ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 92462 June 2, 1997 - SANTIAGO GOKING v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97896 June 2, 1997 - TEKNIKA SKILLS & TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116748 June 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARJORIE CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 121434 June 2, 1997 - ELENA F. UICHICO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120880 June 5, 1997 - FERDINAND R. MARCOS II v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76969 June 9, 1997 - INLAND REALTY INVESTMENT SERVICE, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89369 June 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BERGONIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107259 June 9, 1997 - RAYMUNDO M. DAPITON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108475 June 9, 1997 - GAMALIEL DINIO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115944 June 9, 1997 - ELVIRA C. GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118536 June 9, 1997 - LAWIN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119362 & 120269 June 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO O. RABOSA

  • G.R. No. 123905 June 9, 1997 - MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124280 June 9, 1997 - FLORA S. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 730 June 10, 1997 - NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE SUPERVISED

  • G.R. No. 96999 June 10, 1997 - CARLOS O. YSMAEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106812 June 10, 1997 - TAGAYTAY-TAAL TOURIST DEV. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107302, 107306 & 108559-60 June 10, 1997 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120074 June 10, 1997 - LEAH P. ADORIO v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 120594 June 10, 1997 - ALFONSO TAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123639 June 10, 1997 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113713 June 11, 1997 - ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116940 June 11, 1997 - PHIL-AM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117561 June 11, 1997 - JULIO MARCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118041 June 11, 1997 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118921-22 June 11, 1997 - ERNESTO AUSTRIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120956 June 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MORENO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1248 June 13, 1997 - MARIEL ECUBE-BADEL v. DAVID DE LA PEÑA BADEL

  • G.R. Nos. 100513 & 111559 June 13, 1997 - SEVERINO ANTONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102467 June 13, 1997 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110817-22 June 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO A. BUGARIN

  • G.R. No. 111088 June 13, 1997 - C & M TIMBER CORP. v. ANGEL C. ALCALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113103 & 116000 June 13, 1997 - NAPOCOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114764 June 13, 1997 - WILFREDO T. PADILLA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4244 June 17, 1997 - BUHANGIN RESIDENTS & EMPLOYEES ASSN., ETC. v. CORAZON NUÑEZ-MALANYAON

  • G.R. No. 100920 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLI SALCEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109311 June 17, 1997 - ZENAIDA ASUNCION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110974-81 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 111357 June 17, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113799 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BAYDO

  • G.R. No. 119337 June 17, 1997 - BAYVIEW HOTEL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120030 June 17, 1997 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120553 June 17, 1997 - PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120802 June 17, 1997 - JOSE T. CAPILI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121787 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO GREFALDIA

  • G.R. No. 121964 June 17, 1997 - ABDULIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122932 June 17, 1997 - JOY BROTHERS, INC. v. NWPC

  • Adm. Case No. 4431 June 19, 1997 - PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1221 June 19, 1997 - ADORACION G. ANGELES v. PABLO C. GERNALE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1240 June 19, 1997 - WILFREDO C. BANOGON v. FELIPE T. ARIAS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1242 June 19, 1997 - ESTHER P. MAGLEO v. ARISTON G. TAYAG

  • G.R. Nos. 93100 & 97855 June 19, 1997 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP. v. SECRETARY OF DAR

  • G.R. No. 102612 June 19, 1997 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102723-24 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CABALLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103493 June 19, 1997 - PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106583 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 108107 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSAN PANTALEON

  • G.R. No. 108616 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO PATAWARAN

  • G.R. No. 109224 June 19, 1997 - MEGASCOPE GENERAL SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110226 June 19, 1997 - ALBERTO S. SILVA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112687 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABNER B. EUBRA

  • G.R. No. 113685 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. THEODORE BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114812 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODEL Z. SAHAGUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115968 June 19, 1997 - RUBIN FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116394 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BONOLA

  • G.R. No. 116918 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONFILO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 117005 June 19, 1997 - CARLITO D. CORPUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117228 June 19, 1997 - RODOLFO MORALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118335-36 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSELLER ALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119071 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ANTIPONA

  • G.R. No. 121429 June 19, 1997 - MARCIA TUMBIGA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122368 June 19, 1997 - BERNARDO NAZAL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122389 June 19, 1997 - MIGUEL SINGSON v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122806 June 19, 1997 - TIMES BROADCASTING NETWORK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122866 June 19, 1997 - MELVA NATH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123073 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN CAYABYAB

  • G.R. No. 123673 June 19, 1997 - PEDRO C. CALUCAG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123708 June 19, 1997 - CSC, ET AL. v. RAFAEL M. SALAS

  • G.R. No. 124050 June 19, 1997 ccc zz

    MAYER STEEL PIPE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125008 June 19, 1997 - COMMODITIES STORAGE & ICE PLANT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125221 June 19, 1997 - REYNALDO M. LOZANO v. ELIEZER R. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125347 June 19, 1997 - EMILIANO RILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125798 June 19, 1997 - HADJI HAMID LUMNA PATORAY v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125955 June 19, 1997 - WILMER GREGO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126361 June 19, 1997 - VICTOR R. MIRANDA, ET AL. v. JESSIE B. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127311 June 19, 1997 - CONRADO LINDO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127623 June 19, 1997 - DOMINADOR VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116216 June 20, 1997 - NATALIA S. MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116695 June 20, 1997 - VICTORIA G. GACHON, ET AL. v. NORBERTO C. DEVERA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118435 June 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO SERZO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 119178 June 20, 1997 - LINA LIM LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119745 June 20, 1997 - POWER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122079 June 27, 1997 - ANTONIO CONCEPCION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100935 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ZABALLERO

  • G.R. No. 102316 June 30, 1997 - VALENZUELA HARDWOOD AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112260 June 30, 1997 - JOVITA YAP ANCOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115689 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO ARTIAGA

  • G.R. No. 121793 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADONIS BALAD

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 115968   June 19, 1997 - RUBIN FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 115968. June 19, 1997.]

    SPOUSES RUBIN FERRER and AMPARO FERRER, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS TINSAY, Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. NO. 32353 1 affirming the decision of Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. The RTC earlier reversed the decision of Branch 4 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities.

    Private respondent Luis Tinsay is the owner of a 300-square meter lot along Mabini Street, Iloilo City. Said lot was leased to petitioner-spouses Rubin and Amparo Ferrer sometime in 1974 for an initial monthly rate of P10.00 until it reached the amount of P540.00 at the time the complaint was instituted. The lease agreement was verbal and there was no period agreed upon.

    On July 3, 1991, private respondent advised petitioners, through a letter, that he was terminating the lease agreement effective the end of July 1991. Petitioners failed to vacate the premises as demanded prompting private respondent to institute a complaint for illegal detainer and damages with the Municipal Trial Court. Said court ruled in favor of private respondent by ordering petitioners to vacate the premises, to pay the unpaid rentals, and accorded the former the option to either reimburse the latter one half of the value of the improvements introduced into the property or remove said improvements if the former refuses to reimburse the latter.

    Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court which reversed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court by extending the lease for a fixed period of one year reckoned from the date of receipt by petitioners of its decision and ordering them to pay a monthly rental of P5,000.00 for the duration of the fixed extended period.

    On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court holding that the fixing of the period of the lease contract is addressed to the sound discretion of the court as provided in Article 1687 of the Civil Code. It further held that the decision of the lower court was prompted by considerations of equity and justice stating that to fix the period to a longer term of seven or eight years as prayed for by petitioners would be unduly burdensome for private respondent who has expressed a need for the premises in question. This is especially true considering the fact that there was originally no agreement as to the term of the lease. Thus, to fix the lease for a longer period would be unreasonable.

    The Court of Appeals also held that petitioners cannot take refuge under the provisions of B.P. 877 (Rent Control Law) for the reason that the parties already stipulated in the pre-trial conducted by the municipal trial court that the premises in question are commercial and not residential land. As such, petitioners cannot now take a position inconsistent with their pre-trial stipulations. It added that the lease agreement being a month to month lease which is a definite period, it is terminable at the end of each month at the option of the lessor.

    Hence, this petition. Petitioners submit that they are entitled to a longer extended period of lease, as well as to reimbursement of the actual value of the improvements introduced in the premises.

    Petitioners claim that Article 1687 of the Civil Code gives the court the authority to grant an extended lease by fixing a longer period considering that they have been staying in the premises for forty-seven years (since 1946) and that they have spent around 3.5 million pesos for the building. They state that they are amenable to a period of seven to eight years considering the above-mentioned circumstances. They also invoke the provisions of B.P. 877 as being applicable to them claiming that the building they built is classified as residential. They argue that since the building they built is a residential unit and the period of the lease is not fixed, hence indefinite, the court is prevented from ejecting them from the premises without violating the provisions of B.P. 877. They contend that where no period for the lease is stipulated, the lessee may continue under the terms provided under the Rent Control Law, i.e., they may stay in the premises indefinitely until the effectivity of B.P. 877 as extended by R.A. 7644. 2

    This Court finds petitioners’ contentions without merit. Article 1687, which petitioners cite to support their contention that the court may fix a longer term for the lease especially in view of their long occupation of the premises, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual, from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is paid daily. However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has not been set, the courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over one year. If the rent is weekly, the court may likewise determine a longer period after the lessee has been in possession for over six months. In the case of daily rent, the court may also fix a longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one month."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case of Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals 3 citing Divino v. Marcos, 4 this Court, commenting on the above-cited article, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . the power of the court to ‘fix a longer term for lease is potestative or discretionary — ‘may’ is the word — to be exercised or not in accordance with the particular circumstances of the case; a longer term to be granted where equities come into play demanding extension, to be denied where none appear, always with due deference to the parties’ freedom to contract. . . ." (Acasio v. Corp. de los PP Dominicas de Filipinas, G.R. No. L-9428, Dec. 21, 1956)

    In the same above-cited case, this Court then concluded:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The lot in question has been rented to the petitioner for about 20 years and his predecessors-in-interest for more. Even though rentals had been paid monthly, still no period for the duration of the lease had been set. The lease had been consistently and tacitly renewed (’tacita reconduccion’) until the ejectment case was filed (Co Tiam v. Diaz, 75 Phil. 672 Villanueva v. Canlas, 77 Phil. 381; Art. 1670. N.C.C.; Art. 1566, old Civil Code). Having made substantial or additional improvements on the lot, and considering the difficulty of looking for another place to which petitioner could transfer such improvements, and the length of his occupancy of the lot (since 1936), and the impression acquired by him that he could stay on the premises, as long as he could pay the rentals, it would seem that there exists just grounds for granting the extension of lease and that the extension of two years granted by the trial court, is both fair and equitable."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case at bar, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities found the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . it bears to be noted that the verbal lease of the lot in question was at the start (whether from the late forties as contended by defendants or from the early seventies as claimed by plaintiff) for residential purposes. Emitted from the very lips of defendant Amparo Ferrer was a statement to the effect that the structure they initially built in the premises was a ‘hayob-hayob’, implying that defendants then were in extreme need even of a makeshift dwelling unit. It was indeed fortunate for them to have a friend, in the person of plaintiff, who provided them with a place to inhabit on a very minimal lease rental. And the fact that defendant Rubin Ferrer had to plead to be allowed to stay in the premises until his son could finish his studies, in Iloilo City, was enough indication of the necessity of defendants for a place to settle for the duration of such studies. But defendant Rubin Ferrer is now the Municipal Mayor of one of the municipalities in Guimaras and the son presumably had already graduated. The necessity then obtaining is no longer in existence. Defendants can now afford to buy a suitable place for a dwelling purpose and their financial capacity is eloquently demonstrated by their offer to even buy the lot where they were accommodated by a friend and their capability to put up two commercial buildings thereon. Simply stated, they are no longer the same struggling, impoverished family who had to stay in a makeshift shelter just to be in the City in order to educate their children.

    Not only had they constructed two commercial buildings but defendants concededly operate a "carinderia" business in the ground floor of one of said buildings. More, they leased a part thereof to "RCPI" and the entire ground floor of the next building to Nita Rubado, proprietor of "AB Copra Buyer." The second floor of both structures as well as the third floor of the 1972 building are occupied by boarders (testimony of plaintiff), who Amparo Ferrer claims to be their nephews and nieces. And obviously, defendants no longer reside in the premises since their business concerns were already taken over by their thirty year old daughter (in her personal circumstances given when she testified) Melanie Ferrer."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In view of the above circumstances, petitioners’ claim that they are entitled to an extension of seven to eight years considering that they have been occupying the premises for over forty-seven years aside from the fact that they have spent around 3.5 million pesos for the improvements, would be unreasonable. The Court accepts fully the findings of fact of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities.

    However, the decision of the Regional Trial Court which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals is more than reasonable and, in the view of the Court, quite generous considering the above-cited findings of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities. The one-year fixed term given by the Regional Trial Court is based on just and equitable considerations. Insofar as they are based on considerations supported by substantial evidence, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the discretion of the court in fixing a period for the extension of the lease.

    Petitioners’ contention that they are covered by B.P. 877 since they claim that the building they built on the leased premises was residential, is likewise without merit. Said law, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Section 6. Application of the Civil Code and Rules of Court of the Philippines. — Except when the lease is for a definite period, the provisions of paragraph (1) of Article 1673 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, insofar as they refer to residential units covered by this Act, shall be suspended during the effectivity of this Act, but other provisions of the Civil Code and the Rules on lease contracts, insofar as they are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act shall apply."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the lease was verbal, that the period for the lease had not been fixed, that the rentals were paid monthly, and that proper demand and notice by the lessor to vacate was given. 5 In the case of Acab v. Court of Appeals, 6 this Court held that lease agreements with no specified period, but in which rentals are paid monthly, are considered to be on a month-to-month basis. They are for a definite period and expire after the last day of any given thirty-day period, upon proper demand and notice by the lessor to vacate.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

    So even if petitioners invoke B.P. 877, said law states, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Section 5. Grounds for Judicial Ejectment. — Ejectment shall be allowed on the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    (f) Expiration of the period of the lease contract."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In any case, petitioners are now estopped from claiming that the building they constructed on the leased premises was residential for in their pre-trial conference, both parties stipulated that the nature of the subject lot is commercial. 7

    WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Puno, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Justice Antonio M. Martinez and concurred in by Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. and Godardo A. Jacinto.

    2. An Act Extending the Effectivity of B.P. 877 from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1992.

    3. G.R. No. 123321, March 3, 1997.

    4. 4 SCRA 186 (1962).

    5. Decision, p. 21, Records.

    6. 241 SCRA 546 (1995).

    7. Pre-Trial Order dated January 14, 1992, p. 77, Records.

    G.R. No. 115968   June 19, 1997 - RUBIN FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED