Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 96810 August 21, 1992 - THE HEIRS OF JESUS AMADO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 96810. August 21, 1992.]

THE HEIRS OF JESUS AMADO ARANETA, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE ISLAMIC DA’ WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, FREDDIE AND MARCONI DA SILVA, Respondents.

Antonio P. Barredo, for Petitioners.

Linzag-Arcilla & Associates Law Offices for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE; EFFECT OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY ON THE VIRTUE THEREOF. — The facts of this case show that the owner of the subject property in "fee simple" is private respondent Islamic Da’ Wah Council of the Philippines and which property was acquired through a judicial foreclosure of mortgage validly executed by the heirs of Spouses Fred and Leocadia Da Silva. The parcel of land, subject matter of the mortgage, does not belong to petitioners and they have no existing valid claim of ownership or interest therein. In the beginning, said property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 30461, issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of spouses Fred and Leocadia Da Silva. This was later cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 238021 in the name of the respondent Islamic Da’ Wah Council of the Philippines, after it had acquired the property through judicial foreclosure of the mortgage constituted upon said property. Both titles, T.C.T. No. 30461 and T.C.T. No. 238021, are without any lien or annotation of any claim by the petitioners.

2. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT; EXTRINSIC FRAUD AS A GROUND THEREOF; NOT ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. — The petition itself had no clear allegation of extrinsic fraud as a basis for annulment of judgment. Consequently, respondent Court of Appeals found that the petition had no sufficient basis to stand on and therefore dismissed the case. Not having alleged extrinsic fraud, which is a ground for annulment of judgment of the lower court, of what use is a trial on the petition when all the documents and statement of facts are admitted, except, the alleged ownership of the parcel of land which had not been sufficiently established by petitioners. Not only this, petitioners have not established their claim of ownership over the property in question before any court of law prior to their questioning of the mortgage and its foreclosure proceedings. Petitioners’ alleged claim of ownership has never been registered before the Register of Deeds nor inscribed at the back of the Transfer Certificate of Title of the Da Silvas before the property was mortgaged to the Islamic Da’ Wah Council of the Philippines. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals recited all the material facts and documents submitted by both parties and the appellate court found no error on the part of the trial court in rendering its decision on the foreclosure case.

3. CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP MUST BE ANNOTATED AT THE BACK OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. — Petitioners admit not having registered any encumbrance at the back of the title being foreclosed, nor do they have evidence to buttress their claim of ownership except verbal in nature derived from hearsay sources and that their alleged Deed of Sale was never registered from the date of its alleged execution in 1963 or for over 22 years. Petitioners’ verbal claim of ownership cannot prevail over a clear title to the property. Neither can it be attacked collaterally by questioning the foreclosure proceedings of a mortgage legally executed between the parties. Even assuming arguendo that petitioners have a claim of ownership over the property in question, then they should have annotated the same at the back of the title before the property was mortgaged to bind third persons. It appearing that there was no such annotation of any claim, it cannot bind third persons, in the instant case, the private respondent who is a mortgagee in good faith and for value.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by herein petitioners assailing the decision 1 promulgated by the Court of Appeals on July 11, 1990 ordering the dismissal of the Petition to annul Judgment of Foreclosure promulgated on February 5, 1985 by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-43746.chanrobles law library

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

On December 9, 1955, Spouses Fred Da Silva and Leocadia Da Silva purchased 2 from the spouses Zoilo Garcia and Lourdes Muscat a parcel of land with an area of 4,754 square meters, more or less, together with the improvements and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20366 in the name of the vendors. The mortgage on the said property from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) and the Philippine Bank of Commerce were assumed by the vendees. As a result of the sale, TCT NO. 20366 was cancelled and a new title. 3 Transfer Certificate of Title No. 30461 was issued in favor of Spouses Da Silva. The Da Silva spouses fulfilled their obligation until the said property was fully paid.

Leocadia Da Silva died in January 1958 while Fred Da Silva died in February 1963, leaving their sons Freddie and Marconi Da Silva as heirs.

Upon the death of their parents, Freddie and Marconi Da Silva tried to take possession of said property which was being used by a company of Amado Araneta even before the death of their parents because their father, Fred, was working for the Aranetas until his death. The heirs have repeatedly asked petitioner’s parents to leave the premises but the Aranetas persuaded the Da Silva children that they be allowed to use the said premises in the meantime while promising to pay for the taxes and rentals, which the Aranetas never did.

Subsequently, Freddie Da Silva discovered that the title to the property in question was missing. Hence, he filed a Petition for Reconstitution of the Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of Title, which petition was granted 4 by the court on March 9, 1984.

Prior to the reconstitution of the Owner’s copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title, the heirs of Da Silva have secured personal loans from the Converts to Islam Society of the Philippines (CONVISLAM) without any collateral or mortgage.

Subsequently, the CONVISLAM assigned the said indebtedness or accounts payable to the Islamic Da’ Wah Council of the Philippines. When the Owner’s copy was reconstituted, the officers of the Islamic Da’ Wah Council of the Philippines required the heirs of Fred Da Silva to secure a guarantee and/or mortgage for said indebtedness. As a consequence of which a mortgage was constituted on the said property by the Da Silva heirs.

When the Da Silva heirs failed to pay their outstanding indebtedness, a foreclosure proceeding was filed before Branch 95 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

On February 12, 1985 a decision 5 was rendered by the respondent trial court on the basis of a compromise agreement by the parties, wherein the Da Silvas "agreed to quit claim to plaintiff by way of the foreclosure proceedings that the property covered by TCT NO. 30461 be transferred to plaintiff." As a result, a new title, 6 TCT NO. 328021 was issued in the name of the respondent Islamic Da’ wah Council of the Philippines.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Islamic Da’ Wah Council tried to eject the petitioners from the premises but the latter refused and instead contended that they are the owners of the property in question.

As a result of the claim of ownership by the petitioners, private respondent filed a case for Quieting of Title. 7

Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition to annul the decision of the trial court in the foreclosure case, which petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 12291. 8 In its resolution dated November 10, 1987, 9 the Court of Appeals granted petitioners’ prayer for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the trial court hearing the complaint for quieting of title from further proceeding with the case. Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. Private respondents then proceeded to this Court by way of petition for review, which was likewise denied. 10

On July 11, 1990, a decision 11 was rendered in CA-G.R. SP No. 12291 dismissing the petition for annulment of the judgment in the foreclosure case for lack of merit. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals on January 10, 1991. 12

Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

A temporary restraining order 13 was issued on February 26, 1992, enjoining the respondents from disturbing the status quo as regards the ownership and possession of the property in question.

The petitioners allege that the respondent Court of Appeals erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) In holding that the petition filed before it did not allege extrinsic fraud vis-a-vis the judgment of foreclosure of mortgage in question.

2) In refusing to hold a trial on the petition for annulment of judgment.

3) In rendering judgment dismissing the petition for annulment and dissolving the preliminary injunction previously issued by it.

We agree with the respondent Court of Appeals.

The facts of this case show that the owner of the subject property in "fee simple" is private respondent Islamic Da’ Wah Council of the Philippines and which properly was acquired through a judicial foreclosure of mortgage validly executed by the heirs of Spouses Fred and Leocadia Da Silva.

The parcel of land, subject matter of the mortgage, does not belong to petitioners and they have no existing valid claim of ownership or interest therein. In the beginning, said property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 30461, issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of spouses Fred and Leocadia Da Silva. This was later cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 238021 in the name of the respondent Islamic Da’ Wah Council of the Philippines, after it had acquired the property through judicial foreclosure of the mortgage constituted upon said property. Both titles, T.C.T. No. 30461 and T.C.T. No. 238021, are without any lien or annotation of any claim by the petitioners.

The petition itself had no clear allegation of extrinsic fraud as a basis for annulment of judgment. Consequently, respondent Court of Appeals found that the petition had no sufficient basis to stand on and therefore dismissed the case.

Not having alleged extrinsic fraud, which is a ground for annulment of judgment of the lower court, of what use is a trial on the petition when all the documents and statement of facts are admitted, except, the alleged ownership of the parcel of land which had not been sufficiently established by petitioners.

Not only this, petitioners have not established their claim of ownership over the property in question before any court of law prior to their questioning of the mortgage and its foreclosure proceedings. Petitioners’ alleged claim of ownership has never been registered before the Register of Deeds nor inscribed at the back of the Transfer Certificate of Title of the Da Silvas before the property was mortgaged to the Islamic Da’ Wah Council of the Philippines.cralawnad

The decision of respondent Court of Appeals recited all the material facts and documents submitted by both parties and the appellate court found no error on the part of the trial court in rendering its decision on the foreclosure case.

In fact, petitioners admit not having registered any encumbrance at the back of the title being foreclosed, nor do they have evidence to buttress their claim of ownership except verbal in nature derived from hearsay sources and that their alleged Deed of Sale was never registered from the date of its alleged execution in 1963 or for over 22 years.

Petitioners’ verbal claim of ownership cannot prevail over a clear title to the property. Neither can it be attacked collaterally by questioning the foreclosure proceedings of a mortgage legally executed between the parties.

Even assuming arguendo that petitioners have a claim of ownership over the property in question, then they should have annotated the same at the back of the title before the property was mortgaged to bind third persons. It appearing that there was no such annotation of any claim, it cannot bind third persons, in the instant case, the private respondent who is a mortgagee in good faith and for value.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The temporary restraining order issued on February 26, 1992 is hereby lifted. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melo, J., No part.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 49-73.

2. Rollo, pp. 161-164.

3. Rollo, p. 165.

4. Records, pp. 161-163, LRC Case No. 0-2772 (84), Branch XC, RTC, Quezon City.

5. Records, pp. 137-138, Civil Case No. Q-43746, Branch 95, RTC, Quezon City.

6. Records, p. 102.

7. Records, pp. 93-101, Civil Case No. Q-46196, RTC, Quezon City.

8. Records, p. 1.

9. Rollo, pp. 170-171.

10. Rollo, pp. 81-92, G.R. No. 80892.

11. Rollo, pp. 49-73.

12. Rollo, 75-79.

13. Rollo, p. 269.




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






August-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78341 August 3, 1992 - TURIANO M. SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 85962-63 August 3, 1992 - ROSARIO GACOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95703 August 3, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BOMBON (CAM. SUR), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97306 August 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TUBURO

  • G.R. No. 75363 August 4, 1992 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. FIRESTONE TIRE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83190 August 4, 1992 - CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86436 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENCIO DE PAZ

  • G.R. No. 90802 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOM CHANAS

  • G.R. No. 91160 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FULGARILLAS

  • G.R. No. 91695 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT MALONZO

  • G.R. No. 93143 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO R. RACE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-95757 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO RAÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 97319 August 4, 1992 - GODOFREDO T. SWAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98251 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CRUDA

  • G.R. No. 100399 August 4, 1992 - TEKNIKA SKILLS AND TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100511 August 4, 1992 - SPS. BENITO TRINIDAD and SOLEDAD TRINIDAD v. SPS. LUIS CABRERA and DELIA CABRERA

  • G.R. No. 100752 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 102869 August 4, 1992 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47158 August 5, 1992 - ANGUSTIA M. IBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57127 August 5, 1992 - RHODORA DEL CASTILLO v. CANDIDO AGUINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82782 August 5, 1992 - JOSE B. TIONGCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INS., ET AL. v. SWEET LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97291 August 5, 1992 - RUFINO MISA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100138 August 5, 1992 - FIVE J TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101148 August 5, 1992 - TERRY LYN MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101428 August 5, 1992 - ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102448 August 5, 1992 - RICARDO CUARTERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60506 August 6, 1992 - FIGURACION VDA. DE MAGLANA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94490 August 6, 1992 - JOSE DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992 - ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC CO. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97952 August 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN LIQUEN

  • G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992 - PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105628 August 6, 1992 - RODULFO SARMIENTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-90-408 August 7, 1992 - RICHARD M. HOUGHTON, ET AL. v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-660 August 7, 1992 - UNKNOWN MUN. COUNCILOR OF STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA v. MARIO V. ALOMIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72001 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO BECHAYDA

  • G.R. No. 76966 August 7, 1992 - CAFFCO INT’L. LTD. v. OFF. OF THE MINISTER-MIN. OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91797 August 7, 1992 - WIDOWS & ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95431 August 7, 1992 - FLORENCIA DE LA CALZADA-CIERRAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95838 August 7, 1992 - MARCELINO LAURETO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101127-31 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENIA C. REYES

  • G.R. No. 101512 August 7, 1992 - NILDA GABRIEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95832 August 10, 1992 - MAYNARD R. PERALTA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992 - ESTERIA F. GARCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97611 August 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TALENTO

  • G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97764 August 10, 1992 - LEVY D. MACASIANO v. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO

  • G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992 - ERWIN B. JAVELLANA v. DEPT. OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102795 August 10, 1992 - DAMIAN OGBURN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79664 August 11, 1992 - ANDRES VILLAVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99431 August 11, 1992 - GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64019 August 12, 1992 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80491 August 12, 1992 - J. ARTIE VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91491 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMENARIO

  • G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO DAMASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95583 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO WENCESLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98325 August 12, 1992 - LUCINO DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100490 August 12, 1992 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT LINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100942 August 12, 1992 - LUCIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62556 August 13, 1992 - VENANCIO GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100285 August 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON DUQUE

  • Adm. Case No. 3187 August 14, 1992 - MYRNA D. ROQUE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO

  • G.R. No. 100643 August 14, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992 lab

    CARLOS RANARA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992 - FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94555 August 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. EDUARDO LABALAN OCIMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101566 August 17, 1992 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-496 August 18, 1992 - MARCELO B. ASUNCION, ET AL. v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 85997 August 19, 1992 - HORTENSIA L. STARKE v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96182 August 19, 1992 - MARCELO FERNANDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80739 August 2, 1992 - GRACIA R. JOVEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91004-05 August 20, 1992 - JOSEPH TAY CHUN SUY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95305 August 20, 1992 - ELENA LINDAIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90036 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 90107 August 21, 1992 - DOMINGO A. TUZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91646 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMIL MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 91846 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MACLID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94115 August 21, 1992 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. LUIS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94299 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 96810 August 21, 1992 - THE HEIRS OF JESUS AMADO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101858 August 21, 1992 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85286 August 24, 1992 - BASILIO A. BALASBAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100401 August 24, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED DAIRY PRODUCTS CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101630 August 24, 1992 - VICTOR DE JESUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91129 August 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO D. PABLO

  • G.R. No. 94374 August 27, 1992 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59436 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74740 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 48532 August 31, 1992 - HERNANDO B. CONWI, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65532 August 31, 1992 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ VDA. DE TAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66253 August 31, 1992 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75959 August 31, 1992 - VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92758 August 31, 1992 - EMILIO VENEGAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93238 August 31, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102131 August 31, 1992 - FRANCO GORION v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, ET AL.