Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > March 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 76759 March 22, 1990 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 76759. March 22, 1990.]

RAMON A. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Ramon A. Gonzales for and in his own behalf.

Manuel P. Tiaoqui and Florencio S. Jimenez for respondent Land Bank of the Philippines.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; STIPULATION OF FACTS; OMISSIONS THEREIN JUSTIFIED THE FILING OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT. — The existence of a stipulation of facts between the parties does not automatically mean that the parties agreed on all the facts considering that stipulations may be total or partial. In this instance, it was merely partial. A perusal of the aforementioned Stipulation and Supplemental Stipulation of Facts dated July 29, 1985 and September 10, 1985, respectively, readily reveals that the same do not contain a complete or sufficient picture of the circumstances among the parties and that certain vital matters are left out in said stipulations, i.e., the significant policy of the Land Bank to issue its bonds directly and only in the name of the landowners; and the fact that there are different stages in the release of payments under the operation land transfer program with each stage having different requirements that have to be complied with by the landowner in order to be entitled to payment under a land transfer claim. In view of these omissions in the Stipulations, the remedy of appeal before the appellate court resorted to by respondent bank and assailed by petitioner is proper because it involved not only pure questions of law but mixed questions of law and fact.

2. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS; SUBJECT TO RULES AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES EMPOWER TO INTERPRET THE LAW WHICH THEY ARE ENTRUSTED TO ENFORCE. — Petitioner relying on the provisions of Article 1311 of the Civil Code, maintains that by virtue of said deed, he stepped into the shoes of his assignor and acquired all the rights of the latter and it was error on the part of the appellate court to find that the aforesaid Deed of Assignment is not effective to authorize the Land Bank of the Philippines to issue the Land Bank Bonds in the name of petitioner upon compliance with the remaining six (6) requirements for the first release thereof. There is indeed no question that petitioner stepped into the shoes of his assignor, the defendant corporation. But petitioner overlooked the fact that when the corporation assigned its rights to him under Land Transfer Claim No. 82-757, the same was subject to the rules and restrictions imposed by respondent Land Bank on the matter of assignment of rights. In the promulgation of said rules and regulations, the Land Bank relied on the provisions of Section 76, R.A. 3844 as amended by P.D. 251. The act of assignment could not operate to erase liens or restrictions burdening the right assigned. The assignee cannot, after all, acquire a greater right than that pertaining to the assignor, [PNB v. General Acceptance and Finance Corporation, Et Al., G.R. No. 30751, May 24, 1988, 161 SCRA 449]. Thus, when Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. assigned its rights, title and interest in Land Transfer Claim No. 82-757 for the amount of P400,000.00 in favor of petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, the latter acquired the same subject to the restrictions on assignment of rights embodied in Resolution No. 75-68 dated February 25, 1975 passed by the Board of respondent Land Bank of the Philippines. It is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and entitled to great respect. They have in their favor a presumption of legality. [Espanol v. Chairman, PVA, 137 SCRA 315 (1986)]


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, J.:


This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the December 2, 1986 decision of the Court of Appeals, reversing the decision of that trial court and in effect denying the direct issuance of Land Bank bonds in the name of herein petitioner as assignee thereof.

On the strength of a Deed of Assignment executed on August 8, 1981 by Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. (hereafter referred to as the corporation) through its president, Antonio Vic Zulueta, assigning its rights under Land Transfer Claim No. 82-757 unto petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, the latter filed an action before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch LI entitled "Ramon A. Gonzales, Plaintiff, v. Land Bank of the Philippines and Ramos Plantation Company, Inc., defendants" docketed as Civil Case No. 84-24461 to compel public respondent Land Bank of the Philippines to issue Land Bank Bonds for the amount of P400,000.00 in the name of petitioner instead of in the name of the aforesaid corporation as the original and registered owner of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-28755 situated in La Suerte, Malang, North Cotabato with a total area of 251.4300 hectares, which had been brought under the land transfer program of the government.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Defendant corporation was declared in default for failure to file its answer within the reglementary period while defendant Land Bank filed an answer alleging that the complaint states no cause of action since there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and itself and that it deals only with the landowner whose land was subjected to operation land transfer of the government under Presidential Decree No. 27 in order to save time and effort in ascertaining the identities of additional claimants.

At the pre-trial, the parties submitted a Stipulation of Facts dated July 29, 1985 (subsequently supplemented on September 10, 1985) praying that judgment be rendered on the basis thereof. In the aforesaid stipulation dated July 29, 1985, the following admissions and submissions were made: the execution of the Deed of Assignment; the fact that the corporation’s president, Antonio Vic Zulueta, wrote defendant bank requesting the latter to issue the payment for the real property covered by TCT No. T-28755 through Land Bank Bonds amounting to P400,000.00 in the name of petitioner by virtue of the Deed of Assignment with the Board Resolution attached to said letter; that on June 30, 1982, defendant bank through its manager, Mr. Ceferino A. Pacio of the Land Transfer Operation Department, wrote back informing the Ramos Plantation, Inc. that it has approved its Land Transfer Claim No. 82-757 in the aggregate amount of P565,717.50 payment of which is subject to the submission and or accomplishment of the requirements of defendant bank; that said corporation failed to comply with nine (9) of the requirements of defendant bank as contained in Annexes "C-1" and "C-2." 1

On the other hand, the aforesaid Supplemental Stipulation of Facts dated September 10, 1985 provided that out of the 9 requirements for the first release in Annex "C-1" of the stipulation of facts dated July 29, 1984, only 6 requirements have not been complied with. 2

In a decision dated October 15, 1985, 3 the lower court found the plaintiff entitled to the issuance of the Land Bank bonds, stating thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, defendant Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to issue in the name of Ramon A. Gonzales P400,000.00 worth of land bank bonds deducted from the P509,000.00 Land Bank bonds payable to Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. under claim No. 82-757 with the directive to the defendant land-owner Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. to comply with the six (6) requirements listed in paragraph 1 of the Supplemental Stipulation of Facts dated September 10, 1985. No pronouncement as to costs." 4

Defendant-appellant Land Bank of the Philippines filed an appeal before respondent Court of Appeals resulting in the reversal of the trial court’s decision and the dismissal of the complaint filed therein on the ground that even if there was compliance with the remaining six (6) requirements by defendant Ramos Plantation, Inc. still, the Land Bank bonds will have to be issued in the name of the said corporation and not to plaintiff-appellee. It is only thereafter that Ramos Plantation Co., Inc. may indorse the same to plaintiff. 5

Petitioner now comes to Us on appeal by certiorari to set aside the decision of respondent appellate court with these arguments: that respondent Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction in resolving the appeal inspite of the motion to certify this case to the Supreme Court; that respondent Court of Appeals palpably erred in finding that the Deed of Assignment is not effective to authorize LBP to issue the Land Bank Bonds in the name of petitioner; that respondent Court of Appeals palpably erred in holding that petitioner is not entitled to P400,000.00 worth of Land Bank Bonds upon compliance with the remaining six (6) requirements for the first release thereof.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We reduce the issues to two: whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of respondent Land Bank; and whether respondent Land Bank can be compelled to issue Land Bank bonds in the name of petitioner by virtue of the Deed of Assignment executed by the landowner-assignor Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. in favor of petitioner.

On the issue of lack of jurisdiction, petitioner vigorously asserts that since the trial court rendered judgment on the basis of the stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, the appeal from such a decision can only raise questions of law and therefore, respondent Land Bank should have gone directly to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari.

We do not fully subscribe to petitioner’s contention, for as correctly observed by the Solicitor General, the existence of a stipulation of facts between the parties does not automatically mean that the parties agreed on all the facts considering that stipulations may be total or partial. 6 In this instance, it was merely partial.chanrobles law library : red

A perusal of the aforementioned Stipulation and Supplemental Stipulation of Facts dated July 29, 1985 and September 10, 1985, respectively, readily reveals that the same do not contain a complete or sufficient picture of the circumstances among the parties and that certain vital matters are left out in said stipulations, i.e., the significant policy of the Land Bank to issue its bonds directly and only in the name of the landowners; and the fact that there are different stages in the release of payments under the operation land transfer program with each stage having different requirements that have to be complied with by the landowner in order to be entitled to payment under a land transfer claim. In view of these omissions in the Stipulations, the remedy of appeal before the appellate court resorted to by respondent bank and assailed by petitioner is proper because it involved not only pure questions of law but mixed questions of law and fact.

On the more substantive issue of whether public respondent Land Bank may be compelled to honor the subject deed of assignment, it will be noted that respondent bank in denying the issuance of the bond in the name of the petitioner-assignee was guided by Resolution No. 75-68 entitled "PROPER PARTIES TO RECEIVE LAND TRANSFER PAYMENT’ promulgated purposely to govern, among others, the issuance of Land Bank Bonds to assignees by virtue of Deeds of Assignment.

Thereunder the Land Bank can only issue bonds in the name of the assignor-landowner. It is only after the issuance of bonds in the landowner’s name that he shall be required to make the necessary indorsement of the bonds to his assignee. This is in consonance with the Land Bank’s policy to deal primarily with the landowners in order to save time and effort in ascertaining the identities of claimants. 7

However, petitioner relying on the provisions of Article 1311 of the Civil Code, 8 maintains that by virtue of said deed, he stepped into the shoes of his assignor and acquired all the rights of the latter and it was error on the part of the appellate court to find that the aforesaid Deed of Assignment is not effective to authorize the Land Bank of the Philippines to issue the Land Bank Bonds in the name of petitioner upon compliance with the remaining six (6) requirements for the first release thereof.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

There is indeed no question that petitioner stepped into the shoes of his assignor, the defendant corporation. But petitioner overlooked the fact that when the corporation assigned its rights to him under Land Transfer Claim No. 82-757, the same was subject to the rules and restrictions imposed by respondent Land Bank on the matter of assignment of rights.

In the promulgation of said rules and regulations, the Land Bank relied on the provisions of Section 76, R.A. 3844 as amended by P.D. 251, which specifically provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 76. Issuance of Bonds. . . . The Board of Directors shall have the power to prescribe rules and regulations for the issuance, reissuance, servicing, placement and redemption of the bonds herein authorized to be issued as well as the registration of such bonds at the request of the holders thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

The act of assignment could not operate to erase liens or restrictions burdening the right assigned. The assignee cannot, after all, acquire a greater right than that pertaining to the assignor. 9

Thus, when Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. assigned its rights, title and interest in Land Transfer Claim No. 82-757 for the amount of P400,000.00 in favor of petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, the latter acquired the same subject to the restrictions on assignment of rights embodied in Resolution No. 75-68 dated February 25, 1975 10 passed by the Board of respondent Land Bank of the Philippines, the pertinent provision of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"4. In Assignment of Rights entered into by landowners vesting upon the Assignee the right to receive full or partial payment from the Land Bank pursuant to land transfer, the same, if found valid in form and substance, shall be recognized by the Land Bank. Whenever practicable, Land Bank bonds issued therefor must be made payable to the Assignor-Landowner who shall be required to make the necessary indorsement of said bonds to the Assignee. In case the cash portion is the one assigned, the check in payment thereof shall be issued to the original landowner who shall be required to make the indorsement to the Assignee. Thus, for record purposes, it will appear that payment was directly to the landowner concerned and who, by reason of the Assignment, has caused the necessary indorsement of the bonds and/or check, as the case may be, to the Assignee." chanrobles.com : virtual law library

It is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and entitled to great respect. They have in their favor a presumption of legality. 11

This Court is in total agreement with respondent appellate court’s finding that it must be the Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. which should comply with all the requirements imposed by respondent bank to effect the release of payments under land transfer claims because of the restriction that the bonds will only be released in the name of the landowner-assignor corporation which may thereafter indorse the same to petitioner. In fact, in the decision of the trial court, Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. was directed to comply with the six (6) requirements 12 listed in paragraph 1 of the Supplemental Stipulation of Facts dated September 10, 1985. Since no appeal was taken by Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. from said decision, said directive has become final and executory.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

However, the decision of the appellate court dismissing the complaint of petitioner had the effect of reversing said directive, thereby leaving petitioner without legal authority to compel Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. to comply with the requirements of the Land Bank for the release of the bonds and thereafter to endorse the same to petitioner as assignee thereof. The decision of the appellate court should therefore be, as it is hereby, modified accordingly.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the appellate court is hereby MODIFIED. The directive to Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. contained in the lower court’s decision is reinstated. Ramos Plantation Company, Inc. is ordered to comply within thirty (30) days from notice with the six (6) requirements listed in paragraph 1 of the Supplemental Stipulation of Facts dated September 10, 1985, and as soon as the bonds are released in its name, to immediately endorse the same to petitioner as assignee thereof.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 70-71.

2. Rollo, pp. 72-73.

3. Rollo, pp. 32-35.

4. Rollo, pp. 34-35.

5. Rollo, p. 30.

6. Rollo, p. 104.

7. Rollo, pp. 107-108.

8. Article 1311 reads: "Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in cases where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

9. PNB v. General Acceptance and Finance Corporation, Et Al., G.R. No. 30751, May 24, 1988, 161 SCRA 449.

10. Rollo, pp. 86-87.

11. Español v. Chairman, PVA, 137 SCRA 315 (1986).

12. The six (6) requirements listed in paragraph 1 of the Supplemental Stipulation of Facts dated September 10, 1985 are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) Due Execution of Deed of Assignment, Warranties and Undertaking;

2) Current Residence Certificates A & B of the authorized representative and C & C-1 of the corporation;

3) Submission of copy of OCT P-28755 duly certified by the Register of Deeds concerned as the exact copy on file with complete encumbrance page;

4) Presentation to the Bank of the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT P-28755;

5) Certified copies of Articles of Incorporation with certification of registration from the Securities and Exchange Commission;

6) Certified copies of By-Laws of the corporation with certification of registration from the Securities and Exchange Commission.




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






March-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 55630 March 6, 1990 - IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC. v. EULALIO D. ROSETE

  • G.R. No. 60945 March 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. 75362 March 6, 1990 - JESUS E. ESTACIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 77912 March 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 78530 March 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO SARRA

  • G.R. No. 81093 March 6, 1990 - PORAC TRUCKING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84282 March 6, 1990 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87542 March 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISOSTOMO I. BUGAOAN

  • G.R. No. 48184 March 12, 1990 - PAULA GARCIA, ET AL. v. ANDRES GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73707 March 12, 1990 - VICTORIA C. GO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74952 March 12, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERLY DALINOG

  • G.R. No. 76792 March 12, 1990 - RESURRECCION BARTOLOME, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 48324 March 14, 1990 - JOSE AGRAVANTE, ET AL. v. JUANA PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69269 March 14, 1990 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ELPIDIA DEVARAS

  • G.R. No. 70025 March 14, 1990 - CONSOLACION NAPILAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75223 March 14, 1990 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76111 March 14, 1990 - EMMANUEL TIMBUNGCO v. RICARDO C. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81510 March 14, 1990 - HORTENCIA SALAZAR v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81920 March 14, 1990 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL PORT TERMINALS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46746 March 15, 1990 - LIGAYA GAPUSAN-CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48194 March 15, 1990 - JOSE M. JAVIER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49286 March 15, 1990 - FELICITO SAJONAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55300 March 15, 1990 - FRANKLIN G. GACAL, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64086 March 15, 1990 - PETER PAUL M. ABALLE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75342 March 15, 1990 - CELEDONIO MANZANILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78380 March 15, 1990 - METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM v. ROSALIO A. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84507 March 15, 1990 - CHOA TIEK SENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85178 March 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS REPUELA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54281 March 19, 1990 - CELSO PAGTALUNAN, ET AL. v. ROQUE A. TAMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76851 March 19, 1990 - AURORA PASCUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77542 March 19, 1990 - ELIAS CARREDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78206 March 19, 1990 - PAULINO ZAMORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79811 March 19, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO CANTUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80179 March 19, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY M. MANLAPAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80762 March 19, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82763-64 March 19, 1990 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87977 March 19, 1990 - ILUMINADO URBANO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88013 March 19, 1990 - SIMEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72664-65 March 20, 1990 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79418-21 March 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO TAMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 42037 March 21, 1990 - DOMINGO V. LUGTU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60161 March 21, 1990 - HEIRS OF FILOMENO TUYAC v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66416 March 21, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TOURS SPECIALISTS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71581 March 21, 1990 - CARMEN LABATAGOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72779 March 21, 1990 - RUBBERWORLD (PHILS.), INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73806 March 21, 1990 - TACLOBAN RICE MILLS, CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74689 March 21, 1990 - ROBERT R. BENEDICTO v. QUIRINO D. ABAD SANTOS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 78900 March 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFFY CAYAAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80600 March 21, 1990 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86214-15 March 21, 1990 - MAR K. AL-ESAYI AND COMPANY, LTD. v. HERMINIO FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86792 March 21, 1990 - MARINO SAPUGAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48500 March 22, 1990 - MANUEL DE LA ROSA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51143 March 22, 1990 - DOROTEO M. DE GUIA, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53623 March 22, 1990 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. MARIANO MEDINA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54567 March 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO DINOLA

  • G.R. No. 60076 March 22, 1990 - JOSE C. TAYENGCO v. RICARDO J. ILARDE

  • G.R. No. 62116 March 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76759 March 22, 1990 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77071 March 22, 1990 - MUNICIPALITY OF TALISAY v. HILARIO RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78899 March 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR BESA

  • G.R. Nos. 80110-11 March 22, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO J. DUMPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81032 March 22, 1990 - DEP’T. OF EDUCATION, CULTURE and SPORTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82233 March 22, 1990 - JOSE BARITUA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83067 March 22, 1990 - RAMON C. RUBIO, JR. v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83346 March 22, 1990 - MEDRANO & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. ROXAS & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86568 March 22, 1990 - IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88297 March 22, 1990 - ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90213 March 22, 1990 - AGUSTIN P. REGALA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39492 March 23, 1990 - ANTIPAZ L. PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 50999-51000 March 23, 1990 - JOSE SONGCO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60169 March 23, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63680 March 23, 1990 - JACOBA T. PATERNO, ET AL. v. BEATRIZ PATERNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80294-95 March 23, 1990 - CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83023 March 23, 1990 - ELADIO A. GUDEZ, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85919 March 23, 1990 - JOSE A. TAN, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69184 March 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABLAO

  • G.R. No. 70144 March 26, 1990 - ACTIVE WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73044 March 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO M. PALINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 73559-62 March 26, 1990 - HEIRS OF THE LATE SANTIAGO MANINGO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77756 March 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO T. MENDOZA JAVIER

  • G.R. Nos. 78583-84 March 26, 1990 - BENIGNO TODA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62603 March 27, 1990 - UNITED REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87585 March 27, 1990 - BLUE MANILA, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79329 March 28, 1990 - MOBIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80042 March 28, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO QUIÑONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990 - ROMARICO G. VITUG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83798 March 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO R. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-281 March 29, 1990 - SERVILLANO MAMARIL v. JUAN CONTACTO, JR., ET AL.