 for failure to comply with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court. 4

The instant petition must be granted.

The preliminary mandatory injunction by respondent judge was issued with undue haste and without regard to petitioners’ right to hearing. It was issued in grave abuse of discretion and showed partiality on the part of said judge in favor of private respondents.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It has always been said that it is improper to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction prior to the final hearing, except in cases of extreme urgency; where the right IS very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant’s favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation. 5

The right of private respondents to possession is not clear. To establish that they have prior possession over the disputed land, private respondents submitted documentary exhibits, which became the basis of respondent judge in issuing the preliminary mandatory injunction on February 28, 1979 and also in denying the motion to lift the said injunction on April 30, 1979. Our own examination of the said documents which were also adverted to and attached to the comment on the petition reveals that the certifications dated October 12, 1977 6 and July 28, 1978 7 of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform to the effect that the land alluded therein is not covered by P.D. 27 and that the same is non-tenanted, respectively, and the authority granted by the Chief Agrarian Reform Unit 8 to Arrastia to shift to other crops pursuant to P.D. 1066 referred to other parcels of land and not to the lands involved in this case. Verily, private respondents’ legal right to possession is very doubtful.

On the other hand, petitioners in their motion for reconsideration and/or to dissolve or lift the order of February 28, 1979 and subsequent pleadings have claimed that they are the duly constituted farmer-tenants of the landholdings even long before Arrastia became the administrator; that they have planted crops thereon and have their old houses on their farmlots; and in support thereof, they have submitted to the lower court and to this Court some of their respective copies of the leasehold contracts. 9 Admittedly, the genuineness of said contracts has to be proved in the trial court. However, said contracts prima facie show that they are entitled to remain in possession of the lands. Thus, in issuing the writ and in refusing to dissolve the same, respondent judge, in effect, decided the merits of the case without hearing. It granted private respondents’ prayer for the ejectment of petitioners from the land and for the transfer of the possession of said land to them in disregard of the claim of petitioners, supported by documentary evidence, that they are the tenants of respondent Arrastia. By issuing said writ. respondent judge ignored the fundamental rule in Our jurisdiction that a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be used to oust a party from his possession of a property and to put in his place another party whose right has not been clearly established. 10

When petitioners filed their pleadings, subsequent to the issuance of the writ of injunction, alleging therein that they are bonafide tenants of the land in question with supporting documents attached to the answer with motion to lift the mandatory injunction, it was incumbent upon the judge to dissolve the writ; after all, the issuance or recall of a preliminary writ of injunction is an interlocutory matter that remains at all times within the control of the court. 11 It becomes more imperative for the judge to recall the writ when his attention was called to the fact that the bond posted by the First Integrated Bonding Insurance Company, Inc. has not been authorized by Us to issue judicial bonds.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered annulling and setting aside the order of February 28, 1979 and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued pursuant thereto, and converting the temporary restraining order issued by this Court on May 23, 1979 into a permanent injunction, insofar as the enforcement of the preliminary mandatory injunction is concerned. The respondent judge may now proceed with the trial of the case, if he has not yet done so. Costs against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. p. 27, Rollo, Annex "L."

2. p. 70, Id.

3. p. 72, Id., Annex "GG."

4. p. 82, Id., Annex "MM."

5. The Police Commission v. Hon. Judge Eloy B. Bello, 37 SCRA 230.

6. p. 105 Id., Annex-3, Arrastia.

7. p. 100, Id., Annex-1, Arrastia.

8. p. 102, Id., Annex-2, Arrastia.

9. pp. 45-54, Id.

10. Emilia vs Bodo, 23 SCRA 187.

11. Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 386.




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






November-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-2221 November 2, 1982 - CIPRIANO ABENOJAR v. DOMINGO LOPEZ

    203 Phil. 385

  • A.M. No. 2739-CFI November 2, 1982 - TERESITA DE CASTRO v. IGNACIO CAPULONG

    203 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-27152 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS E. TORIO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 398

  • G.R. No. L-34079 November 2, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-34517 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SlMEON GANUT

    203 Phil. 421

  • G.R. No. L-39518 November 2, 1982 - AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-44039 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO A. DATUIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-47460 November 2, 1982 - AMELIA DELEGENTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 447

  • G.R. No. L-48196 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-50298 November 2, 1982 - JOSEPH Y. PUNAY v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 475

  • G.R. No. L-50358 November 2, 1982 - SHIPSIDE, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-52823 November 2, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MIDPANTAO ADIL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 492

  • G.R. No. L-53465 November 2, 1982 - ANTONIO NITURA v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-54439 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE Of THE PHIL. v. JESUS N. MONTEZ

    203 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-55645 November 2, 1982 - RICARDO CENIZA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-56909 November 2, 1982 - FLORENCIA B. SAN VALENTIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 534

  • G.R. No. L-58578 November 2, 1982 - JOSE GEROMO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 539

  • G.R. No. L-59054 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MUSTAPA ALIBASA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-34597 November 5, 1982 - ROSITO Z. BACARRO, ET AL. v. GERUNDIO B. CASTAÑO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 563

  • G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982 - IN RE: APOLONIO TABOADA v. AVELINO S. ROSAL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 572

  • G.R. No. L-61870 November 5, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO D. PERALTA

    203 Phil. 580

  • G.R. No. L-49004 November 10, 1982 - NG LIT v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 592

  • A.M. No. 702-CTJ November 15, 1982 - ELISA VDA. DE OCHOA, ET AL. v. GERINO M. TOLENTINO

    203 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-26325 November 15, 1982 - PACWELD STEEL CORPORATION v. ASIA STEEL CORPORATION

    203 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-31366 November 15, 1982 - ASIAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ISLAND STEEL, INC., ET AL.

    203 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-34834 November 15, 1982 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. LUIS D. MANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39258 November 15, 1982 - RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. AMANTE P. PURISIMA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 625

  • G.R. No. L-42540 November 15, 1982 - VICTOR NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-52325 November 15, 1982 - CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-53060 November 15, 1982 - ROSARIO T. MAMERTO, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. 55771 November 15, 1982 - TAHANAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 652

  • G.R. No. L-56479 November 15, 1982 - SOCORRO L. VDA. DE STA. ROMANA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 708

  • G.R. Nos. L-56695-98 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIBSON A. ARAULA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-61663 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO L. REGLOS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 724

  • G.R. No. L-61997 November 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ELFREN PARTISALA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 750

  • A.C. No. 641 November 19, 1982 - FRANCISCO RADOMES v. FERNANDO FABRIGARAS

    204 Phil. 1

  • A.C. No. 1675 November 19, 1982 - BELEN A. RIVERA v. ORLANDO LATONERO

    204 Phil. 4

  • A.M. No. P-1935 November 19, 1982 - BENJAMIN DAAG v. HONORIO SERRANO

    204 Phil. 9

  • G.R. No. L-30690 November 19, 1982 - BF HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 15

  • G.R. No. L-30854 November 19, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 21

  • G.R. No. L-34362 November 19, 1982 - MODESTA CALIMLIM, ET AL. v. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    204 Phil.25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-35718 November 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 38

  • G.R. No. L-37712 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SYQUIOCO

    204 Phil. 42

  • G.R. No. L-38258 November 19, 1982 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. MARCELO ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-39503 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRESIO CARDENAS

    204 Phil. 88

  • G.R. No. L-39528 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MONAGA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 98

  • G.R. No. L-44686 November 19, 1982 - MACARIO MANUEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 110

  • G.R. No. L-44817 November 19, 1982 - LEA PAZ TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 117

  • G.R. No. L-46729 November 19, 1982 - LAUSAN AYOG, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49140 November 19, 1982 - QUASHA ASPERILLA ANCHETA VALMONTE PEÑA & MARCOS v. CELESTINO P. JUAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 141

  • G.R. No. L-54158 November 19, 1982 - PAGASA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 162

  • G.R. No. L-55079 November 19, 1982 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 172

  • G.R. No. L-55539 November 19, 1982 - DIOSA DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 180

  • G.R. No. L-55624 November 19, 1982 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-56761 November 19, 1982 - MARIANO TOLEDO, ET AL. v. BERNARDO P. PARDO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 203

  • G.R. No. L-57170 November 19, 1982 - KO BU LIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-57440 November 19, 1982 - D. D. COMENDADOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARCELINO N. SAYO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 227

  • G.R. Nos. L-57477-78 November 19, 1982 - HEIRS OF WILLIAM SEVILLA, ET AL. v. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 237

  • G.R. No. L-57707 November 19, 1982 - PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 241

  • G.R. No. L-58506 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-59463 November 19, 1982 - PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA v. IMPERIAL MINING COMPANY, INC.

    204 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-59596 November 19, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-60950 November 19, 1982 - J.D. MAGPAYO CUSTOMS BROKERAGE CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 276

  • A.M. No. P-292 November 25, 1982 - ISIDRO G. ARENAS v. MANUEL RESULTAN, SR.

    204 Phil. 279

  • A.C. No. 2662-CFI November 26, 1982 - FLAVIANO A. PELMOKA v. FELIX T. DIAZ, JR.

    204 Phil. 283

  • G.R. No. L-30391 November 25, 1982 - ASSOCIATED SUGAR, INC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-35630 November 25, 1982 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. GALAURAN & PILARES CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-35757 November 25, 1982 - LUCIA LUSUNG v. SUSANA VDA. DE SANTOS

    204 Phil. 302

  • G.R. No. L-36364 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO DASCIL, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 309

  • G.R. No. L-38423 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL PIMENTEL

    204 Phil. 327

  • G.R. No. L-38449 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANZANO

    204 Phil. 339

  • G.R. No. L-50548 November 25, 1982 - CONCHING ALVARO, ET AL. v. HOSPICIO ZAPATA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 356

  • G.R. No. L-56025 November 25, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 364

  • G.R. Nos. L-56224-26 November 25, 1982 - PURISIMA GESTOSO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 372

  • G.R. Nos. L-61067-68 November 25, 1982 - MITSUI & CO., LTD. v. MANUEL G. ABELLO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 384

  • G.R. No. L-33724 November 29, 1982 - ELIGIA BATBATAN. v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAGADIAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 379