Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > July 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3378 December 5, 1907 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

009 Phil 310:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3378. December 5, 1907. ]

JOSE CASTAÑO, attorney in fact of Jose Fernandez, Petitioner, v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER, judge of First Instance of the Twelfth Judicial District, and MANUEL ARAUJO, Respondents.

F. Dominguez, for Petitioner.

R. Fernandez, for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE; WRITS OF PROHIBITION; JURISDICTION. — The limitation established by the legislator, in section 163 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon the power of a judge of First Instance to issue writs of prohibition in connection only with trials pending within his own district, is similar to his jurisdiction to hear on appeal a suit which is the subject of oral proceedings instituted in the court of the justice of the peace of a town within the limits of his district.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; OTHER SPECIAL REMEDIES. — If a judge of First Instance lacks authority to review and hear on appeal a matter which is the subject of oral proceedings in the court of the justice of the peace belonging to a district other than his own, neither has he power or jurisdiction to issue writs in special remedies in connection with trials pending outside the limits of his district.

3. JURISDICTION. — No question of jurisdiction may be raised in a suit which has already been definitely closed.

4. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE; ERROR. — The power to amend or correct the injustice of or errors committed by a justice of the peace rests with the judge of First Instance, who is his superior in judicial rank, within his district.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


The question involved in this original action pending in this court is whether or not the judge of First Instance of Leyte had jurisdiction, or if in the exercise of his office he exceeded his authority in admitting and granting the special remedy of certiorari against the justice of the peace of Manila, as well as when issuing a preliminary injunction directing that Jose Castaño and the sheriff of Leyte desist and abstain from performing any act tending to enforce the decision rendered by the said justice of the peace against the defendant in the oral action, Manuel Araujo, who is the plaintiff in the said certiorari and preliminary injunction proceedings.

The bases of the decision of November 30, 1906, overruling the demurrer, are taken as reproduced herein, and notwithstanding the allegations set forth by the defendants in their answers, we consider that the special remedy of prohibition, according to section 516, in connection with section 226 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be granted, inasmuch as under the provisions of the last part of section 163 of said code a judge of First Instance may only grant a preliminary injunction in an action pending in the district in which he has original jurisdiction.

This same limitation is logically inferred from the wording of the said section 226 of the above-named code; therefore the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person whether exercising functions, judicial or ministerial, to which said section refers, shall be taken to have been within and under the jurisdiction of the court which, according to law, must grant the remedy against abuse or extralimitation.

If a Court of First Instance lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal from an action in a court of a justice of the peace of another judicial district, different from the district wherein the Court of First Instance exercises its functions, he can hardly have authority and jurisdiction to issue writs granting special remedies, and much less to review the action and vacate the judgment rendered therein by a justice of the peace who is outside of the limits of his district.

Within the present system of judicial organization and of the administration of justice there exist grades, instances, and recourses, with method and legal order in the use of the same, and limits or judicial demarcation within which each judge or tribunal shall exercise its functions.

A serious confusion would be caused in the administration of justice, and the effects thereof would be prejudicial to public and private interests, if any litigant were allowed to arbitrarily interpose proceedings and obtain remedies against decisions or proceedings which he considered to be injurious to his rights, before any judge or tribunal not previously designated by the law, which has expressly defined the nature, conditions, extent, and limits of the respective jurisdiction of each judge or tribunal in its different grades.

The question as to whether the justice of the peace of Manila could lawfully hear a complaint filed against a resident of Tacloban, capital of Leyte, is quite different from the question whether the Court of First Instance of said province has jurisdiction and may legally suspend the proceedings for the execution of a judgment rendered by the said justice of the peace of Manila, and thereafter review the said judgment by means of certiorari.

Even though the justice of the peace of Manila had no authority or jurisdiction to hear and decide a complaint regarding the collection of a debt against the resident of Tacloban, it does not follow from this that the judge of First Instance of Leyte had jurisdiction to prevent the execution of a judgment in the manner and by the means stated above.

The fact that the defendant was a resident of Tacloban did not give the judge of First Instance of Leyte jurisdiction or authority to obstruct the enforcement of a judgment of the justice of the peace of Manila, and much less to review it.

The defense of the right appertaining to the defendant, by reason of his residence, should be made by means of a plea questioning the competency of the judge before whom the matter is heard; after the decision has been rendered the question of competency can not be raised.

In the Code of Civil Procedure, when treating of the place wherein actions or complaints may be filed, the provisions of the same are not limited to such actions as are filed with Courts of First Instance only; they establish general rules for all kinds of actions and trials without expressly excluding oral proceedings.

An action is instituted upon an oral complaint just the same as upon a regular complaint filed with the Court of First Instance, and when the law makes no distinction between actions it is not permissible to limit the provisions of section 377 of the code to ordinary actions.

Any citizen who resides in this Archipelago and institutes a personal action is, in the litigation, subject to the laws and to the jurisdiction of the courts of different grades established for the administration of justice under the provisions of section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the pertinent part of which is of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"And all actions not herein otherwise provided for may be brought in any province where the defendant or any necessary party defendant may reside or be found, or in any province where the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff, except in cases where other special provision is made in this code."cralaw virtua1aw library

All questions raised upon such points by reason of an oral action should have been decided, within the jurisdiction of such court by the judge of First Instance or other tribunal upon whom the duty is imposed by law.

The judge of First Instance of Leyte is not the one designated by the law to decide either the question of jurisdiction or to amend or correct an error committed by the justice of the peace of Manila; this power is conferred upon the judge of First Instance (of Manila), his immediate superior in rank in the judiciary.

The defendant Araujo, after having been arraigned in the court of the justice of the peace of Manila, had the right to contest the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace of that city, and to appeal from any decision denying such right and also from any judgment entered in the oral proceedings, such being the easy, speedy, and adequate remedy in the premises; but the law does not authorize him to avail himself of any of the special remedies before a Court of First Instance of a district other than that of the justice of the peace before whom he was arraigned because this would be to encourage disorder and confusion in the work of the courts.

For the reasons above set forth, it is our opinion that it should be held: That there was no legal reason for granting the petition of Manuel Araujo, and that, in consequence, the preliminary injunction should be, and is hereby, set aside, as well as the remedy of certiorari granted by the judge of First Instance of Leyte, and that he be ordered to desist and refrain absolutely from all further proceedings in the matter above referred to. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., and Mapa, J., concur.

Johnson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., dissent.

Separate Opinions


CARSON, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur in the result.

Counsel for the respondents insists that the relator is without legal capacity to sue out the writ prayed for, because, under the provisions of section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest", and in this proceeding the plaintiff appears as Jose Castaño, apoderado de Don Jose Fernandez (Jose Castaño, agent, with power of attorney from Jose Fernandez).

This court has never been called upon to decide whether the prosecution of an action by an agent, with power of attorney from his principal (a proper and usual mode of procedure under the Spanish code), has been abolished by the new Code of Civil Procedure; nor is it necessary to decide this question at this time. In the proceedings in the Court of First Instance which the relator seeks to prohibit, the relator was made one of the defendants, and is therein entitled Jose Castaño, apoderado de Don Jose Fernandez, and in the course of the proceedings in the said Court of First Instance, a preliminary injunction was granted against the defendants, including the relator, Jose Castaño, apoderado de Don Jose Fernandez; there is no merit in the contention of the respondents in this action that the relator, Jose Castaño, apoderado de Don Jose Fernandez, who was cited and compelled to appear in the court below, and against whom a preliminary injunction was issued, and against whom a preliminary injunction was issued, and against whom certiorari proceedings are still pending, has no capacity to appear in this court to pray that all these proceedings had in the court below be set aside and further proceedings prohibited.

It is Jose Castaño, apoderado de Don Jose Fernandez the defendant in the proceedings below, and it is Jose Castaño, apoderado de Don Jose Fernandez, against whom a preliminary injunction was issued, and no other, who is relator in this action, and it can not be said that it appears on the face of the record that Jose Castaño, apoderado de Don Fernandez, is not the real party in interest in this action, nor can the respondents herein be heard to maintain such a contention.

The complaint in the court below in the clearest and most unequivocal terms prays for a writ of certiorari from the judge of the Court of the First of Leyte, in the Twelfth Judicial District, to the justice of the peace of the city of Manila, in the judicial district of Manila, and a preliminary injunction in aid thereof; it concludes in the following language.

"In consideration of what has been set out, the court is prayed —

"(a) That it order the defendant, the justice of the peace of the city of Manila, that he remit to this court the original record of the said action, at a time and place to be determined by the court, and that the defendants desist from all proceedings in the said action;

"(b) That the said judgment of the justice of the peace of the city of Manila be definitely suspended and annulled;

"(c) That the defendants be required to pay the costs of these proceedings, granting to the plaintiff such other legal remedy as the court may deem proper."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon presentation of this complaint, the judge of the court below granted a preliminary injunction, directed to the justice of the peace of the city of Manila, the sheriff of the Province of Leyte, and Jose Castaño, apoderado de Don Jose Fernandez, the relator in this action, enjoining all proceedings on their part looking to the execution of the judgment entered in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of Manila.

This action is instituted in this court for the purpose of securing the issuance of a writ of prohibition to the respondents, prohibiting further proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Leyte upon said complaint, and seeking the annulment of the order granting the temporary injunction.

The record upon which the case is submitted is not satisfactory. No evidence was taken, and we have before us only the petition and answer, and what appears to be the original record in the proceedings in the court below which it is sought to prohibit. It does not clearly appear how this record was brought here; but since counsel for respondents prayed for an extension of twenty days before filing their answer, for the purpose of securing this record, and appeared to have filed it with their answer, and since counsel, in oral argument, treated this original record of the inferior court as of record in this case, we think we are justified in treating it as documentary evidence submitted at the hearing without objection by either party.

In conformity with the opinion filed by Mr. Justice Torres, I am of opinion that the judge of the Court of First Instance of the Twelfth District had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking a remedy by certiorari against proceedings had in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of Manila, that court not being within the Twelfth Judicial District. The jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is conferred upon judges of Courts of First Instance in the provisions of subsection 7 of section 56, Act No. 136, which read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"7. Said courts and their judges, or any of them, shall have power to issue writs of injunction, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus in their respective provinces and districts, in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be seen that jurisdiction in such cases is expressly limited to the respective provinces and districts of the judge issuing such writs, and it is hardly necessary to add that, if there is no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, there can be no jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction ancillary thereto.

But counsel for the respondents deny that "the preliminary injunction was in any way connected with any writ of certiorari, or that it was in any way based on section 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure," and allege that, "on the contrary, said injunction was granted solely and exclusively in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by sections 163 and 164 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and was not granted until it was established to the satisfaction of the principal defendant that the denial of such relief would probably work injustice to the plaintiff, as mentioned in said section 164;" and they further deny "that any such writ (of certiorari) was ever obtained, granted, or issued, and state that, on the contrary, the principal defendant (the judge of the Court of First Instance) positively and expressly refused to issue such writ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Sections 163 and 164 of the Code of Civil Procedure are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 163. Who may grant an injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be granted by any judge of the Supreme Court in any action pending in the Supreme Court or in a Court of First Instance of any province in the Islands. It may also be granted by a judge of Court of First Instance in an action pending in the district in which he has original jurisdiction.

"Sec. 164. Circumstances under which a preliminary injunction may be granted. — A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established, in the manner hereinafter provided, to the satisfaction of the judge granting it —

"1. That the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and such relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of either for a limited period or perpetually;

"2. That the commission or continuance of some act complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the plaintiff;

"3. That the defendant is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of the plaintiff’s rights, respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the provisions of section 163 judges of Courts of First Instance have no jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction unless it be granted in an action pending in the province or district in which they have original jurisdiction.

If the preliminary injunction was not granted in the course of the certiorari proceedings, the judge in granting it acted wholly without jurisdiction, because there was no other action pending in which it could have been granted.

It thus appears that whether the preliminary injunction was granted in the certiorari proceedings or independently thereof, the judge was without jurisdiction in the premises; and in this connection it is worthy of note that the record of the proceedings in the court below show that the other granting the preliminary injunction was issued ex parte, upon presentation of the petition for the writ of certiorari and prior to the filing thereof in the clerk’s office of the Court of First Instance.

As the record in the court below, it appears that a complaint has been filed in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to the court of the justice of the peace of Manila; that upon the filing of said application a preliminary injunction was granted by the judge of the said Court of First Instance directed to the said justice of the peace, to the relator in this action, and others, enjoining them from taking any steps toward the execution of a certain judgment rendered in the court of the said justice of the peace; that the said justice of the peace, the relator in this action, and the other respondents in the certiorari proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Leyte have been summoned to appear and answer the complaint praying for the writ of certiorari; and that these proceedings were suspended at this juncture pending the decision of this court on the application for a writ of prohibition now under consideration.

I think that these facts are sufficient to entitle the relator to relief.

I do not question for a moment the allegations of the answers of the respondents, that the judge of the court below was of the opinion that the writ of certiorari ought not to be granted, or that in issuing the preliminary injunction he did not intend such injunction to operate as ancillary to the proceedings seeking the issuance of the writ of certiorari. But in determining the question whether the application for the writ of certiorari has actually been entertained by the judge of the court below, the opinion of the judge, which of course was subject to change, can not be taken into consideration until it has found expression in a proper order or decision, and the effect of the issuance of the preliminary injunction as ancillary to the prayer for the writ of certiorari or otherwise is a question to be determined from an examination of the record as it has been submitted by the Respondents.

From this record I think it is clear that the action of the court below in issuing the preliminary injunction must be deemed to have been an entertainment of the application for a writ of certiorari; that at the time when the proceedings were instituted in this court the judge below had assumed, and was assuming, jurisdiction in those proceedings, and that in doing so he clearly exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him by law.




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






July-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G. R. No. L-3273. July 13, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. QUIRINO PERALTA and VICENTE PERALTA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. L-3556. July 13, 1907.] H. J. BLACK, Plaintiff, vs. CARL T. NYGREN, acting provincial treasurer of the Province of Pampanga, Defendant.

  • [G. R. No. L-3332. July 18, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HARRY B. MULFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. L-2646. July 25, 1907.] MARIA ROURA AND JUAN ROURA, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. L-3476. July 25, 1907.] DOROTEA MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CASIMIRO FULGENCIO and JOSE DE ASIS, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G. R. No. L-3348. July 26, 1907.] JULIAN NAVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HERMOGENES BENAVIDES, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. L-3563. July 26, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 3621. July 26, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MACARIO SAKAY, JULIAN MONTALBAN, LEON VILLAFUERTE, and LUCIO DE VEGA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. L-2997. July 27, 1907.] ANDRES BARTOLOME, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMEON MANDAC, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. L-3397. July 27, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BERNARDO ALAMEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. L-3431. July 27, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHU CHIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. L-3479. July 29, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILLIAM BOSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. L-3496. July 31, 1907.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. URBANA NACION, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. L-3273 July 13, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. QUIRINO PERALTA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-3556 July 13, 1907 - H.J. BLACK v. CARL T. NYGREN

    008 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. L-3332 July 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HARRY B. MULFORD

    008 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-3541 July 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN SEVILLA

    009 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2646 July 25, 1907 - MARIA ROURA, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-3476 July 25, 1907 - DOROTEA MENDOZA v. CASIMIRO FULGENCIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-3348 July 26, 1907 - JULIAN NAVAL v. HERMOGENES BENAVIDES

    008 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-3563 July 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO AUSTRIA

    008 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 3621 July 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO SAKAY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-2997 July 27, 1907 - ANDRES BARTOLOME v. SIMEON MANDAC, ET AL.

    008 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. L-3397 July 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO ALAMEDA

    008 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-3431 July 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CHU CHIO

    008 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-3479 July 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM BOSTON

    008 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-3496 July 31, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. URBANA NACION

    008 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. L-3640 August 1, 1907 - CHARLES S. ROBINSON v. CHARLES F. GARRY

    008 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-4011 August 1, 1907 - MAMERTA BANAL v. JOSE SAFONT, ET AL.

    008 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-3574 August 2, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DE DIOS

    008 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-3965 August 2, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES, ET AL. v. A.S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    008 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-3422 August 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL SAMONTE

    008 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-3576 August 3, 1907 - FLORENCIO TERNATE v. MARIA ANIVERSARIO

    008 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-3841 August 3, 1907 - CHUNG KIAT v. LIM KIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-2730 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO MORALES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-2837 August 7, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-2838 August 7, 1907 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-3419 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO POLINTAN

    008 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. L-3517 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE MAGNO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-3586 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINO VELASQUEZ

    008 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. L-3608 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO FLOIRENDO

    008 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-3842 August 7, 1907 - VICTORINO RON, ET AL. v. FELIX MOJICA

    008 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-4008 August 7, 1907 - AGUSTIN GARCIA GAVIERES v. WILLIAM ROBINSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-2836 August 8, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. L-2840 August 8, 1907 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-4002 August 8, 1907 - LO PO v. H.B. McCOY

    008 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. L-3507 August 9, 1907 - ISABELO AGUIRRE v. OCCIDENTAL NEGROS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-2841 August 10, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-3488 August 10, 1907 - C.S. ROBINSON, ET AL. v. THE SHIP "ALTA", ET AL.

    008 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-3456 August 14, 1907 - JOSEPH N. WOLFSON v. ELIAS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-3529 August 14, 1907 - ESTEBAN GUILLERMO v. RAMON MATIENZO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-2839 August 15, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-3562 August 15, 1907 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO VALLEJO

    008 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-3363 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-3554 August 17, 1907 - JULIANA BENEMERITO v. FERNANDO VELASCO

    008 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3572 August 17, 1907 - S.G. LARSON v. H. BRODEK

    008 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-3627 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. L-3664 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LEONA CINCO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. L-3200 August 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS COLOMBRO

    008 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-3625 August 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-3432 August 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO GASINGAN

    008 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-3567 August 20, 1907 - KAY B. CHANG, ET AL. v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE CORPORATION OF LONDON

    008 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. L-3626 August 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-3460 August 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LEON NARVASA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3557 August 22, 1907 - VICTORIANO GARCIA, ET AL. v. REMIGIO DIAMSON

    008 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-3173 August 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MODESTO GARCIA

    008 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3568 August 23, 1907 - ROMAN ESPAÑA v. LEONARDO LUCIDO

    008 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-3510 August 24, 1907 - HENRY O’CONNELL v. NARCISO MAYUGA

    008 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-3573 August 24, 1907 - HENRY BRODEK v. S.G. LARSON

    008 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-3604 August 24, 1907 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    008 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-3622 August 26, 1907 - H.W. PEABODY & CO., ET AL. v. PACIFIC EXPORT & LUMBER CO.

    008 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-3734 August 26, 1907 - JAMES J. PETERSON v. RAFAEL AZADA

    008 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-2871 August 29, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-3192 August 29, 1907 - LUISA ALVAREZ v. SHERIFF OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3458 August 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FIDEL GONZALEZ

    008 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-3526 August 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO MACAVINTA

    008 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-3636 August 29, 1907 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-3547 August 30, 1907 - LORENZA PAEZ v. JOSE BERENGUER

    008 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. L-3628 August 30, 1907 - MANUEL COUTO SORIANO v. BLAS CORTES

    008 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-3416 August 31, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PILAR JAVIER, ET AL.

    008 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-3561 August 31, 1907 - RITA GARCIA, ET AL. v. SIMEON BALANAO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-3630 August 31, 1907 - JOS. N. WOLFSON v. CAYETANO CHINCHILLA

    008 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-3637 August 31, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS, ET AL. v. ANASTASIO CUEVAS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-3220 September 2, 1907 - MURPHY MORRIS & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3396 September 2, 1907 - STRUCKMANN & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2538 September 4, 1907 - MARIANO PAMINTUAN, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-3648 September 5, 1907 - LUTZ & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    008 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. L-3667 September 5, 1907 - NATALIA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    008 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3326 September 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LAURENTE REY

    008 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-3482 September 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME GRAY

    008 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. L-3489 September 7, 1907 - VICENTE NAVALES v. EULOGIA RIAS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-2526 September 10, 1907 - PEDRO PAMINTUAN, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    008 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-3301 September 10, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EMIGDIO NOBLEZA

    008 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-3616 September 10, 1907 - CIRILO PURUGANAN v. TEODORO MARTIN, ET AL.

    008 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. L-3221 September 11, 1907 - ATLANTIC, GULF & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. L-3708 September 12, 1907 - ELVIRA FRESSELL v. MARCIANA AGUSTIN

    008 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. L-3383 September 13, 1907 - TAN LEONCO v. GO INQUI

    008 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. L-3546 September 13, 1907 - PIA DEL ROSARIO v. JUAN LUCENA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. L-3132 September 14, 1907 - MANUEL SOLER, ET AL. v. EMILIA ALZOUA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. L-3146 September 14, 1907 - NICOLAS CO-PITCO v. PEDRO YULO

    008 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. L-3534 September 14, 1907 - TO GUIOC-CO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    008 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-3395 September 16, 1907 - PEDRO ARENAL, ET AL. v. CHARLES F. BARNES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-3067 September 17, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. LUENGO & MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. L-3434 September 18, 1907 - SAGASAG v. VICTORIA TORRIJOS

    008 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. L-3474 September 20, 1907 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-4244 September 20, 1907 - RAFAEL MOLINA v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-3575 September 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TRANQUILINO ALMADEN, ET AL.

    008 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. L-3672 September 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO EUSEBIO

    008 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-3675 September 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO AMANTE, ET AL.

    008 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 3527 September 23, 1907 - TAN TIOCO v. MARCELINA LOPEZ

    011 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. L-3726 September 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO MONZONES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. L-3369 September 24, 1907 - JONAS BROOK BROS. v. FROELICH & KUTTNER

    008 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-3597 September 24, 1907 - MANUEL MESIA v. PLACIDO MAZO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-3615 September 24, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BRIGIDO CASIN

    008 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. L-3669 September 24, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO BALTAZAR

    008 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-4138 September 24, 1907 - SY HONG ENG v. SY LIOC SUY

    008 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-3728 September 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO MAISA

    008 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. L-3207 September 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO GARCIA

    008 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-3373 September 26, 1907 - VICENTA JALBUENA v. GABRIEL LEDESMA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3535 September 26, 1907 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-3645 September 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EMETERIO DACANAY

    008 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-3439 September 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MONTANER

    008 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. L-1516 September 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINADOR GOMEZ

    008 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. L-2264 September 28, 1907 - P. JOSE EVANGELISTA v. P. ROMAN VER

    008 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. L-3629 September 28, 1907 - MATEA E. RODRIGUEZ v. SUSANA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 665

  • G.R. No. L-3684 September 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO NERI

    008 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. L-3767 September 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENTINO LEYBA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. L-3497 September 30, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. L. V. SMITH, ET AL.

    008 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. L-3584 September 30, 1907 - ARTADI & CO. v. CHU BACO

    008 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-3727 September 30, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENDO GADILA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-3543 October 1, 1907 - LA CAPELLANIA DEL CONVENTO DE TAMBOBONG v. GUILLERMO ANTONIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-3587 October 2, 1907 - FRANCISCO ALDAMIS v. FAUSTINO LEUTERIO

    008 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. L-2827 October 3, 1907 - MARIA LOPEZ Y VILLANUEVA v. TAN TIOCO

    008 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3409 October 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO BUSTAMANTE, ET AL.

    008 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-3515 October 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON MACK

    008 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-3520 October 3, 1907 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. JOSE ROBLES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-3571 October 3, 1907 - VALENTIN LACUESTA, ET AL. v. PATERNO GUERRERO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-3957 October 3, 1907 - DOMINGO REYES, ET AL. v. SOR EFIGENIA ALVAREZ

    008 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. L-3716 October 4, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO BORJA

    008 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3729 October 4, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ZACARIAS VALENCIA

    008 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3744 October 5, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS CASTAÑARES

    008 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 3067 October 7, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. LUENGO & MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-3642 October 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO XAVIER

    008 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-2558 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN MACALALAD

    009 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-4052 October 8, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    008 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-3715 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO BORJA

    009 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3749 October 8, 1907 - ARTADY & CO. v. CLARO SANCHEZ

    009 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-3807 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO CABIGAO

    009 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-4052 October 8, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    009 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-3752 October 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTO BASILIO

    009 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-4057 October 9, 1907 - MARIANO MACATANGAY v. MUN. OF SAN JUAN DE BOCBOC

    009 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3181 October 10, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA

    009 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-3438 October 12, 1907 - MANUEL LOPEZ Y VILLANUEVA v. EVARISTO ALVAREZ Y PEREZ

    009 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3594 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALLEN A. GARNER

    009 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-3609 October 12, 1907 - EULALIA ESPINO v. DANIEL ESPINO

    009 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-3660 October 12, 1907 - JOSE TAN SUNCO v. ALEJANDRO SANTOS

    009 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3887 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FLORES

    009 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. L-3961 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO BASE

    009 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-3224 October 17, 1907 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. STRUCKMANN & CO., ET AL.

    009 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-3796 October 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIA RAMIREZ

    009 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-3905 October 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO DONATO

    009 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 3810 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN ORERA

    011 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-2870 October 18, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    009 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-3766 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO LIMCANGCO

    009 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-3808 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO VICTORIA

    009 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. L-3873 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUSTO DACUYCUY

    009 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. L-3760 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. WALTER B. BROWN

    009 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3819 October 19, 1907 - JESUS SANCHEZ MELLADO v. MUNICIPALITY OF TACLOBAN

    009 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3853 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    009 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-3949 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

    009 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3532 October 21, 1907 - TY LACO CIOCO v. ARISTON MURO

    009 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-3644 October 21, 1907 - VICENTE QUESADA v. ISABELO ARTACHO

    009 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-3694 October 21, 1907 - JULIANA BONCAN v. SMITH

    009 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-3649 October 24, 1907 - JOSE GUZMAN v. WILLIAM X

    009 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. L-3761 October 24, 1907 - SALUSTIANO LERMA Y MARTINEZ v. FELISA MAMARIL

    009 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-3560 October 26, 1907 - MAGDALENA LEDESMA v. ILDEFONSO DORONILA

    009 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3619 October 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO CANAMAN

    009 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. L-3676 October 26, 1907 - PONS Y COMPANIA v. LA COMPANIA MARITIMA

    009 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3695 October 16, 1907 - ALEJANDRA PALANCA v. SMITH

    009 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-3745 October 26, 1907 - JUAN AGUSTIN v. BARTOLOME INOCENCIO

    009 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-3756 October 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ILDEFONSO RODRIGUEZ

    009 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-3633 October 30, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORA BORJAL

    009 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-3908 November 1, 1907 - ENRIQUE SERRANO v. LEANDRO SERRANO

    009 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3732 November 2, 1907 - CLEMENCIA FELIX v. MATEO A FELIX

    009 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-3427 November 6, 1907 - CAPELLANIA DEL CONVENTO DE TAMBOBONG v. HIPOLITO CRUZ

    009 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-3623 November 6, 1907 - RUPERTO RELOVA v. ELENA LAVAREZ

    009 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-3661 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LAUREANO RODRIGUEZ

    009 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-3985 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANANIAS CERVO, ET AL.

    009 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-3986 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO GESMUNDO

    009 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-3996 November 6, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN BAILON

    009 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-3852 November 11, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO MONTIEL

    009 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3779 November 13, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. OTIS G. FREEMAN

    009 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-3787 November 14, 1907 - TEODORICA ENDENCIA v. EDUARDO LOALHATI

    009 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-3754 November 15, 1907 - ANGELA OJINAGA v. ESTATE OF TOMAS R. PEREZ

    009 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3516 November 16, 1907 - FELISA NEPOMUCENO v. CIRILO A. CARLOS

    009 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-3838 November 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-3840 November 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO BORSED

    009 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-3878 November 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ATANACIO MACASPAC

    009 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4123 November 16, 1907 - LA YEBANA COMPANY v. TIMOTEO SEVILLA

    009 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-4018 November 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DEMETRIO SALUDO

    009 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-3144 November 19, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    009 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-3638 November 19, 1907 - FAUSTINO GUERRA v. BLANCO SENDAGORTA, ET AL.

    009 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3662 November 19, 1907 - VICENTA ACUÑA v. THE CITY OF MANILA

    009 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3610 November 20, 1907 - JOSE CAMPS v. PEDRO A. PATERNO

    009 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-3774 November 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    009 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-4069 November 20, 1907 - JUAN JAUCIAN v. ROBERTO FLORANZA

    009 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. L-2786 November 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO ASEBUQUE

    009 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-3900 November 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO

    009 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4357 November 21, 1907 - MIGUEL PAVON v. PHIL. ISLANDS TELEPHONE, ET AL.

    009 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 3747 November 22, 1907 - YU CHENGCO v. ALFONSO TIAOQUI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-3755 November 23, 1907 - C. C. PYLE v. ROY W. JOHNSON

    009 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-3823 November 23, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS v. MARIA DE LA PAZ MIJARES

    009 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-3750 November 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUSTO GAMIS

    009 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-3964 November 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN MALABANAN

    009 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-3973 November 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN SOL

    009 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3741 November 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. AFRONIANO FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-3702 November 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESCOLASTICO DE LA CRUZ

    009 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-4338 December 2, 1907 - ALFRED B. JONES v. J. E. HARDING

    009 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-3738 December 3, 1907 - JOSE ACOSTA v. ANDRES DOMINGO

    009 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-3190 December 4, 1907 - ASUNCION ALBERT Y MAYORALGO, ET AL v. MARTINIANO PUNSALAN

    009 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-3935 December 4, 1907 - UY PIAOCO v. SERGIO OSMENA

    009 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-3378 December 5, 1907 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    009 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-3713 December 5, 1907 - UNION FARMACEUTICA FILIPINA v. FRANCISCO ICASIANO

    009 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-3826 December 7, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

    009 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-3847 December 7, 1907 - LEOPOLDO FERRER v. RAMON NERI ABEJUELA

    009 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-3704 December 12, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. FRANCISCO MUÑOZ

    009 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-3895 December 14, 1907 - In the matter of A. K. JONES

    009 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3899 December 16, 1907 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS

    009 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. L-3933 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO SAN ANDRES

    009 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-3959 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO PARAS

    009 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-3972 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO GUANZON

    009 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3596 December 17, 1907 - LUCHSINGER & CO. v. CORNELIO MELLIZA

    009 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3688 December 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN HAZLEY

    009 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-3891 December 19, 1907 - ELENA MORENTE v. GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA

    009 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-3505 December 20, 1907 - ARCADIO MAXILOM v. GAUDENCIO TABOTABO

    009 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. L-3980 December 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO GOROSPE, ET AL.

    009 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-4061 December 20, 1907 - MANUEL TAGUINOT v. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAY

    009 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-3483 December 21, 1907 - BENITO MOJICA v. JUANA FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-3788 December 21, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS v. JULIA TUASON

    009 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-3936 December 21, 1907 - JOSE VILLEGAS v. NICOLAS CAPISTRANO

    009 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3991 December 21, 1907 - SIMEON ROQUE v. RUFINO NAVARRO

    009 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-3992 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAGDALENO MENDEZ

    009 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-4086 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO BRELLO

    009 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-4201 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESPIRIDION ROTA

    009 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-3570 December 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO C. GARCIA

    009 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-3948 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

    009 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3969 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO SANTILLAN

    009 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-3212 December 28, 1907 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITIES OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    009 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-3273 July 13, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. QUIRINO PERALTA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-3556 July 13, 1907 - H.J. BLACK v. CARL T. NYGREN

    008 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. L-3332 July 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HARRY B. MULFORD

    008 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-3541 July 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN SEVILLA

    009 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2646 July 25, 1907 - MARIA ROURA, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-3476 July 25, 1907 - DOROTEA MENDOZA v. CASIMIRO FULGENCIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-3348 July 26, 1907 - JULIAN NAVAL v. HERMOGENES BENAVIDES

    008 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-3563 July 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO AUSTRIA

    008 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 3621 July 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO SAKAY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-2997 July 27, 1907 - ANDRES BARTOLOME v. SIMEON MANDAC, ET AL.

    008 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. L-3397 July 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO ALAMEDA

    008 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-3431 July 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CHU CHIO

    008 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-3479 July 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM BOSTON

    008 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-3496 July 31, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. URBANA NACION

    008 Phil 274