Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > November 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-46612 November 29, 1988 - SILVERIO GODOY v. NIÑO T. RAMIREZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-46612. November 29, 1988.]

SILVERIO GODOY, ET AL., Petitioners, v. NIÑO T. RAMIREZ, ET AL. and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Vitaliano N. Aguirre II and Prudencio S. Saludares, for Petitioners.

Poblador, Nazareno, Azada, Tomacruz & Paredes for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; CIVIL CODE; PROPERTY; POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH; A BONA FIDE TENANT OF OCCUPANT IS ONE WHO SUPPOSES HE HAS GOOD TITLE AND KNOWS OF NO ADVERSE CLAIM. — As held in Bernardo, Et. Al. v. Bernardo, Et Al., a bona fide tenant or occupant, as contemplated in Commonwealth Act No. 539, is "one who supposes he has a good title and knows of no adverse claim (Philips v. Stroup, 17 Atl. 220, 221); one who not only honestly supposes himself to be vested with true title but is ignorant of a superior right to it (Gresham v. Ware, 79 Ala. 192, 199); definitions that correspond closely to that of a possessor in good faith in our Civil Law (Civil Code of 1889, art. 433; new Civil Code, art. 526).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ESSENCE OF BONA FIDE OR GOOD FAITH. — The essence of the bona fides or good faith, therefore, lies in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim and absence of intention to overreach another.


D E C I S I O N


REGALADO, J.:


Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. No. 51254-R, affirming the decision of the former Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. Q-12679 thereof, and its resolution denying herein petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.chanrobles law library : red

Petitioners brought an action in the court a quo for the annulment or rescission of a Conditional Contract to Sell executed between the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (hereinafter, PHHC for short), now the National Housing Corporation, and herein private respondent Niño T. Ramirez involving a parcel of land known as Lot 14, Block S-8, at Diliman, Quezon City, with an area of 1,419 square meters, more or less.

On March 15, 1958, said private respondent filed an application 2 for the purchase of said lot from the PHHC. After due processing, the lot was awarded to private respondent on March 28, 1958 and, pursuant thereto, private respondent made a down payment of P2,532.17, equivalent to 10% of the purchase price, and thereafter paid other additional amounts and amortizations. Said award was confirmed by the PHHC Board in its Resolution No. 981, dated January 25, 1967 3 in conjunction with a memorandum issued in connection therewith. 4 On January 12, 1968, the aforesaid Conditional Contract to Sell was executed whereby PHHC sold, transferred and conveyed to private respondent the aforesaid lot at the purchase price of P25,321.66 payable in ten years on monthly amortizations with 6% interest per annum. Private respondent, however, was unable to immediately occupy the lot due to a then existing lease agreement between the PHHC and the Armed Forces of the Philippines over an area including said lot. 5

On this particular score, the respondent court adopted and quotes with approval the findings of the trial court, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the evidence, it appears clearly established that the lot in question was leased by AFP personnel from the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation, the contract having been executed on October 4, 1956, for a term of one year, ending September 30, 1957 (Exh. 4). The contract was signed by Bernardino O. Lozada as Acting General Manager of the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation for the lessor and by Capt. Segundo S. Torres, the Commander of Detachment, Armed Forces of the Philippines on security details with the JUSMAG for himself and members of his detachment, as lessee. One of the terms of the lease agreement is that ‘the Lessee undertakes, at his own expense, the ejectment of all trespassers within the property; and upon termination of this lease, to remove all fixtures and improvements introduced into the premises during the effectivity of this lease (Exh. 4-A).

"It likewise appears beyond dispute that a request for the extension of the lease up to June 30, 1960 contained in a letter dated November 6, 1959, of Col. Eliezar C. Pinto covering Lots Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block S-8 was approved by the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation with the express condition that after said period, any further renewal will be subject to the consent of the awardee of said lots (See Exhs. 5-PHHC). As contained in the Resolution of the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation Board, Resolution No. 427 for Fiscal Year 1959-60, January 12, 1960, which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘RESOLVED, That the request for the extension of lease up to June 30, 1960, contained in the letter dated Nov. 6, 1959, of Col. Eliezar C. Pinto covering Lots Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block S-8, Diliman Estate Subdivision, be as it is hereby approved, provided however, that after said period, any further renewal will be subject to the consent of the awardee of said lots. Hence in the Deed of Renewal of Lease Agreement, executed on February 9, 1960 (Exh. 7-PHHC), there is a provision which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘. . . It is understood by the parties herein, however, that upon the expiration of this renewed lease agreement on June 30, 1960, further renewal of the same may be made only with the consent of the purchase awardees of the parcels of land subject hereof.

x       x       x


"While the plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they started to occupy the land in 1949, counsel in his memorandum stated that it was in 1953 or thereafter that the herein plaintiffs were transferred to their present site (Lot 5, Block S-8) from Timog Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City by the PHHC personnel upon request of their commanding officers. Whatever may be the true date when the plaintiffs commenced occupation of the lot in question, it is undeniable that they were allowed to occupy the land only as lessees. The evident reason for this seems to be that the area where the lot is located has been previously subdivided into relatively big lots for sale or disposition to a much higher income group than the plaintiffs, and so it was provided in the lease renewal contract that the consent of the awardees was required. Also the PHHC could have consented to the lease because as military men on special detail at the JUSMAG, their (plaintiffs’) stay there could be only temporary, subject to transfer anytime.

x       x       x


"Considering that the PHHC had already awarded these lots and in the absence of any substantial showing that the said awards should be set aside for having been made in violation of laws, policies and rules and regulations, it is the stand of this Committee that the same should be sustained and that the herein petition should be denied." 6

Not only are these factual findings binding on Us, the exceptions to such rule being absent, but the same are borne out by a careful review of the records.

The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the possession by petitioners of the lot involved in this case was upon mere tolerance by the Armed Forces of the Philippines during their temporary detail with the JUSMAG and, concurrently, during the existence of the lease agreement. After said lease expired, they were unlawfully withholding the land and were consequently under the obligation to vacate and surrender the premises to herein private respondent as the lawful awardee thereof. Petitioners’ continued actual physical possession of the premises thereafter did not detract a whit from the fact that they were already unlawful deforciants, and not bona fide occupants, hence they did not have any preferential right to acquire said lot.

Yet, despite the cessation of their detail with the JUSMAG and the termination of the lease agreement on which their erstwhile right of occupation was premised, petitioners not only refused to vacate the premises but they even protested the award of the lot to private Respondent. As already stated, the award was sustained by the PHHC after proper investigation and hearing since private respondent had all the requisite qualifications and had complied with all the terms and conditions of the contract.

Ineluctably, the trial court rendered the following judgment which was affirmed in full by the respondent court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint. However, defendant Ramirez’ counterclaim for the payment of rentals by plaintiffs is hereby dismissed, the Court being of the opinion that plaintiffs believe in good faith they (sic) they are entitled to a priority right in the acquisition of the lot in question induced by the recommendation of special investigators who looked into the merits of their petition for the subdivision of the lot and sale of the resulting smaller lots to each of the plaintiffs, which was in their favor and against the awardees. They are, however, directed to vacate the premises within 6 months from the date the decision becomes final, and should they fail to do so, they are directed to pay rental at the rate of P100.00 a month. Within said period of 6 months they may apply to the PHHC for such lots as may be available and the PHHC is hereby directed to give them preferential right over other applicants, conditions being equal." 7

From the established circumstances of this case, the fact that petitioners have their houses on the property in question and that they have no lots of their own is no reason why they should be better preferred than the private Respondent.chanrobles law library : red

Firstly, they have never been considered by the PHHC as, because in law and in fact they are not, bona fide occupants. As held in Bernardo, Et. Al. v. Bernardo, Et Al., 8 a bona fide tenant or occupant, as contemplated in Commonwealth Act No. 539, is "one who supposes he has a good title and knows of no adverse claim (Philips v. Stroup, 17 Atl. 220, 221); one who not only honestly supposes himself to be vested with true title but is ignorant of a superior right to it (Gresham v. Ware, 79 Ala. 192, 199); definitions that correspond closely to that of a possessor in good faith in our Civil Law (Civil Code of 1889, art. 433; new Civil Code, art. 526). The essence of the bona fides or good faith, therefore, lies in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim and absence of intention to overreach another."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case at bar, petitioners were very much aware that the lot they occupied had already been duly awarded and sold to the private respondent at the time petitioners’ lease contract was renewed. Also, there can be no debate that petitioners were bound by the terms of the lease contract entered into by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as lessee, since as mere sublessees they cannot have more or superior rights than the lessee. They cannot, therefore, seek sanctuary in Commonwealth Act No. 539 which, as construed by this Court, 9 lays down the order of preference in the award of lots to bona fide tenants or occupants and private individuals.

Secondly, their assault on the qualifications of herein private respondent to purchase the lot in question is off-tangent. Petitioners’ submission is that private respondent’s purchase of another lot from a certain Ilagan who had acquired the same from the PHHC was violative of PHHC Board Resolution No. 82, approved on May 23, 1961, which provided that effective on said date "the sale of more than one lot per person shall not be permitted." 10 This argument loses sight of the fact that private respondent’s wife purchased the lot from Ilagan only in 1961, hence when private respondent was awarded the lot involved in this case in 1958 he had no other lot at that time and, consequently, he was fully qualified to apply for and purchase the aforesaid lot from the PHHC.cralawnad

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Lorenzo Relova, J., ponente, with the concurrence of Rafael C. Climaco and Guardian R. Lood, JJ.,

2. Exhibit 12.

3. Exhibit 10.

4. Exhibit 9.

5. Appellee’s Brief, Rollo, 127-128.

6. Rollo, 24-26.

7. Ibid., 23.

8. 50 O.G. No. 12 5789; G.R. No. L-5872, November 29, 1954.

9. Santiago, Et. Al. v. Cruz, Et Al., 98 Phil, 168 (1955).

10. Brief for Petitioners, 8; Rollo, 108.




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