Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > March 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3072 March 21, 1907 - LIONG-WONG-SHIH v. TOMAS SUNICO, ET AL.

008 Phil 91:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3072. March 21, 1907. ]

LIONG-WONG-SHIH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TOMAS SUNICO and JAMES J. PETERSON, Defendants-Appellants.

Buencamino & Diokno, for Appellants.

Mariano Escueta for, Appellee.

SYLLABUS


REALTY; ATTACHMENT; ACTION. — Some time prior to the 31st day of December, 1903, S., an executor, commenced an action against C. to recover a sum of money. On the 30th day of December, 1903, C. sold an undivided one-half of a certain parcel of land to L. On the 31st day of December, 1903, S. secured an attachment against the property of C. Such attachment was not registered for the reason that C.’s title has not been registered. On the 26th day of January, 1904, S. secured a second attachment against the property of C., which was duly registered, C.’s title in the meantime having been registered also. The record discloses that C. had commenced an action under the laws of the Philippine Commission to have his title registered under the Torrens system, but the record does not show whether his title had been registered in the old or new registry at the time of the issuance of the second writ of attachment. On the 19th day of June, 1905, L. commenced an action to have the registry of the said second attachment canceled. In view of the fact that the record does not disclose whether C.’s title had been recorded under the Mortgage Law or under the Torrens system, and in view of complications which might arise by virtue of the sale of lands by one who is seeking to have his title recorded under the Torrens system during the pendency of such action, the case was remanded to the lower court for a new trial.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to have declared null and void certain attachments issued in favor of the defendant by the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, and levied upon certain property alleged to belong to the plaintiff.

The record discloses that some time prior to the 31st day of December, 1903, the defendant Tomas Sunico, as executor of the estate of Telesforo Chuidian, commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover of Francisco Chuidian a certain sum of money due said estate.

On the 30th day of December, 1903, the plaintiff herein purchased of the said Francisco Chuidian the undivided one-half of a certain parcel of land situated at No. 58 Calle Santo Cristo, district of Binondo, in the city of Manila, paying therefor the sum of 23,000 pesos, entering into the possession of said property on the same day. On the same day Francisco Chuidian executed and delivered to the plaintiff herein, a bill of sale, executed before a notary public.

On the 31st day of December, 1903, at the petition of the said Tomas Sunico, the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila issued an order of attachment against the one-half of a certain piece of property, situated at No. 58 Calle Santo Cristo, in the district of Binondo, city of Manila, but for the reason that the said property was not then registered in the Registry of Property of the city of Manila, the attachment of the property could not be noted in the said registry.

On the 26th day of January, 1904, the judge of the Court of First Instance issued a second order of attachment against the one-half of said property, which second order of attachment was duly noted in the Registry of Property of the city of Manila upon the 28th day of January, 1904. Each of said orders of attachment was levied by the sheriff of the city of Manila.

On the 19th day of June, 1905, the plaintiff herein filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, setting forth substantially the foregoing facts and prayed that the court grant her the following remedy, among others:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That said attachment be declared to be null and void, and that the plaintiff be declared to be the owner of one-half of the said property, located as above described.

Second. That the court order the cancellation in the Registry of Property of the city of Manila of the annotation of said attachment.

Third. That the defendants be charged with the costs. After hearing the evidence of the respective parties, the judge of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila granted the petition of the plaintiff herein, and ordered that the attachment be dissolved and that the notation of such attachment in the Registry of Property of the city of Manila be annulled. From this decision the defendants appealed.

It is admitted in the petition of the plaintiff that at the time the said petition was presented, her title deeds executed by the said Francisco Chuidian had not been registered. Said petition also admits the fact that the title deeds of the said Francisco Chuidian had not been registered on the said 30th day of December, 1903, the day on which the plaintiff purchased said property. Said petition further admits that between the date on which the first attachment was issued against the said property (31st of December, 1903) and the date (26th of January, 1904) on which the second writ of attachment was issued against said property, the title deeds of the said Francisco Chuidian had been duly registered, but the record does not disclose whether the same was registered in the old or new registry, nor under the old or new law. This fact is important. Suppose that A, the owner of a tract of land whose title deeds are recorded under the old system, commences an action under the laws of the Philippine Commission to have the same registered under the Torrens system, and after the commencement of this action, and while the same is still pending, he sells the land to B; after this sale to B the Land Court registers the title to the land in the name of A; after this registry in the name of A, and after the sale to B, C, a creditor of A, levies an attachment against the land and has the same registered. Can B’s title thus be defeated? We do not pass upon this question now for the reason that the record is incomplete — it does not show in which registry the title of Francisco Chuidian was registered; whether under the registry provided for by the Mortgage Law or whether under the system of registration provided for by the Philippine Commission.

On the 6th day of November, 1902, the Philippine Commission passed an act providing for the adjudication and registration of title deeds to lands in the Philippine Islands. The general purpose of this act was to make all evidence of title to lands in the Philippine Islands a matter of record, to the end that all persons dealing or treating with respect of titles to lands might be enabled from the proper register of titles to ascertain the true status and ownership of liens, etc., respecting particular parcels or tracts of land. Section 50 of said Act No. 496, provides among other things:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will, purporting to convey or affect registered land, shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties, and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register of deeds to make registration. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

This quoted provision of the said Act clearly indicates that when the title to lands is once registered, that subsequent conveyances, deeds, mortgages, etc., shall not operate to convey or effect the title of lands until the same is duly registered.

Section 51 provides that when such conveyances, deeds, mortgages, leases, liens, attachments, etc., are duly registered, such registration shall be notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing, or entering.

The record, however, does not disclose whether the provisions of this Act apply to the lands in question for the reason that it does not show that at the time of the second attachment the land in question had been registered under said Act. If the same had not been registered at the time of the attachment, then the rights and relations of all the parties interested are governed by the provisions of the Mortgage Law.

Articles 2 and 5 of said Mortgage Law provide what instruments relating to land shall be recorded. The conveyance made by Francisco Chuidian to the plaintiff herein is included in the instruments mentioned in said article 2. Article 23 1 of said Mortgage Law provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The instruments mentioned in articles 2 and 5 which are not duly recorded in the registry can not prejudice third persons."cralaw virtua1aw library

The record does disclose the fact that prior to the time of the filing of the petition by the plaintiff in this cause, she had presented a petition in the court of Land Registration of the city, under Act No. 496 of the Philippine Commission, to have the said property duly registered, but it does not disclose whether said petition had been granted at the time of the granting of the said attachment.

The foregoing facts present the question, Whether the purchaser of land, who fails to have his title deeds recorded in the proper registry of property, can be relieved from attachment liens created or placed upon said property subsequent to his purchase of such property? In other words, for example, A purchases a piece of property of B upon the first day of a certain month. A fails to have his title deeds properly recorded. B’s title is duly recorded. C being a creditor of B, on the second an attachment upon the property which the latter sold to A. Said attachment is duly noted in the Registry of Property.

Query: Is A entitled to have said attachment set aside and annulled? or can C, in the face of the fact that B has sold his property to A prior to the date of the attachment, enforce his attachment lien against the said property, granting that A had not, at the time of the said attachment, duly recorded his title deeds?

The effect of actual notice on the part of C of the sale of the said property by B to A might effect his rights in the premises. We do not pass upon that question for the reason that in the present case there is no allegation that the defendant Tomas Sunico had any knowledge whatever, at the time said attachment was issued, of the sale by Francisco Chuidian to the plaintiff herein. The defendant Tomas Sunico, in his answer alleges, however, that the sale by the said Chuidian to the plaintiff herein was fraudulent. The evidence not having been brought to this court we make no finding upon that question.

During the trial of the cause in the lower court, the plaintiff offered in evidence, and the court allowed the same to be admitted, the deed of Francisco Chuidian to the plaintiff. To the admission of this evidence the defendant duly excepted. Said objection was based upon the ground that said deed had not been recorded. An examination of the said document shows that the same had not been recorded. The appellant cites this ruling as one of the errors committed by the lower court.

It was the evident purpose of the Mortgage Law to require a record of all transfers of property, as well as a record of liens, attachments, etc., placed upon property, and to enforce this purpose of the Law it is believed that no transfer of title was admissible as evidence unless the same had been recorded. However, for the reason that it is unnecessary to decide that question in this case, we refuse to pass upon it at this time, and for the additional reason that it is not now necessary to declare the effect which the rules of evidence established in the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions may have upon this former rule of evidence.

From the facts stated above we reach the following conclusions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) That Francisco Chuidian owed the estate of Telesforo Chuidian a certain sum of money;

(2) That prior to the 31st day of December, 1903, Tomas Sunico, as executor of the estate of the said Telesforo Chuidian, had commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover said indebtedness;

(3) That upon the 26th day of January, 1904, the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila had issued an attachment against certain property which had theretofore belonged to the said Francisco Chuidian in the city of Manila, which attachment was duly levied upon such property and registered in the property registry of the city of Manila on the 28th day of January, 1904; but the record does not disclose in which registry, the new or the old;

(4) That upon the 30th day of December, 1903, the said Francisco Chuidian, by means of a public document, had transferred his title to such property to the plaintiff herein;

(5) That at the time said attachment was levied and registered, the deed of transfer from Francisco Chuidian to the plaintiff herein had not been recorded;

(6) That neither the defendant, Tomas Sunico, as executor, nor the sheriff of the city of Manila had any knowledge with reference to the said transfer from Francisco Chuidian to the plaintiff; and

Whereas, in view of the provisions of the Mortgage Law and the Act of the Philippine Commission (Act No. 496) above quoted, that the vendee of real property shall not be protected from liens created against said property, against the vendor, between the time of the sale and the time of the creation of said liens, unless said transfer is duly recorded; and

Whereas the record brought to this court does not disclose in which record the title of Francisco Chuidian was recorded, whether in the view or the old, or whether the sale of such land was made by Francisco Chuidian to the plaintiff herein before or after the application the former to have his title recorded under the acts of the Commission: Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is hereby reversed, and the cause is hereby ordered to be returned to the lower court for a new trial in order that these facts may be made of record to the end that the rights of the parties may be adjusted under existing laws.

After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the record be remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Mapa, J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. Article 32.




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-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1878 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NAVARRO

    007 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-3290 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS RABOR

    007 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3441 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO DE MESA, ET AL.

    007 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3262 March 11, 1907 - SATURNINA BAUTISTA v. SANTIAGO CALIXTO

    007 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-3188 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALEC KIENE

    007 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-3475 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TAN GEE, ET AL.

    007 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-3498 March 12, 1907 - BEHN v. ARNALOT HERMANOS

    007 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-1056 March 13, 1907 - AGUEDA BENEDICTO DE LA RAMA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA

    007 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-3064 March 13, 1907 - ARTHUR W. PRAUTCH, ET AL. v. HENRY M. JONES

    008 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1921 March 14, 1907 - ALEJANDRA SIGUIONG v. MANUEL SIGUIONG, ET AL.

    008 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-2458 March 14, 1907 - SALVADOR LANDA v. JUAN SANZ Y SANZ

    008 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-2784 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS GEMORA

    008 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3071 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO DE GUZMAN

    008 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-3167 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO CECILIO

    008 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3499 March 14, 1907 - TIRSO LOPEZ v. JOSE DELGADO

    008 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-2503 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. F. ALEXANDER

    008 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. L-2684 March 15, 1907 - FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM A. WILSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-3129 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. W.B. BARNES

    008 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. L-3443 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO DUMANDAN

    008 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-3241 March 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CABANAG

    008 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-3083 March 18, 1907 - RAFAELA PAVIA, ET AL. v. BIBIANA DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-3178 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO ALONSO

    008 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-3324 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO LUGO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2562 March 19, 1907 - MARIANO VELOSO v. MANUEL VELOSO

    008 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-3379 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO TORRERO

    008 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-3540 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LOPEZ BASA

    008 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3072 March 21, 1907 - LIONG-WONG-SHIH v. TOMAS SUNICO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-3143 March 21, 1907 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. JOSEFA ARAMBURO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3352 March 21, 1907 - JOSE CRISPULO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. CLOTILDE DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-3227 March 22, 1907 - PEDRO ALCANTARA v. AMBROSIO ALINEA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-3307 March 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GOYENECHEA

    008 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-3459 March 22, 1907 - CHIONG JOC-SOY v. JAIME VAÑO

    008 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3473 March 22, 1907 - J. CASANOVAS v. JNO. S. HORD

    008 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3257 March 23, 1907 - CAPISTRANO, ET AL. v. JOSEFA GABINO

    008 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-3280 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LUCIO CAMACHO

    008 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3593 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. C.W. NEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-2869 March 25, 1907 - MATEO CARIÑO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-3056 March 25, 1907 - PATRICIO PEREZ v. JOHN C. SWEENEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-3131 March 25, 1907 - HERRANZ & GARRIZ v. KER & CO.

    008 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3180 March 25, 1907 - MATEO OLONA v. ALEJANDRO PASCUA

    008 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-3375 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DONES

    008 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-3620 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-2993 March 27, 1907 - LUCINO ALMEIDA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ABAROA

    008 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-2995 March 27, 1907 - VICTORIANO SALAZAR v. CAYETANA SALAZAR

    008 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3158 March 27, 1907 - CIRIACO PILAPIL, ET AL. v. ROSENDO PONCIANO

    008 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3236 March 27, 1907 - SEBASTIAN ABIERA v. MIGUEL ORIN

    008 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3544 March 27, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. EDWIN CASE

    008 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-2383 March 25, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    008 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-3423 March 27, 1907 - DAMPFSCHIEFFS RHEDEREI UNION v. LA COMPAÑIA TRASATLANTICA

    008 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 3037 March 27, 1907 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    011 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. L-2978 March 2, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO DE LOS SANTOS

    007 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-3287 March 2, 1907 - PASTOR LERMA v. CIPRIANA DE LA CRUZ

    007 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-3433 March 2, 1907 - FELIPE ZAMORA v. CITY OF MANILA

    007 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. L-3406 March 4, 1907 - JOSE ITURRALDE v. SOTERO EVANGELISTA

    007 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-3148A March 5, 1907 - ENRIQUE MARIA BARRETTO v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MLA

    007 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-3247 March 5, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANGELO SAN JOSE

    007 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-3361 March 5, 1907 - SISENANDO EVANGELISTA v. BRIGIDO TABAYUYONG

    007 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-2940 March 6, 1907 - JOSE FIANZA v. J. F. REAVIS

    007 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. L-3186 March 7, 1907 - RED MEN v. VETERAN ARMY OF THE PHIL.

    007 Phil 685

  • G.R. No. L-3368 March 7, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MATEO TRINCHERA

    007 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-3467 March 7, 1907 - DOLORES SOTO, ET AL. v. DANIEL MORELOS

    007 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-2982 March 8, 1907 - MANUEL PEREZ Y GOMEZ v. ANTONIO HERRANZ Y CACERES

    007 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3092 March 8, 1907 - JOSE S. GABRIEL, ET AL. v. RAFAEL BARTOLOME

    007 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 3368A March 8, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MATEO TRINCHERA

    007 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. L-3418 March 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CHU NING CO

    007 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-1878 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NAVARRO

    007 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-3290 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS RABOR

    007 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3441 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO DE MESA, ET AL.

    007 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3262 March 11, 1907 - SATURNINA BAUTISTA v. SANTIAGO CALIXTO

    007 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-3188 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALEC KIENE

    007 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-3475 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TAN GEE, ET AL.

    007 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-3498 March 12, 1907 - BEHN v. ARNALOT HERMANOS

    007 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-1056 March 13, 1907 - AGUEDA BENEDICTO DE LA RAMA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA

    007 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-3064 March 13, 1907 - ARTHUR W. PRAUTCH, ET AL. v. HENRY M. JONES

    008 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1921 March 14, 1907 - ALEJANDRA SIGUIONG v. MANUEL SIGUIONG, ET AL.

    008 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-2458 March 14, 1907 - SALVADOR LANDA v. JUAN SANZ Y SANZ

    008 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-2784 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS GEMORA

    008 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3071 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO DE GUZMAN

    008 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-3167 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO CECILIO

    008 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3499 March 14, 1907 - TIRSO LOPEZ v. JOSE DELGADO

    008 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-2503 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. F. ALEXANDER

    008 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. L-2684 March 15, 1907 - FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM A. WILSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-3129 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. W.B. BARNES

    008 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. L-3443 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO DUMANDAN

    008 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-3241 March 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CABANAG

    008 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-3083 March 18, 1907 - RAFAELA PAVIA, ET AL. v. BIBIANA DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-3178 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO ALONSO

    008 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-3324 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO LUGO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2562 March 19, 1907 - MARIANO VELOSO v. MANUEL VELOSO

    008 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-3379 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO TORRERO

    008 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-3540 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LOPEZ BASA

    008 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3072 March 21, 1907 - LIONG-WONG-SHIH v. TOMAS SUNICO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-3143 March 21, 1907 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. JOSEFA ARAMBURO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3352 March 21, 1907 - JOSE CRISPULO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. CLOTILDE DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-3227 March 22, 1907 - PEDRO ALCANTARA v. AMBROSIO ALINEA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-3307 March 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GOYENECHEA

    008 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-3459 March 22, 1907 - CHIONG JOC-SOY v. JAIME VAÑO

    008 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3473 March 22, 1907 - J. CASANOVAS v. JNO. S. HORD

    008 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3257 March 23, 1907 - CAPISTRANO, ET AL. v. JOSEFA GABINO

    008 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-3280 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LUCIO CAMACHO

    008 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3593 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. C.W. NEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-2869 March 25, 1907 - MATEO CARIÑO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-3056 March 25, 1907 - PATRICIO PEREZ v. JOHN C. SWEENEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-3131 March 25, 1907 - HERRANZ & GARRIZ v. KER & CO.

    008 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3180 March 25, 1907 - MATEO OLONA v. ALEJANDRO PASCUA

    008 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-3375 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DONES

    008 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-3620 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-2993 March 27, 1907 - LUCINO ALMEIDA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ABAROA

    008 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-2995 March 27, 1907 - VICTORIANO SALAZAR v. CAYETANA SALAZAR

    008 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3158 March 27, 1907 - CIRIACO PILAPIL, ET AL. v. ROSENDO PONCIANO

    008 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3236 March 27, 1907 - SEBASTIAN ABIERA v. MIGUEL ORIN

    008 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3544 March 27, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. EDWIN CASE

    008 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-2383 March 25, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    008 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-3423 March 27, 1907 - DAMPFSCHIEFFS RHEDEREI UNION v. LA COMPAÑIA TRASATLANTICA

    008 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 3037 March 27, 1907 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    011 Phil 584