Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

010 Phil 327:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 3279. March 11, 1908. 1]

THE CITY OF MANILA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

Attorney-General Araneta, for the Government.

Modesto Reyes, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP. — The mere leasing of property and the receiving of the rent therefor can not, in the absence of other proof support a claim of ownership in favor of the lessor.

2. MUNICIPALITIES; COMMUNAL LANDS. — The municipalities of the Philippine Islands are not entitled, by right, to any part of the public domain for use as communal lands. The Spanish law provided that the usufruct of a portion of the public domain adjoining municipal territory might be granted by the Government for communal purposes, upon proper petition, but, until granted, no rights therein passed to the municipalities, and, in any event, the ultimate title remained in the sovereign.

3. ID.; ID.; CITY OF MANILA — The city of Manila not having proved that the land in question had ever been granted to the city by the Spanish Government, and not having shown that, by the laws of the present sovereignty, it was entitled to the property: Held, That the Court of Land Registration was not empowered to grant the registration thereof in favor of the city.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


On the 11th day of November, 1904, the city of Manila, through its attorney, filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of a certain parcel or tract of land described by metes and bounds in the first paragraph of said petition as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A parcel of land situated in Paco, a district of this city. It is bounded on the north by properties belonging to Chas. M. Stone, Prudencio de Leon, Asuncion Ventura, Petra Carnero y Garcia, Evaristo Roxas and brothers, Silvestra Sarmiento, Evaristo Gonzalez y Valdes, Mariano Vergara, Bernarda Yalon, Julio Gonzaga, Leoncia Mañalac, Geronimo Morales, Antonio Bautista, Doroteo Palacio, and Gualberta de los Reyes; on the south and on the east by property owned by Miguel Fabie and brothers, and on the west by properties belonging to Gualberta de los Reyes and Toribia Cruz. Beginning at the intersection of the northern line of Calle Real and the eastern line of Calle Peñafrancia (new street lines), approved on 21st December, 1903, and 17th February, 1904, respectively, by the Municipal Board, thence S. 4 degrees and 8 minutes E., 157.09 meters to the point marked "0;" thence N., 79 degrees 37 minutes W., 18.30 meters along the southern boundary of the property owned by Evaristo Gonzalez Valdes and Mariano Vergara to point No. 1; thence N. 11 degrees 25 minutes E., 6.20 meters along the western boundary of the property belonging to Mariano Vergala to point No. 2; thence N. 86 degrees 38 minutes W., 29.60 meters along the southern boundary of the property owned by Mariano Vergara to point No. 3; thence N. 4 decrees 14 minutes E., 22.49 meters along the western boundary of the property of Mariano Vergara, to point No. 4; thence N. 11 degrees 42 minutes W., 5.71 meters along the western boundary of the property belonging to Bernardo Yalon to point No. 5; thence S. 89 degrees 50 minutes W., 78.00 meters to a stone monument along the southern boundary of the property owned by Julio Gonzaga, Leoncia Mañalac, Geronimo Morales, to point No. 6; thence N. 89 degrees 22 minutes W., 24.17 meters along the southern boundary of the property belonging to Antonio Bautista, to point No. 7; thence S. 55 degrees 56 minutes W., 16.81 meters along the southeastern boundary of the property owned by Doroteo Palacio to point No. 8; thence N. 86 degrees 49 minutes W., 25.50 meters along the southern boundary of the properties owned by Doroteo Palacio and Gualberta de los Reyes to point No. 9; thence S. 15 degrees 30 minutes W., 16.47 meters to a stone monument, along the eastern boundary of the property owned by Gualberta de los Reyes and Toribia Cruz to point No. 10; thence S. 7 degrees 35 minutes W., 14.16 meters along the eastern boundary of the property owned by Toribia Cruz to point No. 11, thence S. 75 degrees 39 minutes E., 14.37 meters along the northern boundary of the property of Miguel Fabie and brothers to point No. 12; thence N. 88 degrees 3 minutes E., 45.35 meters along the northern boundary of the property belonging to Miguel Fabie and brothers to point No. 13; thence S. 89 degrees 11 minutes E. . 70.l5 meters to a stone monument along the northern boundary of the property belonging to Miguel Fabie and brothers to point No. 14; thence S. 86 degrees 33 minutes E., 85.07 meters to a stone monument along the northern boundary of the property of Miguel Fabie and brothers to point No. 15; thence N. 83 degrees 8 minutes E., 14.49 meters along the northern boundary oś the property owned by Miguel Fabie and brothers to point No. 16; thence N. 47 degrees E., 158.35 meters along the northwestern boundary of Miguel Fabie and brothers to point No. 17; thence N. 70 degrees 22 minutes W., 40.74 meters along the southern boundary of the properties owned by Charles M. Stone, Prudencio de Leon, and Asuncion Ventura (Looban) to point No. 18; thence N. 83 degrees 22 minutes W., 7.38 meters along a stone fence and the southern boundary of the properties belonging to Asuncion Ventura (Looban) and Petra Garcia to point No. 19; thence S. - 30 degrees 34 minutes W., 21.12 meters along a stone fence and the western boundary of the property owned by Petra Carnero y Garcia to point No. 20; thence S. 74 degrees 5& minutes W., 8.70 meters along the northern boundary of the property of Evaristo Roxas and brothers to point No. 21; thence S. 22 degrees 4 minutes W., 34.75 meters along the eastern boundary of the property owned by Evaristo Roxas and brothers to point 22; thence N. 68 degrees 47 minutes W., 26.40 meters along the southern boundary of the property belonging to Evaristo Roxas and brothers to point No. 23, thence S. 68 degrees 47 minutes W., 85.61 meters along the eastern boundary of the properties owned by Silvestra Sarmiento and Evaristo Gonzalez Valdes to point No. 24; thence N. 84 degrees 58 minutes W., 12.85 meters to a stone monument along the southern boundary of the property owned by Evaristo Gonzalez Valdes to point No. 25; thence N. 79 degrees 37 minutes., 11.10 meters along the southern boundary of the property owned by Evaristo Gonzalez Valdes to point No. 0, the point of beginning. containing 10,472.23 square meters of extension. Bearings magnetic."cralaw virtua1aw library

The said city alleged that it was the absolute owner of the said land; that said land was assessed by the city of Manila in the sum of $1,780, United States currency; that there existed no liens of whatever character against said land; that the land was unoccupied; that the said city obtained title to the said land by reason of being the successor to all the rights and actions of the old city of Manila (ayuntamiento de Manila), to which said property formerly belonged.

To this petition of the petitioner, the Insular Government presented the following opposition to the registration of said land:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Solicitor-General, representing the Insular Government, appears before the court, and states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. That the city of Manila, represented by its attorney, Modesto Reyes, requests that, in compliance with the Land Registration Act, a parcel of land situated in Paco, a district of this city, of which it claims to be the absolute owner, and the description of which is specified in the petition, be inscribed in its name.

"II. That the land in question is the property of the Government of the United States under the control of the Insular Government.

"III That by virtue thereof the Solicitor-General opposes the inscription asked for, and requests the court to deny the petition with the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

To this petition of the petitioner one Geronimo Morales also presented the following opposition to the registration of a portion of the land described in the second paragraph of said petition:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Now comes the undersigned before this court and says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the city of Manila, by its attorney, Modesto Reyes, has, in conformity with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, applied for the registration of a certain parcel of land located in the district of Paco, of this city, of which it alleges sole and absolute ownership, and the description of which is included in the application.

"2. That the plan and description of the said land as they appear in the petition are incorrect, for there is included in the same a part of a building lot belonging to the undersigned, and situated in the barrio of Rosario of said district, with an area of 84 meters more or less, as will be seen in the plan to be filed later.

"3. Therefore, the undersigned files his opposition to the registration applied for, as far as it has any bearing on the building lot of the undersigned which is included in the plan and description of the applicant, and this honorable court is requested to deny the application as far as it relates to the said building lot, with the costs against the petitioner."cralaw virtua1aw library

After the presentation of the petition on the part of the said petitioner, one of the examiners of titles of the Court of Land Registration made an examination of the title claimed by the petitioner and made the following report to the judge of the said Court of Land Registration:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The examiner of titles of this judicial district, after going over the papers in the case of the city, represented by its attorney, Modesto Reyes, states that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The application fileld by the city of Manila is not accompanied by any document relative to its alleged ownership, but sets forth that said city, as the successor in rights and interest of the former ayuntamiento de Manila, the the owner of the land described in the petition above referred to.

"2. In the office of the register of deeds there is no record of any act or contract opposing the claim of the applicant; nor does there appear, from the investigations he]d, any fact contrary to those quoted in the application. The present limits of the land in question may be held as correct.

"3. The city of Manila, in order to acquire title to the land above mentioned, must show the ownership which the former ayuntamiento had over said land.

"OPINION.

"Based on the above report, the undersigned is of the opinion that the title of the city of Manila, represented by its attorney, Modesto Reyes, is defective and can not be registered.

"Manila, December 7, 1904.

"AGUENDO VELARDE."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the 14th of March, 1905, the cause was duly brought on for trial and during the trial of said cause the petitioner attempted to establish by proof the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That said land formerly belonged to the old city of Manila (ayuntamiento de Manila) under the sovereignty of Spain.

Second. That the present city of Manila is at present the owner of said land by virtue of being the successor of the old city of Manila.

Third, That the old city of Manila from the year 1894 until the change of sovereignty in the Philippine Archipelago had rented said land, had received rents therefor, and in a general way had administered the same.

The respondent, the Central Government of the Philippine Islands, presented no proof whatever in opposition to the claim of the petitioner, relying upon the fact that the petitioner was not entitled to have said land registered, for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That the land in question was public land, belonging to the Central Government; that the same had never been granted to any person or corporation or municipality by the Spanish Government.

Second. That the city of Manila, neither the present nor the old city, was the owner of said land.

On the 15th day of February, 1906, the judge of the said court filed his decision by which he denied the registration of the land claimed by the said Geronimo Morales and granted the registration of the rest of said described property in favor of the said city. Against this order allowing the registration of said tract of land the respondent duly excepted and gave notice of his intention to appeal.

The Attorney-General, representing the respondent in this court, made the following assignment of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There is nothing in the record which justifies the conclusion of the judgment of the court below, to the effect that the land in question is owned by the city of Manila."cralaw virtua1aw library

The only proof presented during the trial by the petitioner which tended in any way to support its claim was that in the year 1894 and thereafter the old city of Manila (ayuntamiento de Manila) rented said land and received the rent therefor, and that the present city of Manila succeeded to the rights of said old city. No proof was offered by the plaintiff, documentary or other, to show in any way by what right said old city exercised this right of control over said property.

We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the mere renting of property and receiving the rent therefor can not, of themselves, in the absence of other proof, support a claim of ownership of such property.

It has been argued that every pueblo organized by the Spanish Government in its insular possessions has had granted to it, as a matter of course, certain lands for public purposes, such as public commons, pasture lands, etc. Our attention has not been called to any law or royal decree in which this contention is supported and we have searched in vain to find such a provision. Upon the contrary we have found a royal decree of the — day of — showing that the people of the pueblo of Dilao (now the barrio of Paco in which this very land is located) had petitioned for a grant of a comunal, etc., and which was denied.

One of the earliest provisions of law relating to the rights of pueblos in the insular possessions of the Spanish Government is that de las reducciones, y pueblos de indios (settlements and pueblos of natives) of December 1, 1573, as amended by that of the 10th of October, 1618, found in Law VIII, Title III of Book VI of the Recopilacion de las Leyes de Indias, and which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The sites whereon the pueblos and settlements are to be built must have water facilities, lands, forests, entrances and exits, lands for cultivation, and an exido (common, public land) one league long, wherein the natives may keep their cattle, without mingling them with those owned by Spaniards."cralaw virtua1aw library

This provision of law seems to have-been amplified in article 53 of the Ordinances of Good Government, dated February 26, 1768, and extended to the pueblos of the Philippine Islands by proclamation on the 11th day of September, 1801. This article 53 clearly indicates that these lands should be designated by the Spanish Government for the use and benefit de las reducciones, y pueblos de los indios. Said article 53 is in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is held to be comunal (common, public) the territory of the settlements and pueblos inhabited by natives, to which, from the time of their foundation or organization, the necessary lands were allotted in conformity with Law VII, Title III, Book VI of the Recopilacion de las Leyes de Indias, etc."cralaw virtua1aw library

This article 53 clearly indicates the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That the King continued to be the absolute owner of said lands;

Second. That the pueblos were only given the mere usufruct of the same;

Third. That the King might at any time annul such grant; and

Fourth. That a designation, of the particular land so granted, was a necessary prerequisite for the holding of the same for the purposes indicated, by the said pueblo.

(See Autos Acordados, Vol. I, pp. 29, 48.)

As a further confirmation of the fact that the pueblos of the Philippine Islands did not have, as a matter of right, a comunal, etc., unless the same had been expressly granted, we find the following provision in the royal decree of February 28, 1883, which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On the recommendation of the minister for the colonies, and in conformity with the opinion submitted by the council of state, sitting in banc, I hereby decree the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 1. The legua comunal for the Philippine Islands, under the provisions of Law VIII, Title III, Book VI, of the Recompilacion de Indias, as far as the pueblos already established and those which may be established thereafter are concerned, shall be of an area of 20,000 feet, equivalent to a league of 20 degrees, without regard to the geometrical figure resulting from the topography of the locality, or to conditions relating to property rights over the land itself or over land adjoining the same.

"ART.2. The pueblos not having said land allotted to them may apply and obtain the same by means of the corresponding proceedings.

"ART. 3. When the conditions so require, the pueblos may institute proceedings to obtain an extension of said comunal land, in order that the latter may be in keeping with the number of inhabitants, the number of heads of cattle owned by them, and the topographical conditions of each pueblo. Given at the palace, on February 28, 1883."cralaw virtua1aw library

Following this royal decree we have the superior decreto of the 1st of August, 1883, relating to the legua comunal, with the following provisions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Legua comunal. — In order to comply with and carry out the provisions of the royal decree of February 28 of the current year, published in the Gaceta de Manila on June 28 last, and relating to the legua comunal, on the recommendation of the direccion general de administracion civil, I hereby order that the following regulations be observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The provincial chiefs shall take special care to inform the gobernadorcillos of the towns under their control of the decree relating to the legua comunal, making them understand that the superficial extension to be occupied by the same is that corresponding to a square, the sides of which measure 20,000 feet, equivalent to a square league, (de veinte al grado), and that the land should be uncultivatad or untilled.

"2. The towns not having said portion of land assigned may apply for the same to this central government through the chief of the province or district, inclosing with the petition a report of the principalia, stating the said circumstance and as many particulars as may exist in their archives regarding the matter.

"3. The said documents shall be forwarded to the direccion general de administracion civil, through the provincial chief, and the said office, upon the information from the bureau of forestry, shall recommend to me what it may deem proper.

"4. After the ’legua comunal’ has been granted by this Government the bureau of forestry shall proceed to the setting up of the boundary marks of the same, executing a certificate of the land, which, after being signed by the officer conducting the proceedings and by the principalia of the town, will be submitted for my approval through the direccion general de administracion civil

"5. For the legua comunal uncultivated land will be selected, whenever possible, which may be in proper condition for the pasture of cattle and cultivation of building timber and the necessary industries to meet the requirements of the inhabitants.

"6. In order to increase the said communal land, when the requirements of the towns may demand, it will be necessary to institute new proceedings, which will be annexed to a statement signed by the principalia, showing the number of the inhabitants of the town, the kind and number of head of cattle owned by them, as well as an indication of the extension of the lands which, bearing in mind the local conditions, they may deem necessary to meet the requirements of the former and nourishment for the latter.

"7. These statements will be forwarded to the direccion general al by the chief of the province, together with his opinion, in which he will state whether or not he considers the petition to be unreasonable.

"8. The offices under the department of finance will furnish the direccion general de administracion with the necessary documents for verifying the truth of the declarations made by the principalias of the towns, regarding the number of the inhabitants and ]leads of cattle.

"9. The direccion general de administracion civil, with the report of the bureau of forestry and, should it be deemed necessary, of the board of agriculture, shall recommend to me the extension to be finally marked for the legua comunal.

"10. After the area of the land has been determined by this general government, the bureau of forestry shall proceed with the appointment and the setting of marks of the new communal land, a certificate being executed in the same form as previously stated.

"11. The expenses arising from the proceedings, as w ell as those arising from the setting up of boundary marks of the legua comunal and its final establishment, must be paid by the town to which the concession has been granted." (Gazette No. 42, August 11.)

By the royal decree of the 23d of December, 1870, it was made necessary by monuments or otherwise to mark the division lines of the different pueblos of the Philippine Islands. (Gaceta de Madrid, February 24.)

By the royal order of the 17th on January, 1885, it was provided that, when a pueblo should to the Government of the Philippine Islands that its legua comunal was insufficient, it might, upon petition, have such lines increased. (Gaceta de Madrid, March 15, 1885.)

The royal decree of the 19th of May, 1893, relating to the municipal government (Gaceta de Madrid, May 22, 1893) contains no provisions with reference to the granting to pueblos of the legua comunal, etc.

The question of the right of pueblos in the insular possessions of the Spanish (Government to public lands has come before the Supreme Court of the United States several times in its relation to pueblos in the territory acquired by the United States from the king of Spain.

In the case of Grisar v. McDowell (6 Wallace, 363, 373) Justice Field in discussing this question said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"These laws provided for the assignment to the pueblos, for their use and the use of their inhabitants, of land not exceeding in extent 4 square leagues. Such assignment was to be made by the public authorities of the Government upon the original establishment of the pueblo, or afterwards upon the petition of its officers or inhabitants; and the land was to be measured off in a square or prolonged form, according to the nature and condition of the country . All lands within the general limits stated, which had previously become private property or were required for public purposes, were reserved and excepted from the assignment.

"Until the lands were thus definitely assigned and measured oft, the right or claim of the pueblo was an imperfect one. It was a right which the Government might refuse to recognize at all, or might recognize in a qualified form; it might be burdened with conditions, and it might be restricted to less limits than the 4 square leagues, which was the usual quantity assigned."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of United States v. Santa Fe (165 U. S., 705), in which this same question was involved, Justice White of the Supreme Court of the United States said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It can not be doubted that under the law of Spain it was necessary that the proper authorities should particularly designate the land to be acquired by towns or pueblos before a vested right or title to the use thereof could arise."cralaw virtua1aw library

Elizondo, in his work entitled Practica Universal Forense (Vol. a, p. 226), makes the following statement relating to the question presented here:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There is nothing Whatever designated by law as belonging to towns, other than that which by royal privilege, custom, or contract between man and man is granted to them, so that although there be assigned to the towns at the time of their constitution territorio or pertinencias, which may be common to all the residents, without each one having the right to use them separately, it is a prerogative reserved to the sovereigns to divide the terminos of the provinces and towns, assigning to these the use and enjoyment, but the domain remaining in the sovereigns themselves."cralaw virtua1aw library

Chief Justice Fuller, speaking for the court in the case of United Sates v. Sandoval and in the case of Morton v. United Sates (167 U. S., 278, 297) said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Under the laws of the Indies, lands not actually allotted to settlers remained the property of the King, to be disposed of by him or by those on whom he might confer that power. As Mr. Hall says (Chap. VII § 122): "The fee of the lands embraced within the limits of pueblos continued to remain in the sovereign, and never in the pueblos as a corporate body.’"

The petitioner herein not having presented proof showing that the land in question had been granted to it by the former sovereign in these Islands, and not having shown that it was entitled to said by virtue of some law of the present sovereign of these Islands, the Court of Land Registration was not empowered to grant the registration of said in favor of said petitioner. The judgment, therefore, of the lower court is hereby reversed. So ordered.

Torres, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-4447 March 6, 1908 - MURPHY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-3880 March 9, 1908 - TEOPISTA CASTRO v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS

    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-4209 March 19, 1908 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES

    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-4241 March 20, 1908 - AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES v. ADMIN. F THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA

    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 27, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEJANDRO AMECHAZURRA

    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-3007 March 30, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

    010 Phil 707