Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > March 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 100993 March 30, 1993 - CONCEPCION MUÑOZ DIVINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 100993. March 30, 1993.]

CONCEPCION MUÑOZ DIVINA as represented by her daughter Amelia Tinoco, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and JUANITA N. MUÑOZ, Respondents.

Bermudez, Bermudez-De Jesus Law Office for Petitioner.

Milagros Abrogar for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; VALID AND BINDING BETWEEN PARTIES. — The extra-judicial settlement agreement is a contract, wherein the parties may establish such stipulations, clauses and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided that the legitime of the compulsory heirs are preserved. In the absence of fraud and provided all requisites are met, the same should be upheld as valid and binding between parties.

2. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; EXTRA-JUDICIAL PARTITION; REQUISITES. — Extra-judicial partition, being a speedy and less expensive method of distribution of the estate, is specifically provided for in Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, that in the absence of a will and where the decedent left no debts and the heirs are all of age, the heirs may divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PARTIES DUTY BOUND TO ABIDE BY THE MUTUAL WAIVER OF RIGHTS. — In proceeding with the actual partition of the properties mentioned in the deed, the parties, of course, are duty bound to abide by the mutual waiver of rights agree upon in the document. A party can not, in law and in good conscience, be allowed to reap the fruits of a partition, agreement or judgment and repudiate what does not suit him.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


The petition before us is an action for recovery of sum of money based on an extra-judicial agreement. The counsel for the private respondent informed this court that respondent, Juanita Muñoz has succumbed to old age during the pendency of this appeal, and that despite efforts exerted, none of her relatives has come forward to substitute the deceased in this proceeding.

The contending parties are in-laws, who are contesting the inheritance of the deceased spouse of the now deceased Respondent. Eleuterio M. Muñoz was the brother of Trinidad Muñoz-Marticio, Maximo M. Muñoz and Concepcion Muñoz-Divina (herein petitioner, represented by her daughter Amelia Tinoco). Eleuterio was married to Juanita, although their union was not blessed with a child. Upon Eleuterio’s demise, Juanita invited her three in-laws to participate in the extra-judicial settlement of the estate of her husband, they being the only heirs.

Eleuterio’s properties, both personal and real, were assessed in the amount of P709,403.00; less the expenses for the burial, wake and other incidental costs, the remaining balance left for partition amounted to P669,458.50. Based on the "Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of Eleuterio M. Muñoz, with Deed of Sale" 1 the heirs agreed that three-fourths (3/4) of the total net value of the property or P502,093.87 shall be adjudicated to respondent, Juanita, while the remaining one-fourth (1/4) or the amount of P167,364.00 shall be divided equally among Eleuterio’s brother and sisters, each to receive more or less P55,788.00.

In the same instrument, the heirs agreed that Maximo, Trinidad and Concepcion were to sell to Juanita all their rights and participation to the estate and in consideration thereof, Juanita is to pay each of the heirs P55,755.00 or a total of P167,364.00 to expedite the settlement of the estate. The document was prepared and notarized by Atty. Teodulo C. Gabor, and signed by all the parties on December 18, 1980. On the same day, Juanita executed an affidavit promising to pay the other heirs their share in Eleuterio’s inheritance within six (6) months from January 18, 1950. 2

On January 24, 1954, Concepcion signed a "Statement of Partition, Assets of the Late Eleuterio M. Mulas." 3 This document itemized the amount due to Concepcion, the agreed deductions and advances made by her and her daughter, Amelia, from Juanita. Two days thereafter, Concepcion caused Juanita to sign a certification which states that the residential house located at 4548 Quintos Street, Makati, (where Amelia with her family used to reside) was part of the inheritance received by Concepcion from the estate of Eleuterio. 4

Sometime on September 1986, Juanita filed an accion publiciana against Ernesto Tinoco, husband of Amelia and two other tenants occupying the apartments on Quintos Street. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 15030, 5 was decided in favor of Juanita and became final on March 1988, there being no appeal instituted by the defendants. Defendant, Ernesto, was ordered to immediately vacate the property and allow plaintiff, Juanita to recover possession thereof.

On February 1988, or almost eight years after the signing of the extra-judicial settlement, Juanita’s in-laws filed a complaint for revocation and annulment of the extra-judicial settlement of estate of Eleuterio, naming Juanita as defendant. In due time, however, Maximo and Trinidad withdrew as plaintiffs, leaving Concepcion, represented by her daughter, Amelia Tinoco, to pursue the case.

The complaint alleges that Juanita, by means of strategy and stealth and through fraud and illegal means, convinced and lured the plaintiffs therein in executing the Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Eleuterio M. Muñoz; that defendant Juanita has not paid each of the plaintiffs the amount of P55,788.00 or a total of P167,364.00 contrary to the stipulation in the said document; and that a certain property (apartment units) designated as 4544, 4546 and 4548 located at Quintos St., Makati together with the parcel of land on which the units were constructed were not turned over by defendant to Concepcion as promised by her in the certification 6 she signed on January 26, 1984.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The trial court, while upholding the validity of the Extra-Judicial Settlement, is of the belief that petitioner Concepcion was not paid the balance of her share giving credence to the affidavit of respondent Juanita signed in 1980 acknowledging such fact.

The affidavit, however, was executed on the same day that the extra-judicial partition was signed. On that very any, it is understandable that respondent did not have the cash to pay her co-heirs and as she testified, she had to sell some properties in order to give her in-laws their agreed share. 7

On the other hand, the appellate court, while also finding the Extra-Judicial Settlement valid, found that all the heirs, namely Concepcion, Trinidad and Maximo were indeed paid their share.

"Moreover, Defendant-Appellant’s evidence reveal that the three (Maximo Muñoz, Trinidad Marticio and Concepcion Divina) were paid their respective shares on different dates. On December 1, 1981, Maximo Muñoz executed a sworn statement wherein he acknowledged receipt of P30,000.00 "as evidence and partial payment of my share to the estate (Exh. 13, p. 136, Rec.) Subsequently, on August 11, 1984, he acknowledged receipt of the amount of P9,782.00 in full payment of (his) share in the estate (p. 131, Rec.). Likewise, Trinidad Marticio signed a list which showed cash advances in the amount of P23,200.00 taken from defendant-appellant Juanita Muñoz and her share of the estate tax in the amount of P16,056.00 or a total of P39,256.00. Thus, the total amount due her was only P16,532.00 of her share of P55,788.00 in the estate of Eleuterio Muñoz. She affixed her signature at the bottom of the statement of partition on January 23, 1984. On January 24, 1984, plaintiff-appellee Concepcion Divina likewise acknowledge receipt of a statement of partition (Exh. 2) similar to those given to Maximo Muñoz and Trinidad Marticio. It itemizes the cash advances taken either by appellee Concepcion Divina or her daughter Amelia Tinoco which totaled P15,415.00. Her share in the estate tax amounted to 216,056.00. Thus, the total amount due her was P24,317.00. While appellee’s signature appears at the bottom of the statement of partition (Exh. 2), she, however, denies having signed it. To affirm the fact that the signature appearing on the statement of partition (Exh. 2 and Exh. E)is not hers, appellee wrote her name on a piece of paper in open court (Exh. F). The trial court, however, did not find any need to make a comparison . . ." 8

The appellate court, however, found the signature of Concepcion in the statement of partition (Exhibit "2") evidencing proof of payment of her share by respondent, genuine. Said the court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We, however, must disagree with the opinion of the trial court that ‘it cannot lend credence to the statement of partition (Exh. 2) proof of payment of Concepcion’s share by defendant.’ First of all, We are of the view that the signature of appellee Concepcion Divina on the statement of partition (Exh. 2) is in her genuine signature. We have compared it with her signatures on the Special Power of Attorney (p. 6, Rec.) and the extra-judicial settlement agreement (Exh. 8) and We find that it is strikingly similar to the questioned signature. By the naked eye, and by cursory examination of the three signatures, We are convinced that they were written by the same person, i.e., appellee Concepcion Divina. Additionally, since appellee disclaims her signature in Exhibit 2, she should have utilized a handwriting expert to prove it is a forgery.

"Moreover, if it is true that she was not paid her share, Concepcion Divina should have brought this to the attention of appellant Juanita Muñoz within two (2) years from the time she signed the extra-judicial settlement agreement. There is nothing in the record that she ever made any written demand for payment of her share. On the contrary, the statement of partition (Exh. 2) indicates that she was fully paid her share in the estate of her brother. Surely, when she acknowledged receipt of the statement of partition (Exh. 2), she should have questioned the amount which reflected the cash advances taken by her or daughter Amelia. She did not do so at the time of receipt or immediately thereafter. In effect, she confirmed the contents of the partition settlement." 9

The extra-judicial settlement agreement is a contract, wherein the parties may establish such stipulations, clauses and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided that the legitime of the compulsory heirs are preserved. In the absence of fraud and provided all requisites are met, the same should be upheld as valid and binding between parties.

Extra-judicial partition, being a speedy and less expensive method of distribution of the estate, is specifically provided for in Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, that in the absence of a will and where the decedent left no debts and the heirs are all of age, the heirs may divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition.

In proceeding with the actual partition of the properties mentioned in the deed, the parties, of course, are duty bound to abide by the mutual waiver of rights agreed upon in the document. 10 A party can not, in law and in good conscience, be allowed to reap the fruits of a partition, agreement or judgment and repudiate what does not suit him. 11

WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED. The ruling of the appellate court is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. Annex "A" of the petition.

2. Annex "B" of the Petition.

3. Original Records, p. 31.

4. Original Records, p. 35.

5. Original Records, p. 18.

6. Annex "C" of the Petition.

7. TSN, March 16, 1989, p. 12.

8. Decision, p. 4, Rollo, p. 60.

9. Rollo, p. 61.

10. Lejaro v. Ciar, 76 Phils. 623 (1946).

11. Torres v. Encarnacion and De Borja, 89 Phil. 678 (1951).




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-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-88-216 March 1, 1993 - BEN MEDINA v. LETICIA MARIANO DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 79253 March 1, 1993 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. v. LUIS R. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94471 March 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94528 March 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PETER CADEVIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94542 March 1, 1993 - FRANCISCO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95322 March 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO DOMASIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993 - ROEL EBRALINAG, ET AL. v. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU

  • G.R. No. 97505 March 1, 1993 - RAMON U. VILLAREAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98182 March 1, 1993 - PASTOR FERRER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98457 March 1, 1993 - AMADOR B. SURBAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98933 March 1, 1993 - EGYPT AIR LOCAL EMPLOYEES ASSO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105409 March 1, 1993 - MASTER TOURS and TRAVEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106971 March 1, 1993 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., ET AL. v. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73246 March 2, 1993 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96969 March 2, 1993 - ROMEO P. FLORES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100658 March 2, 1993 - WYETH-SUACO LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101333 March 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS SAMSON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-92-698 March 3, 1993 - CHITO VALENTON, ET AL. v. ALFONSO MELGAR

  • G.R. No. 83851 March 3, 1993 - VISAYAN SAWMILL COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86941 March 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993 - CA AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91711-15 March 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINO ALFORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94125 March 3, 1993 - JESUS MIGUEL YULO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96053 March 3, 1993 - JOSEFINA TAYAG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103396 March 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO DEOCARIZA

  • G.R. No. 95849 March 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 57312 March 5, 1993 - LEONOR DELOS ANGELES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60501 March 5, 1993 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78115 March 5, 1993 - DOMINGA REGIDOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 81852-53 March 5, 1993 - ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84847 March 5, 1993 - HENRY KOA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85534 March 5, 1993 - GENERAL BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90349 March 5, 1993 - EDWIN GESULGON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95918 March 5, 1993 - LUCIO M. CAYABA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97068 March 5, 1993 - FIL-PRIDE SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97957 March 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO LASE

  • G.R. No. 98147 March 5, 1993 - NIMFA G. RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101766 March 5, 1993 - DANIEL S.L. BORBON II, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO B. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101897 March 5, 1993 - LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106556 March 5, 1993 - AURORA P. CRISPINO v. FORTUNATO V. PANGANIBAN

  • G.R. No. 106847 March 5, 1993 - PATRICIO P. DIAZ v. SANTOS B. ADIONG, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-655 March 8, 1993 - LICERIO P. NIQUE v. FELIPE G. ZAPATOS

  • G.R. No. 74678 March 8, 1993 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94960 March 8, 1993 - IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. VLADIMIR P.L. SAMPANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96123-24 March 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MANALO

  • G.R. No. 96949 March 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARITO

  • G.R. Nos. 101202, 102554 March 8, 1993 - RAMON A. DIAZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101256 March 8, 1993 - PEPITO LAUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104523 & 104526 March 8, 1993 - ARMS TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104583 March 8, 1993 - DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85273 March 9, 1993 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INS. SYSTEM v. GENARO C. GINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85419 March 9, 1993 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL v. SIMA WEI , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89373 March 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YOLANDA GESMUNDO

  • G.R. No. 95847-48 March 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL GERENTE

  • G.R. No. 100594 March 10, 1993 - BINALBAGAN TECH. INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102704 March 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORDENCIO CHATTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106982 March 11, 1993 - SYNDICATED MEDIA ACCESS CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-91-666 March 12, 1993 - ANTONIO DONATA F. SABADO, ET AL. v. NOVATO T. CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 102126 March 12, 1993 - ANGELICA LEDESMA v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF CIPRIANO PEDROSA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-329 March 17, 1993 - RODOLFO T. ALLARDE v. PEDRO N. LAGGUI

  • G.R. No. 75295 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESRAEL AMONDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88802 March 17, 1993 - FROILAN C. GERVASIO, ET AL. v. ROLANDO V. CUAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94053 March 17, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. 97393 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO S. BERNARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101004 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL PONFERADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101689 March 17, 1993 - CARLITO U. ALVIZO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 102045 March 17, 1993 - LUZ CARPIO VDA. DE QUIJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102300 March 17, 1993 - CITIBANK. N.A. v. HON. SEGUNDINO CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102722 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMIN BESANA

  • G.R. No. 102826 March 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO LABAO

  • G.R. No. 68555 March 19, 1993 - PRIME WHITE CEMENT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82829 March 19, 1993 - JAM TRANSPORTATION, CO. INC. v. LUIS HERMOSA FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84607 March 19, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL

  • G.R. No. 93476 March 19, 1993 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95450 March 19, 1993 - HOME INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CORPORATION v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95771 March 19, 1993 - LAWRENCE BOWE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96721 March 19, 1993 - OCCIDENTAL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97070 March 19, 1993 - ARTURO GRAVINA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97749 March 19, 1993 - SALVADOR BUAZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99041 March 19, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR N. TAPIC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102132 March 19, 1993 - DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES v. RUBEN V. ABARQUEZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-296 March 22, 1993 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LETICIA VILLAR-NOOL

  • A.M. No. P-90-512 March 22, 1993 - CRISPIN CARREON, ET AL. v. EDUARDO MENDIOLA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-622 March 22, 1993 - MANUEL T. URADA v. LUZVIMINDA M. MAPALAD

  • A.M. No. P-92-697 March 22, 1993 - MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, JR. v. ALBERTO D. ALMEIDA

  • G.R. No. 68464 March 22, 1993 - FRANCISCO D. YAP, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82457 March 22, 1993 - INOCENTE LEONARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88632 March 22, 1993 - TEODULO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91133 March 22, 1993 - ROMINA M. SUAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91228 March 22, 1993 - PUROMINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92049 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN U. MORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100332 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA DAGDAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102351 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO S. LIBUNGAN

  • G.R. No. 102955 March 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIAN G. ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 95455 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY ABEJERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97612 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO AMANIA

  • G.R. No. 100913 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN CASAO

  • G.R. No. 101451 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX V. REGALADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101741 March 23, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADLY HUBILO

  • G.R. No. 70451 March 24, 1993 - HENRY H. GAW v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85951 March 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVARO SUITOS

  • G.R. No. 90391 March 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIH S. JUMA

  • G.R. No. 95029 March 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO NARVAS PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 101761 March 24, 1993 - NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105851 March 24, 1993 - MYRENE PADILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101742 March 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ASTERIO A. ESCOSIO

  • G.R. No. 101566 March 26, 1993 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-88-263 March 30, 1993 - MARIANO R. NALUPTA, JR. v. HONESTO G. TAPEC

  • A.C. No. 3923 March 30, 1993 - CONCORDIA B. GARCIA v. CRISANTO L. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. L-48359 March 30, 1993 - MANOLO P. CERNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72200 March 30, 1993 - SANPIRO FINANCE CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76118 March 30, 1993 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87214 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO SADIANGABAY

  • G.R. No. 91734 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BORMEO

  • G.R. Nos. 92793-94 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO A. BAGANG

  • G.R. No. 96090 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LAGO

  • G.R. No. 96770 March 30, 1993 - HERMENEGILDO AGDEPPA, ET AL. v. EMILIANO IBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100993 March 30, 1993 - CONCEPCION MUÑOZ DIVINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101268 March 30, 1993 - MEHITABEL FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102358 March 30, 1993 - VICENTE MANALO v. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102918 March 30, 1993 - JOSE V. NESSIA v. JESUS M. FERMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104044 March 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER NAVAJA

  • G.R. No. 104189 March 30, 1993 - AMELIA LAROBIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104315 March 30, 1993 - SAMUEL MARTINEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104782 March 30, 1991

    NELY T. RASPADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58010 March 31, 1993 - EMILIA O’LACO, ET AL. v. VALENTIN CO CHO CHIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91014 March 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER G. MAPA

  • G.R. No. 97609 March 31, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE R. MIÑANO

  • G.R. No. 97747 March 31, 1993 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99886 March 31, 1993 - JOHN H. OSMEÑA v. OSCAR ORBOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103038 March 31, 1993 - JULIA ANG ENG MARIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104266 March 31, 1993 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107987 March 31, 1993 - JOSE M. BULAONG v. COMELEC, ET AL.