Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-53983 September 30, 1982 - LUCIANA DALIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-53983. September 30, 1982.]

SPOUSES LUCIANA DALIDA and PEDRO DALIDA, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JESUS P. ARLEGUI, Presiding Judge, CFI, 8th Judicial District, Branch VI, Balayan, Batangas and AGUSTIN T. RAMOS, Respondents.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office, for Petitioners.

Geofredo F. Mabunga for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Tomas Benitez was the bone fide and registered holder of Revocable Permit Application issued by the Bureau of Lands which allowed him to occupy and possess a parcel of land. When he died, his widow conveyed all their rights to said land to the private respondent Petitioner spouses who were employed as caretakers by Benitez, refused to vacate the land but instead applied for a miscellaneous sales application over the same. A complaint for illegal detainer "as thus filed by private respondent before the Municipal Court against said petitioners. Petitioners alleged that they were never employed as caretakers and that they possessed said land in the concept of owner. The municipal court rendered a decision in favor of respondent holding that petitioners were mere caretakers for the whole duration of their stay in said land and ordered petitioners to vacate the Court of First Instance and, later, the Court of Appeals affirmed said decision. Hence, this petition to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.


SYLLABUS


REMEDIAL LAW CIVIL ACTIONS; APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT; FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURT BINDING ON SUPREME COURT; EXCEPTIONS. — On appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, the latter may not review the findings of fact of the former. The rule, of course, is not absolute, and among the accepted exceptions are: the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation and conjectures, or the inferences made are manifestly absurd or impossible, or there is a grase abuse of discretion, or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, or the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the submission of both appellant and appellee (Fortun v. Novero, 23 SCRA 1330; Vargas v. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 195). None of these enumerated exceptions obtains in the instant case.


D E C I S I O N


DE CASTRO, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch VII which ordered herein petitioner to vacate the premises in question.

The facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Tomas Benitez was the bona fide and the registered holder of Revocable Permit Application No. V-13279 issued by the Bureau of Lands on August 15, 1945 which allowed him to occupy and possess a parcel of land located at Bonbon, Balayan, Batangas. While the original land area applied for by Benitez was for 4,000 square meters, his right to the land was disputed by adjoining land owners. To settle the dispute the area covered by Recoverable Permit Application No. V-13279 was reduced to 2,200 square meters for Benitez.

On October 19, 1971 Tomas Benitez died. On August 27, 1975 his widow Conchita Benitez conveyed all their rights to the 2,200 square meters lot to Agustin Benitez, private respondent herein. On August 30, 1975 Conchita Benitez formally advised spouses Pedro Dalida and Luciana Dalida, petitioners herein, who were then employed as caretakers of the land, to vacate the property and turn over the same to private respondent Agustin Ramos. The spouses did not heed the instruction of Benitez and instead, on September 25, 1975, applied with the Bureau of Lands for a miscellaneous sales application over 4,000 square meters of land, including that property covered by Revocable Permit Application No. V-13279 in the name of Tomas Benitez. On November 18, 1975 private respondent sent a demand letter to petitioner spouses to vacate and turn over the premises to the former. For failure of petitioners to leave the property, a complaint for illegal detainer dated January 17, 1976 was filed by private respondent before the Municipal Court of Balayan.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In an answer dated January 23, 1976 petitioners alleged that they were never employed as caretakers; that they were in actual and peaceful occupation and possession of the land in question since 1946; and that they occupied the land when it was still forested and were the ones who cleared and cultivated the same and introduced improvements thereon.

After trial and hearing the court a quo rendered a decision dated November 28, 1978 in favor of private respondent ordering petitioners to vacate the premises in question. The said court held that petitioners were merely caretakers for the whole length of time of their stay in the premises.

On Appeal to the Court of First Instance, the said court in a decision dated August 17,1979 affirmed in toto the decision of the court a quo.

Petitioners then filed a petition for review dated October 25, 1979 before the Court of Appeals and on March 10, 1980 the said court, as earlier mentioned, dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the judgment sought to be reviewed; hence, this present case, petitioners presenting the sole issue as to:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVATE

RESPONDENT HAS THE BETTER

RIGHT OF POSSESSION AS

AGAINST THE PETITIONERS"

Petitioners argue that although there exists Revocable Permit Application No. V-13279 in favor of private respondent, the said application was never approved by the Bureau of Lands. Such being the case, the land in question still belongs to the State forming part of the public domain since no title thereto either by sale or lease has been issued by the government. Petitioners claim that in a proceeding for unlawful detainer, the only issue is who between the litigants has a better right to the physical possession of the property. Since they have been in actual, open and continuous possession of the land in dispute from 1946 up to the present, they should be given the preferential right to the land being the actual occupants as against private respondent who only stepped into the shoes of applicant Tomas Benitez, who never actually possessed the land.

As appearing from the records of this case, these arguments have been brought out by petitioners in their memorandum dated November 21, 1977 1 filed in the court a quo and its petition for review dated October 25, 1979 2 presented before the Court of Appeals.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We agree with petitioners that in an action for illegal detainer the main issue is the determination of who between the rival claimants has a better right of possession with a view to protecting the same and preventing disorder and breaches of the peace. As found out by the court a quo, the Court of First Instance and finally the Court of Appeals, private respondent and/or his predecessor-in-interest, bona fide applicant of the land in dispute, had been in open, actual, exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the property in question in the concept of an owner for over thirty (30) years and petitioners were in fact residing on the same property as caretakers hired to oversee the land and the improvements thereon. On this point, We have to restate the settled rule in this jurisdiction that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive on this Court.chanrobles law library : red

In Fortun v. Novero, 3 this Court, reiterating the ruling in a long line of cases, stressed that on appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, the latter may not review the findings of fact of the former. The rule, of course, is not absolute, and among the accepted exceptions are: the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation and conjectures, or the inferences made are manifestly absurd or impossible, or there is a grave abuse of discretion, or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, or the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the submission of both appellant and appellee. 4 None of these enumerated exceptions obtains in the instant case. There is therefore no reason for Us to disturb the aforementioned findings of the Court of Appeals.

We have painstakingly gone over the records of the case to settle the question as to whether or not the Revocable Permit Application No. V-13279 was approved by the Bureau of Lands. In the hearing before the court a quo, Rodolfo V. Torres, District Land Officer of the Bureau of Lands in Batangas City, testified that an order was issued by their office on July 17, 1963 giving due course to the application of Tomas Benitez. 5 Likewise, he testified that their records show that the corresponding permit fee under Revocable Permit Application No. V-13279 of Tomas Benitez had been paid from the year 1956 up to 1960; that a permit had been paid on the same application on March 25, 1965. 6 The testimony of said official supported by exhibits relative to the claim of private respondent was given credit by the court a quo. Conclusion and findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons. This is so because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witness while testifying in the case. 7

It is thus clear that private respondent’s predecessor-in-interest was a bona fide applicant of the land in dispute and in his favor was duly issued a permit pursuant to Revocable Permit Application No. V-13279 dated 1945. Petitioners, on the other hand, have nothing giving them any right to possession other than that of mere caretakers as in the allegation of private respondent, who, by reason of the permit abovementioned, have solid basis of their claim to the right of possession with petitioners merely as caretakers.

There are compelling reasons of policy supporting the recognition of a right in a bona fide applicant who has occupied the land applied for. Recognition of the right encourages actual settlement; it discourages speculation and land-grabbing. It prevents conflicts and the overlapping of claims. It is an act of simple justice to the diligence of the pioneer, without which land settlement can not be encouraged or emigration from thickly populated areas hastened. 8

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed is affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on November 18, 1981 is hereby lifted. No pronouncement as to costs.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I reiterate my view that when a decision of the Court of Appeals is sustained for the same reasons given by it, as in this case, it is not time economical to write a decision because a simple denial of the petition for lack of merit is sufficient. For this reason I vote to deny the petition.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Endnotes:



1. Annex "F" of Petition, pp. 30-32, Rollo.

2. Annex "L" of Petition, pp. 80-82, Rollo.

3. 23 SCRA 1330. Se also Perido v. Perido, 63 SCRA 97; Chan v. Court of Appeals, 36 SCRA 737; Ramirez Telephone Corporation v. Bank of America, 29 SCRA 191; Lucero v. Loot, 25 SCRA 687; Tan v. Court of Appeals, 20 SCRA 54.

4. Vargas v. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 195.

5. Annex "G" of Petition, Decision of the Municipal Court, p. 46, Rollo.

6. Annex "G" of Petition, Decision of the Municipal Court, pp. 43-44, p. 58, Rollo.

7. People v. Balili, 92 SCRA 552.

8. Pitargue v. Sorilla, 92 Phil. 17.




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