Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > November 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. 73304 November 9, 1988 - GLORIA DELA CRUZ VDA. DE NABONG v. QUIRINO R. SADANG:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 73304. November 9, 1988.]

GLORIA DELA CRUZ VDA. DE NABONG, Petitioner, v. HON. QUIRINO R. SADANG, Regional Trial Court, Br. XXVIII; Third Judicial Region, Cabanatuan City, Sps. PEDRO SUNGA and MELITONA IGNACIO, Respondents.

Emanuel A. Nabong for Petitioner.

Adriano B. Magbitang for respondent Melitona Ignacio.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL ACTIONS; THIRD PARTY CLAIM; CLAIMANT DOES NOT INCLUDE JUDGMENT DEBTOR; CLAIM BY SPOUSE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR NOT IMPLEADED AS PARTY, NOT A THIRD PARTY CLAIM. — From the provision of Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, it is clear that a third party claim must be filed by a person other than the judgment debtor (defendant) or his agent. In the present case, although Ignacio was not named as defendant there is no doubt that as a wife of defendant Sunga she shares a common interest with him in the litigation. Indeed she represented herself to be the agent of Sunga by signing the answer in their behalf.1 She is therefore as much a judgment debtor and agent of the defendant and not a third party to the litigation.

2. ID.; ID.; JUDGMENTS; TRIAL COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO VARY OR MODIFY FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS. — The trial court has no authority to vary or modify such final and executory judgment. Its only duty is to execute the same in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof.

3. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI REQUIRING A PARTY TO PUT UP AN INDEMNITY BOND, A REQUIREMENT NOT CONTAINED IN THE DISPOSITIVE PART OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT, CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — The trial court obviously committed a grave abuse of discretion in requiring petitioner to put up an indemnity bond to secure said third party claim before possession of the property can be turned over to the Samahang Nayon ng Mag-asawang Sampaloc. This requirement is not contained in the dispositive part of the final judgment of the appellate court.

4. ID.; CIVIL ACTIONS; JUDGMENT; EXECUTION NOT IN HARMONY WITH JUDGMENT HAS PRO TANTO NO VALIDITY. — Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXECUTION OF A FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT, MINISTERIAL. — The execution of a final and executory judgment is mandatory and its execution is a ministerial act. In this case wherein it is clearly stated in the dispositive part of the final judgment that the claim of ownership of Ignacio should be determined in a separate action and that the subject property should be delivered to the possession of the Samahang Nayon ng Mag-asawang Sampaloc, no other condition should be imposed for such delivery of the property.


D E C I S I O N


GANCAYCO, J.:


Can the execution of a final and executory judgment be frustrated by a third party claim? This is the issue in this petition.

There were four antecedent cases between Ignacio Nabong and Pedro Sunga involving subject property as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) CAR Case No. 5728 (Pedro Sunga v. Ignacio Nabong) filed on September 28, 1970, for leasehold and fixing of the lease rentals which was decided by the Agrarian Court on December 29, 1971, in favor of Sunga, with rentals fixed at 23 cavans of 46 kilos and 15 kilos every agricultural year.

(2) CAR Case No. 6990 (Ignacio Nabong v. Pedro Sunga) filed on December 20, 1974, for collection of rentals. In this case, Sunga set up the defense of ownership by his wife Melitona Ignacio. On June 17, 1976, the Agrarian Court decided the case in favor of Nabong. On appeal by Sunga, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. L-05749 affirmed the decision of the Agrarian Court, holding that Sunga as tenant cannot deny the title of Nabong to the landholding. Sunga was required to pay arrearages in rentals.

(3) CAR Case No. 7160 (Ignacio Nabong v. Pedro Sunga) filed in the Agrarian Court for ejectment. This case was dismissed because of agrarian laws against the ejectment of tenants.

(4) CAR Case No. 7373 (Ignacio Nabong v. Pedro Sunga and the Samahang Nayon of Mag-asawang Sampaloc, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija) filed in the Agrarian Court on February 12, 1979. During the pendency of this case, Nabong died on May 26, 1979, and was substituted by his wife, Gloria dela Cruz, the herein petitioner. Among the causes of action in said case was to transfer the landholding tenanted by Sunga to the Samahang Nayon of Mag-asawang Sampaloc, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija, in accordance with P.D. No. 816 and collection of rentals. By way of Answer filed on March 6, 1979, Sunga claimed for the second time ownership of the land by his wife, Melitona Ignacio, who signed the answer in their behalf.

The trial court dismissed the case on the ground of abandonment of the landholding by Sunga and for lack of jurisdiction to decide the issue of ownership.

A petition for review of said decision was filed with the then Intermediate Appellate Court docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 14440. On August 23, 1983, the case was decided, the dispositive portion of which reads —

"In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered setting aside the orders of the lower court of March 29, 1982, April 14, 1982 and April 29, 1982, and rendering a new judgment ordering the defendant Pedro Sunga to pay to plaintiff the stipulated rentals of the landholding in question at the rate of twenty-three cavans of forty six (46) kilos and fifteen (15) kilos per agricultural year beginning May 1973 until the time that said defendant has actually abandoned said landholding and turning over said landholding to the Samahang Nayon of Mag-asawang Sampaloc, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija for reassignment to qualified members of said association pursuant to Section 4 of P.D. No. 816.

"In connection with the execution of the judgment in this case, the lower court is hereby directed to fix, after notice and hearing to the parties, the time when defendant Pedro Sunga had actually abandoned said landholding.

"This decision, however, is without prejudice to any action that may be filed by Melitona Ignacio to establish her claim that she is the owner of the landholding in question in a proper suit before the proper forum." (p. 60, Rollo)

In due course, a writ of execution of said final judgment was issued by the trial court. Melitona Ignacio filed in said court a third party claim through her affidavit claiming ownership of the property. She alleged that she is single, that she inherited the property from her father and that Pedro Sunga was merely her helper in the cultivation of the property. This claim was denied by the trial court on December 27, 1983 without prejudice on the part of said claimant to file the corresponding action. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Ignacio but this was denied on February 1, 1984.

Thereafter, Ignacio filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession, quieting of title and damages with preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City against the Heirs of Ignacio Nabong, Samahang Nayon ng Mag-asawang Sampaloc, and the Provincial Sheriff docketed as Civil Case No. 8156.

Ignacio then filed a third party claim by affidavit with the sheriff on June 25, 1984. On December 3, 1984, the trial court issued an order in said agrarian case requiring plaintiff to file a bond in a sum not greater than the value of the property being levied to indemnify the sheriff against the third party claim. A motion to set aside said order filed by plaintiff was denied in an order of December 21, 1984.

On August 5, 1985, plaintiff filed a motion for writ of possession/execution for the turn over of the property to the Samahang Nayon ng Mag-asawang Sampaloc. The trial court issued an order on November 5, 1985 requiring plaintiff to post an indemnity bond. A motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff was denied on November 26, 1985.

Hence, this petition assailing the said orders of the trial court of December 3, 1984, December 21, 1984, November 5, 1985 and November 26, 1985 to have been issued in grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of jurisdiction.

The petition is impressed with merit.

The final judgment of the appellate court is explicit. Defendant Sunga was ordered to pay plaintiff the specified rentals of the landholding beginning May, 1975 until defendant actually abandoned the same and the trial court will fix after notice and hearing the time defendant abandoned the said landholding. It was also ordered that said landholding be turned over to the Samahang Nayon ng Mag-asawang Sampaloc, General Natividad, Nueva Ecija for reassignment to qualified members of the association pursuant to Section 4, P.D. No. 816. The decision is "without prejudice to any action that may be filed by Melitona Ignacio to establish her claim that she is the owner of the landholding in question in a proper forum."cralaw virtua1aw library

Although Ignacio is not formally named as a party defendant in said case, it was Ignacio who signed the answer to the complaint in behalf of her husband Sunga and in her behalf in which she claimed ownership over the landholding. She is not a third party in said case. Her right to file a separate suit was even reserved.

Thus, when a writ of execution of said judgment was issued by the trial court, it was error for the trial court to give due course to the third party claim of Ignacio.

Under Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, it is provided that —

Sec. 17. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. — If property levied on be claimed by any other person than the judgment debtor or his agent, and such person make an affidavit of his title thereto or light to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serve the same upon the officer making the levy, and a copy thereof upon the judgment creditor, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment creditor or his agent, on demand of the officer, indemnify the officer against such claim by a bond in a sum not greater than the value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of execution.

The officer is not liable for damages, for the taking or keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant unless a claim is made by the latter and unless an action for damages is brought by him against the officer with in one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond. But nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property by any proper action.

When the party in whose favor the writ of execution runs, is the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose. (Italics supplied)

From the foregoing provision, it is clear that a third party claim must be filed by a person other than the judgment debtor (defendant) or his agent.

In the present case, although Ignacio was not named as defendant there is no doubt that as a wife of defendant Sunga she shares a common interest with him in the litigation. Indeed she represented herself to be the agent of Sunga by signing the answer in their behalf. 1 She is therefore as much a judgment debtor and agent of the defendant and not a third party to the litigation.

Of course in a total turn about, in her affidavit to support her third party claim, she alleges that she is single and that Sunga was only her helper in the land, not her husband. This masquerade which is belied by the records showing she is actually the spouse of Sunga cannot be dignified as to justify the filing of the third party claim.

The trial court obviously committed a grave abuse of discretion in requiring petitioner to put up an indemnity bond to secure said third party claim before possession of the property can be turned over to the Samahang Nayon ng Mag-asawang Sampaloc. This requirement is not contained in the dispositive part of the final judgment of the appellate court. The trial court has no authority to vary or modify such final and executory judgment. 2 Its only duty is to execute the same in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity. 3

The execution of a final and executory judgment is mandatory and its execution is a ministerial act. 4 In this case wherein it is clearly stated in the dispositive part of the final judgment that the claim of ownership of Ignacio should be determined in a separate action and that the subject property should be delivered to the possession of the Samahang Nayon ng Mag-asawang Sampaloc, no other condition should be imposed for such delivery of the property.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned orders of the trial court of December 3, 1984, December 24, 1984, November 5, 1985 and November 26, 1985 are set aside as null and void, and the trial court is directed to enforce the execution of the judgment in AC-G.R. SP No. 1440 without further delay with costs against private respondents. This judgment is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Section 2, Rule 3, Rules of Court.

2. Ang Li Chi v. Castelo, et. al., 83 Phil. 263; Mata v. Reyes. L-29433, May 31, 1974; Damaso v. Montemayor, L-3737, December 27, 1950.

3. Velez v. Martinez, 63 Phil. 231; Dollente v. Blanco, L-3525, November 29, 1950; Collector of Internal Revenue v. Gutierrez, L-13819, May 25, 1960.

4. Zulueta v. Paredes, 63 Phil. 1, 5.




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-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-37010 November 7, 1988 - JESUS MANAHAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-56464 November 7, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO MALMIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48278 November 7, 1988 - AURORA TAMBUNTING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51806 November 8, 1988 - CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53798 November 8, 1988 - ALBERTO C. ROXAS, ET AL. v. MARINA BUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55230 November 8, 1988 - RICHARD J. GORDON v. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69778 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO TABAGO

  • G.R. No. L-74051 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO RELLON

  • G.R. No. 75583 November 8, 1988 - GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION v. ANTONIO J. TEODORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77028 November 8, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77109 November 8, 1988 - ESTATE OF EUGENE J. KNEEBONE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77115 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO L. BANTAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78052 November 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO E. ROA

  • G.R. No. L-35434 November 9, 1988 - ISRAEL ANTONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-62386 November 9, 1988 - BATANGAS-I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE LABOR UNION v. ROMEO A. YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62680 November 9, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-63074-75 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRU LAPATHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 70565-67 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT POCULAN

  • G.R. No. 70766 November 9, 1988 - AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72383 November 9, 1988 - MARCELO SORIANO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73304 November 9, 1988 - GLORIA DELA CRUZ VDA. DE NABONG v. QUIRINO R. SADANG

  • G.R. No. 75433 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN P. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76026 November 9, 1988 - PORFIRIO JOPILLO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76565 November 9, 1988 - BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION v. EDILBERTO NOEL

  • G.R. No. 81948 November 9, 1988 - PAN-FIL CO., INC. v. GABRIEL I. AGUJAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70270 November 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO B. TURLA

  • G.R. Nos. 74297 & 74351 November 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR S. CARIÑO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 80485 November 11, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29420 November 14, 1988 - FELIX DE VILLA v. JOSE JACOB

  • G.R. No. L-33084 November 14, 1988 - ROSE PACKING COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38907 November 14, 1988 - NERIO BELVIS III v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39807 November 14, 1988 - HEIRS OF E. B. ROXAS, INC., ET AL. v. MACARIO TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46474 November 14, 1988 - CONCORDIA M. DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-61017-18 January 14, 1988 - FELIPE FAJELGA v. ROMEO M. ESCAREAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73828 November 14, 1988 - BENJAMIN S. APRIETO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73998 November 14, 1988 - PEDRO T. LAYUGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74387-90 November 14, 1988 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78848 November 14, 1988 - SHERMAN SHAFER v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OLONGAPO CITY, BRANCH 75, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988 - MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, ET AL. v. RAMON P. MAKASIAR

  • G.R. No. 74324 November 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PUGAY BALCITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74834 November 17, 1988 - INSULAR BANK OF ASIA & AMERICA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32242 November 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO T. CARIDO

  • G.R. No. L-64656 November 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 76974 November 18, 1988 - BENITO LIM v. RODOLFO D. RODRIGO

  • G.R. No. L-68857 November 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO M. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. 78794 November 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ELIZAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47045 November 22, 1988 - NOBIO SARDANE v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71110 November 22, 1988 - PAZ VILLAGONZALO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77860 November 22, 1988 - BOMAN ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31440 November 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BANDOQUILLO

  • G.R. No. L-37048 November 23, 1988 - NICOLAS LAURENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47726 November 23, 1988 - PAN REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48302 November 23, 1988 - ARTURO DEL POZO, ET AL. v. ALFONSO PENACO

  • G.R. No. L-51996 November 23, 1988 - WESTERN MINOLCO CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-57005-07 November 23, 1988 - IMPERIAL VEGETABLE WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN A. VEGA

  • G.R. No. L-61375 November 23, 1988 - TRINIDAD S. ESTONINA v. SOUTHERN MARKETING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-65037 November 23, 1988 - CRESENCIO M. ROCAMORA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU BRANCH VIII, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75364 November 23, 1988 - ANTONIO LAYUG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76290 November 23, 1988 - MAMITA PARDO DE TAVERA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO A. CACDAC, JR.

  • G.R. No. 77968 November 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO MARAVILLA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 78359-60 November 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DESIDERIO G. ALIOCOD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-89-P November 24, 1988 - DOMINGA S. CUNANAN v. JOSE L. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-34116 November 24, 1988 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36788 November 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO LUARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38884 November 24, 1988 - SEVERINO MATEO v. ANDRES PLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46078 November 24, 1988 - ROMEO N. PORTUGAL, ET AL. v. RODRIGO R. REANTASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45266 November 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO PARDILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55960 November 24, 1988 - YAO KEE, ET AL. v. AIDA SY-GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69550 November 24, 1988 - MARIA LUISA O. COJUANGCO, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75755 November 24, 1988 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV’T. CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76835 November 24, 1988 - LUIS M. FUENTES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77976 November 24, 1988 - MAXIMO GABRITO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78061 November 24, 1988 - LITTON MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-KAPATIRAN, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

  • G.R. Nos. 82282-83 November 24, 1988 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82405-06 November 24, 1988 - BANQUE DE L’ INDOCHINE ET DE SUEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON AM. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 84610 November 24, 1988 - MEDCO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41014 November 28, 1988 - PACIFIC BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-59981 November 28, 1988 - SALVADOR SAPUGAY v. NATIVIDAD C. BOBIS

  • G.R. No. L-69970 November 28, 1988 - FELIX DANGUILAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 79677 November 28, 1988 - PEOPLE v. VICTOR MEJIAS

  • G.R. No. L-34548 November 29, 1988 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. PACIFICO P. DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-34836 November 29, 1989

    LINDA TARUC v. VICENTE G. ERICTA

  • G.R. No. L-46048 November 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-46612 November 29, 1988 - SILVERIO GODOY v. NIÑO T. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-48457 November 29, 1988 - PERLA HERNANDEZ v. PEDRO C. QUITAIN

  • G.R. No. L-48974 November 29, 1989

    FRANCISCO MASCARIÑA v. EASTERN QUEZON COLLEGE

  • G.R. No. L-55233 November 29, 1988 - CRISPULO GAROL v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-67229 November 29, 1988 - MARCELINO MEJIA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988 - NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71557 November 29, 1988 - PABLO S. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 72006 November 29, 1988 - FLORENCIO REYES, JR. v. LEONARDO M. RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 73421 November 29, 1988 - GROUP DEVELOPERS AND FINANCIERS, INC. v. LUMEN POLICARPIO

  • G.R. No. 74049 November 29, 1988 - MACARIO Q. FALCON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75042 November 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 77040 November 29, 1988 - ALEJANDRO MAGTIBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77227 November 29, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77395 November 29, 1988 - BELYCA CORP. v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 77541 November 29, 1988 - HEIRS OF GREGORIO TENGCO v. HEIRS OF JOSE ALIWALAS

  • G.R. No. 78012 November 29, 1988 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79552 November 29, 1988 - EVELYN J. SANGRADOR v. SPOUSES FRANCISCO VALDERRAMA

  • G.R. No. 80382 November 29, 1988 - DIONISIA ANTALLAN v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 80838 November 29, 1988 - ELEUTERIO C. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS