Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-26243 September 30, 1982 - CLARA REGALARIO v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

202 Phil. 366:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-26243. September 30, 1982.]

CLARA REGALARIO, Petitioner, v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, and HOSE QUI, Respondents.

Vicente P. Fernando & Cesar D. Santamaria for Petitioner.

Antonio N. Lucero, Jr. for Northwest Finance Corp.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent Jose Qui obtained a loan from co-respondent Northwest Finance Corporation secured by a chattel mortgage over a van. When said loan matured without being paid, respondent Corporation filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance for foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. Petitioner Clara Regalario timely filed a complaint in intervention claiming that she is the true owner of said van and that if Qui was able to register it in his name it was thru fraud and misrepresentation. Both respondents averred that petitioner had sold the van to Qui. The lower court rendered its decision finding petitioner to be the true owner of the van and ordering its return to her. On appeal by respondents, the Court of Appeals found and petitioner did not deny that at the time Qui mortgaged the van, he had in his favor a deed of sale executed by petitioner although the latter impugns its validity by orally claiming that vendee failed to pay the stated P10,000 consideration. The appellate court thus modified the decision by declaring Qul the owner of the van. Hence, this petition.

The Supreme Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals, more so, since the issues raised are factual. It ruled that parole evidence will not lie to impugn the validity of the duly notarized deed of sale executed by petitioner in favor of respondent Qui; and that the rights of mortgagee-corporation should be upheld, who as a third party in good faith had every right to rely on the registration certificate issued pursuant to the deed of sale.

Decision affirmed in toto.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY THEREOF; FINDINGS OF FACT OF COURT OF APPEALS RESPECTED. — This Court finds no cogent or compelling reason to disturb the findings of the respondent Court of Appeals and accordingly affirms in toto the appealed decision, more so, since the questions raised are essentially factual and respondent court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence of record and will not be reviewed by the Court, save in the known exceptions such as gross misappreciation of the evidence or a total void of evidence.

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; PAROLE EVIDENCE, CANNOT NEGATE RECITALS OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT. — Respondent Qui claims ownership over the van by virtue of the deed of sale executed by petitioner in his favor (Exhibit C). However, petitioner impugns the validity of the deed of sale, claiming that the sale was not consummated for failure of respondent to pay the purchase price of P10,000.00. The Court of Appeals correctly found and ruled that," (T)his unsupported verbal claim of the intervenor is insufficient to overthrow Exhibit C wherein it is recited that she ‘sold, transferred and conveyed’ the truck to Jose Qui ‘for and in consideration of the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) Philippine Currency and other valuable considerations, receipt of which is- hereby acknowledged from Jose Qui.’ To overcome a public document solemnly executed before a notary public, the evidence to the contrary must be clear, strong and convincing.’’ Parole evidence will not suffice to negate the clear and positive recitals of a public document not otherwise tainted with fraud or falsification.

3. CIVIL LAW; CHATTEL MORTGAGE; RIGHT OF THIRD PARTY IN GOOD FAITH TO RELY ON GENUINENESS OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE COVERING CHATTEL. — Respondent corporation as a third party in good faith had every right to rely on the genuineness and regularity of the clean registration certificate covering the motor vehicle in the name of respondent Qul, issued pursuant to petitioner’s sale thereof in favor of said respondent Qui and its rights as mortgagee thereof must be upheld.


D E C I S I O N


TEEHANKEE, J.:


This is an appeal by certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals * in CA-G.R. No. 31845-R which reversed the lower court’s decision in so far as it declared petitioner Clara Regalario as the true and lawful owner of a Ford Van and declared instead respondent Jose Qui as the owner thereof and sustained respondent Northwest Finance Corporation’s taking possession of the vehicle in its replevin action below in order to foreclose the chattel mortgage thereon in its favor.

Respondent Jose Qui had obtained a loan of P15,000.00 from his co-respondent Northwest Finance Corporation secured by a chattel mortgage over a Ford Van and payable within one year. When the loan matured without respondent Qui having paid the loan or any part of it despite repeated demands, Northwest Finance Corporation, as plaintiff, filed its complaint below in the Court of First Instance of Manila against its co-respondent Qui as defendant, demanding the return of the vehicle and or delivery of the same to the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal for the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage in its favor. Upon respondent corporation’s filing of a bond in an amount double the value of the vehicle, the trial court issued a writ of replevin and the motor vehicle was seized by the sheriff.

In his answer to the complaint, respondent Qui, while admitting the due execution of the promissory note and the chattel mortgage, interposed as defense that the obligation had not yet matured because he was given a six months extension of the maturity date of the promissory note.

Herein petitioner Clara Regalario, with leave of court, timely filed a complaint in intervention claiming that she is the true owner of the vehicle in question having purchased the same from the Manila Trading Supply, Inc., in installments with respondent Qui as guarantor thereof and alleged, among other things that respondent Qui was never the owner and/or possessor of the subject motor vehicle and did not have the legal right nor authority to mortgage it with respondent Northwest Finance Corporation. She likewise alleged that if ever respondent Qui was able to register the motor vehicle in his name, the same was done through fraudulent means and misrepresentations.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In reply to the complaint in intervention, respondent corporation denied that petitioner is the owner of the motor vehicle in question, since she had sold the same to respondent Qui. On the other hand, respondent Qui in his answer to the complaint in intervention avers that petitioner duly sold the vehicle to him and denied that the truck was registered in his name through fraudulent means.

The lower court, after trial, rendered its decision as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

`. . . judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Jose Qui, (1) ordering the latter to pay the former the amount of P15,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from February 17, 1962 until the same is fully paid, plus P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs of this action; (2) ordering the plaintiff to return possession of the truck in question to the intervenor; (3) ordering the plaintiff and defendant Jose Qui, jointly and severally to pay the intervenor the amount of P10,000.00 as exemplary and moral damages, plus P4,000 as attorney’s fees; (4) declaring the registration of the truck in the name of Jose Qui null and void and of no legal effect; (5) ordering the plaintiff to pay damages at the rate of P20.00 daily from the date of the issuance of the writ of replevin as damages as a result thereof until the truck in question is returned to Intervenor; and (6) the costs of this action.’

which decision was later modified, on motion of petitioner Regalario, to include the proviso that "in case the said truck can no longer be delivered by the plaintiff to the Intervenor, for any reason whatsoever, (it) shall indemnify the Intervenor in the amount of P20,000.00, the value of the said truck."cralaw virtua1aw library

Both respondents appealed the lower court’s decision. The Court of Appeals, in its decision at bar, modified the lower court’s above-quoted judgment as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) that part of the dispositive portion which orders Jose Qui to pay the plaintiff [corporation] the amount of P15,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from February 17, 1962 until the same is fully paid, plus P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, is hereby affirmed; (2) the rest of the dispositive portion is hereby set aside and another one is entered in its stead, declaring Jose Qui owner of the Ford Van in question, subject, however, to the plaintiff’s right to foreclose on the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner filed the instant petition of appeal by certiorari seeking the reversal of the appellate court’s decision, which the Court finds without merit.

It appears that during the hearing of the case in the lower court, petitioner filed two criminal actions for falsification against respondent Qui in the offices of the City Fiscals of Manila and Quezon City, both of which were dismissed. In the Court of Appeals, respondent Qui, to support his assigned error that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial, submitted a memorandum supported by the testimonies of the witnesses in the investigation of the criminal cases in the fiscal’s office. Petitioner now impugns the admission by the appellate court of the testimonies given in the fiscal’s office on the ground that such testimonies were not presented in the trial court and without a motion for new trial having been filed in the appellate court.

While technically, evidence not submitted before the lower court may not be considered by the appellate court on appeal, the rule admits of exceptions where as in this case the testimonies have been duly transcribed in regular proceedings which have not been impugned by the parties who themselves were also the protagonists therein. In such cases, what matters is the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business. We therefore find merit in the Court of Appeals’ reasoning that" (W)ere we to remand the case to the court of origin, Jose Qui would only present the testimonies of the witnesses who testified in the criminal investigations and the intervenor would do the same. Inasmuch as the testimonies have been admitted by us and are now actually before us, and since Jose Qui and the intervenor, by presenting the said testimonies, have admitted in effect the regularity of the proceedings before the City Fiscals of Manila and Quezon City, it is our considered opinion that pursuant to Section 2, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court, 1 we may consider the testimonies in the criminal investigations together with that evidence adduced in the trial below, and render such judgment as ought to be rendered in view of the whole record of the case. This determination is practical and avoids further delay without detriment to the interest of justice."cralaw virtua1aw library

The main issue raised in this appeal is the correctness of respondent court’s ruling that the rightful owner of the motor vehicle Ford Van at the time it was mortgaged by respondent Qui to his co-respondent corporation rather than petitioner Regalario as contrarily held by the lower court.cralawnad

In ruling for respondent Qui, the Court of Appeals made the following findings of fact:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is established and there is no debate over the fact that the intervenor originally owned the truck. She purchased it from the Manila Trading Company on installment in 1958, Exhibits 3, 4 and 5, with Jose Qui as guarantor or surety, and for a time she exercised dominion over it by mortgaging the same to different persons, Exhibits 11 and 13. — On August 15, 1960, however, she executed a deed of sale of the vehicle in favor of Jose Qui as shown by the public document, Exhibit C. The execution of this document is not denied by the intervenor, but she impugns the validity of the same by orally claiming that the deed of sale was not consummated because Jose Qui, the vendee, failed to pay the stated consideration of P10,000.00. This unsupported verbal claim of the intervenor is insufficient to overthrow Exhibit C wherein it is recited that she `sold, transferred and conveyed’ the truck to Jose Qui `for and in consideration of the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) Philippine Currency and other valuable considerations, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged from JOSE QUI’. To overcome a public document solemnly executed before a notary public, the evidence to the contrary must be clear, strong and convincing. Furthermore, the claim of the intervenor that the vendee failed to pay the stated consideration of P10,000.00 is rendered incredible by certain indubitable and admitted facts. In August, 1960, when Exhibit C was executed, Jose Qui was the owner of the Grace Park Winding Factory, a business enterprise engaged in the manufacture and winding of sewing thread, capitalized at more than P800,000.00 (CA-G.R. Nos. 31736-R, 31738-R, 31761-R and 31776-R). As the intervenor herself testified in the criminal investigations, her common-law husband, Vicente Chua, was procuring thread for her from the Grace Park Winding before 1958 and up to 1960 for distribution and sale in the provinces (p. 10, Annex C, Memorandum of Jose Qui), without her being able to pay all the large stocks of thread taken from Jose Qui (p. 13, Ibid.), such that as of 1960, after dealing with Jose Qui for three years, her running account increased to over P48,000.00 (pp. 15, 17, Ibid.). Vicente Chua declared also during the criminal investigations that on December 24, 1960 he issued a check for P48,943.25 in favor of Jose Qui to show their indebtedness (pp. 50-51, Annex D), and in this declaration the intervenor corroborated her common-law husband. The wife of Jose Qui, on her part, declared that in 1960 she told Vicente Chua to start paying their indebtedness because it was getting big, but since Chua and the intervenor had no cash they sold the truck in question to Jose Qui for P10,000.00, and the consideration was set off against their indebtedness of P58,943.25 leaving a balance of P48,943.25, for which Vicente Chua issued a check (pp. 16-26, Annex E; p. 7, Annex J). Upon the foregoing considerations, we cannot sustain the stand of the intervenor that Jose Qui failed to pay the consideration. We are inclined to believe that, as per the recital in Exhibit C, there was a valid consideration.

This Court finds no cogent or compelling reason to disturb the findings of the respondent Court of Appeals and accordingly affirms in toto the appealed decision, more so, since the questions raised are essentially factual and respondent court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence of record and will not be reviewed by the Court, save in the known exceptions such as gross misappreciation of the evidence or a total void of evidence.

Respondent Qui claims ownership over the van by virtue of the deed of sale executed by petitioner in his favor (Exhibit C). However, petitioner impugns the validity of the deed of sale, claiming that the sale was not consummated for failure of respondent to pay the purchase price of P10,000.00. The Court of Appeals correctly found and ruled that," (T)his unsupported verbal claim of the intervenor is insufficient to overthrow Exhibit C wherein it is recited that she `sold, transferred and conveyed’ the truck to Jose Qui `for and in consideration of the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) Philippine Currency and other valuable considerations, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged from Jose Qui.’ To overcome a public document solemnly executed before a notary public, the evidence to the contrary must be clear, strong and convincing." Parole evidence will not suffice to negate the clear and positive recitals of a public document not otherwise tainted with fraud or falsification.

Here, there is ample evidence on record before respondent court to sustain its findings and conclusion that there was indeed consideration, by way of set-off, for respondent Qui’s purchase of the van. Respondent court duly found that since Chua (petitioner’s common-law husband) and petitioner had no cash to pay their indebtedness to respondent Qui, they sold to him the van in question for P10,000.00 and the consideration was set-off and credited against their indebtedness of P58,943.25.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Finally, respondent corporation as a third party in good faith had every right to rely on the genuineness and regularity of the clean registration certificate covering the motor vehicle in the name of respondent Qui, issued pursuant to petitioner’s sale thereof in favor of said respondent Qui and its rights as the mortgagee thereof must be upheld.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 31845-R dated June 16, 1966 is hereby affirmed in all respects. With costs against petitioner.

Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Sixth Division, then composed of Villamor, J. ponente and Esguerra and Nolasco, JJ.,

1. The text of the cited rule is reproduced by respondent court and reads as follows: "Sec. 2. Hearing and order. — The Court of Appeals shall consider the new evidence together with that adduced on the trial below, and may grant or refuse a new trial, or may make such order, with notice to both parties, as to taking further testimony, either orally in court, or by depositions, or render judgment as ought to be rendered, in view of the whole case, upon such terms as it may deem just." (Rule 53)




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






September-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-31276 September 9, 1982 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-31854 September 9, 1982 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. ROSA GANAYO

    202 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-32260 September 9, 1982 - RAYMUNDA VDA. DE SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. SIXTO TAN

    202 Phil. 31

  • G.R. No. L-38579 September 9, 1982 - JULIET T. DIOQUINO v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 35

  • G.R. No. L-39154 September 9, 1982 - LITEX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40641 September 9, 1982 - FILOMENO ABROT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 53

  • G.R. No. L-42335 September 9, 1982 - PEDRO AMIGABLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-52410 September 9, 1982 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 66

  • G.R. No. L-40791 September 11, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MALATE

    202 Phil. 74

  • G.R. No. L-41115 September 11, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48756 September 11, 1982 - K.O. GLASS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. MANUEL VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-49524 September 11, 1982 - LEONARDO GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59825 September 11, 1982 - ERNESTO MEDINA, ET AL. v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

    202 Phil. 163

  • G.R. No. L-60368 September 11, 1982 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 172

  • A.C. No. 2784-M September 21, 1982 - CECILIO P. IYOG v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO

    202 Phil. 175

  • G.R. No. L-23106 September 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE

    202 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-28774 September 21, 1982 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-27886 September 21, 1982 - CELSO VALERA v. DOMINGO BAÑEZ

    202 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-29255 September 21, 1982 - LEONARDO MIÑANO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO MIÑANO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 213

  • G.R. No. L-48547 September 21, 1982 - ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 215

  • G.R. No. L-55315 September 21, 1982 - WILLIAM COLE, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA CASUGA VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 226

  • G.R. No. L-56014 September 21, 1982 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. JOSE TECSON

    202 Phil. 240

  • G.R. No. L-56902 September 21, 1982 - CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-57892 September 21, 1982 - ANASTACIO AREVALO v. VALENTIN QUILATAN

    202 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-59962 September 21, 1982 - RICARTE B. VILLEGAS v. RAMON MONTAÑO

    202 Phil. 265

  • G.R. No. L-22414 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 270

  • G.R. No. L-36850 September 23, 1982 - ROSARIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. PILAR ONG CHUA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. L-50905 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JUMAWAN

    202 Phil. 294

  • G.R. No. L-52178 September 28, 1982 - DEMETRIO ERNESTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 310

  • A.C. No. 439 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES

    202 Phil. 322

  • A.C. No. 681 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO GUEVARA v. MAXIMO CALALANG

    202 Phil. 328

  • A.M. No. 1879-MJ September 30, 1982 - ROSALITO FAJARDO v. GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 332

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI September 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    202 Phil. 336

  • A.M. No. 2415-CFI September 30, 1982 - TOMAS SHAN, JR. v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    202 Phil. 354

  • A.M. No. P-2710 September 30, 1982 - BARBARA PIOQUINTO v. LUCRECIA A. HERNANDEZ

    202 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-25778 September 30, 1982 - JOESTEEL CONTAINER CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCING CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-26243 September 30, 1982 - CLARA REGALARIO v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-26289 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: JUAN N. PECKSON v. GABRIEL F. ANADASE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 374

  • G.R. No. L-27695 September 30, 1982 - ANTONIO CALLANTA v. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 377

  • G.R. No. L-27819 September 30, 1982 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-28501 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ARCE v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

    202 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-28996 September 30, 1982 - MAXIMO SANTOS, ET AL. v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-29086 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO GOMEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 395

  • G.R. No. L-29590 September 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-29636 September 30, 1982 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. MARINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL.

    202 Phil. 410

  • G.R. No. L-30353 September 30, 1982 - PATRICIO BELLO v. EUGENIA UBO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-30452 September 30, 1982 - MERCURY DRUG CO., INC. v. NARDO DAYAO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 424

  • G.R. No. L-30455 September 30, 1982 - MARIA LANDAYAN, ET AL. v. ANGEL BACANI, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 445

  • G.R. No. L-30994 September 30, 1982 - OLIMPIA BASA, ET AL. v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 452

  • G.R. No. L-31226 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BELLO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-32383 September 30, 1982 - BAZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. BOLINAO SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION SERVICE, INC.

    202 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-32860 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-33995 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO C. DE GUZMAN v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-34200 September 30, 1982 - REGINA L. EDILLON, ET AL. v. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-34947 September 30, 1982 - ESTEBAN MEDINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-37431 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ENTERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-37733 September 30, 1982 - ALMARIO T. SALTA v. JESUS DE VEYRA

    202 Phil. 527

  • G.R. No. L-38603 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO CHAVEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-38728 September 30, 1982 - CONRADO V. MACATANGAY v. CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    202 Phil. 545

  • G.R. No. L-39026 September 30, 1982 - SOTERO RECTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39401 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO SIMBRA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39644 September 30, 1982 - EDUARDO BIEN, ET AL. v. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-39716 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. GABIANA

    202 Phil. 577

  • G.R. No. L-40842 September 30, 1982 - BENJAMIN A. G. VEGA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 587

  • G.R. No. L-41052 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY GASENDO

    202 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-43783 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM BOKINGKITO TERANO

    202 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. 44033 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BESO, JR.

    202 Phil. 618

  • G.R. No. L-44408 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SAMBILI

    202 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-45430 September 30, 1982 - DESA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-45436 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PON-AN

    202 Phil. 653

  • G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MENDOZA

    202 Phil. 660

  • G.R. Nos. L-46068-69 September 30, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46125 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON ALVIS, JR.

    202 Phil. 682

  • G.R. No. L-48478 September 30, 1982 - AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48727 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH D. LEONES

    202 Phil. 703

  • G.R. No. L-48747 September 30, 1982 - ANGEL JEREOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 715

  • G.R. No. L-49307 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MALATE

    202 Phil. 721

  • G.R. No. L-49990 September 30, 1982 - UNITED STATES LINES, INC. v. AMADO INCIONG, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 729

  • G.R. No. L-50378 September 30, 1982 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

    202 Phil. 741

  • G.R. No. L-51042 September 30, 1982 - DIONISIO MALACORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 756

  • G.R. No. L-52059 September 30, 1982 - BONIFACIA CALVERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 774

  • G.R. No. L-52061 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALUSTIANO LOOD

    202 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-53627 September 30, 1982 - CAPITAL GARMENT CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 797

  • G.R. No. L-53983 September 30, 1982 - LUCIANA DALIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54204 September 30, 1982 - NORSE MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-54272-73 September 30, 1982 - JUAN C. CALUBAQUIB v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 817

  • G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 850

  • G.R. No. L-55225 September 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF CATALINO JARDIN, ET AL v. HEIRS OF SIXTO HALLASGO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 858

  • G.R. No. L-56624 September 30, 1982 - DARNOC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AYALA CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 865

  • G.R. Nos. L-56950-51 September 30, 1982 - M. F. VIOLAGO OILER TANK TRUCKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 872

  • G.R. No. L-57387 September 30, 1982 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 881

  • G.R. No. L-58187 September 30, 1982 - REMEDIOS VELASCO VDA. DE CALDITO v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO, ETC., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 900

  • G.R. No. L-58452 September 30, 1982 - RAZA APPLIANCE CENTER v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

    202 Phil. 903

  • G.R. No. L-58610 September 30, 1982 - BABELO BERIÑA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE MARITIME INSTITUTE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 908

  • G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES

    202 Phil. 912

  • G.R. No. L-58820 September 30, 1982 - BENITO E. DOMINGUEZ, JR. v. FILIPINAS INTEGRATED SERVICES CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 916

  • G.R. No. L-59234 September 30, 1982 - TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 925

  • G.R. No. L-59935 September 30, 1982 - FLORA DE GRACIA REGNER VDA. DE DAYRIT v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    202 Phil. 937

  • G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982 - VENUSTIANO T. TAVORA v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO

    202 Phil. 943

  • G.R. No. L-60602 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: MA. DEL SOCORRO SOBREMONTE, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 949

  • G.R. No. L-60637 September 30, 1982 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 959

  • G.R. No. L-60842 September 30, 1982 - ROLANDO DIMACUHA v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION

    202 Phil. 961