Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4013 February 4, 1909 - JUSTO GUIDO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN DE BORJA, ET AL.

012 Phil 718:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4013. February 4, 1909. ]

JUSTO GUIDO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AGUSTIN DE BORJA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

W. A. Kincaid, for Appellants.

Pedro Concepcion, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; OWNERSHIP AND RIGHT TO POSSESSION; EVIDENCE. — Upon the evidence, which is set forth at length in the opinion: Held, That the plaintiffs are the owners of and are entitled to the possession of the property in controversy.

2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; DEFENDANTS APPEARING AND ANSWERING WITHOUT OBJECTION. — When all parties defendant have duly appeared and answered the complaint, without objection with respect to the name, of any of them, their identity is no longer open to question.

3. ID.; JOINDER OF ALL NECESSARY PARTIES. — Where all defendants have taken part in the same act which forms the basis of the suit and are therefore necessary parties for the complete determination of the questions involved, they may all be joined in one action under section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


This action was instituted by the heirs and successors of Francisco Guido and Dominga Santa Ana, to recover the ownership and possession of the hacienda of Angono, against the defendants, who, being tenants of the said hacienda until the year 1903, denied the ownership of the plaintiffs and themselves pretended to be the owners of the hacienda. The Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal rendered final judgment, the findings of which, impugned upon appeal by the defendants, are the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That the ownership and possession of the hacienda of Angono, as it appears described in the decision of said court, in accordance with the amended complaint, pertains to Justo Guido, Juliana Guido, Buenaventura Guido and other participants with them in said hacienda; by virtue thereof the court below ordered the defendants to restore said possession to the plaintiffs.

2. That the fruits or crops and plantings of the defendants on the said hacienda of Angono do Dot belong to the plaintiffs, and in lieu thereof the court below sentences each one of the defendants respectively to pay the plaintiffs and their participants such sums in money and paddy as they may owe them, as itemized in the statements attached to the complaint under the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. A list of the names of the defendants with a statement of the respective amounts to the payment of which they were sentenced, follows.

3. That the costs of this suit should be paid by the defendants. By virtue of their appeal to this court the defendants and appellants presented in their brief the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The lower court erred in considering that all the defendant appellants are properly joined in the complaint of the plaintiff appellees.

"II. The lower court erred in holding that it had jurisdiction of the claim brought by the plaintiff appellees.

"III. The lower court erred in declaring that the ownership and possession of the land in question by the plaintiff appellees had been proven.

"IV. The lower court erred in declaring that it had been proven that all the defendant appellants were tenants and lessees on shares of the hacienda of Angono.

"V. The lower court erred in considering as proven that the defendant appellants owe the plaintiff appellees for ground rent, or for lease on shares the amounts in money and in products which are itemized in the statements Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 attached to the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

The two first errors are of form or procedure, and the three following deal with the merits of the case; beginning with the last three, let us discuss the third error:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

THIRD ERROR.

The ownership of the appellees, with respect to the hacienda of Angono, is discussed in this point; the appellants produce the documentary evidence, Exhibits A, B, C, 6, 7, 8, 9, and D, which constitute principally the titles of ownership of the appellees; and in brief, they say that it is necessary to consider the hacienda as divided in two parts — one-half corresponding to Francisco Guido and the other half to Dominga Santa Ana, the principals, as has been said, of the appellees.

With regard to the whole of the hacienda and of the original titles of acquisition thereto, which are in no way impugned, it is now alleged by the appellants: 1. That originally the estancia or small farm of Angono was granted to General Don Domingo Antonio de Otero Bermudez, who was a Spaniard, to the prejudice of the inhabitants of Angono, who were Indios, in violation of laws 7 and 8, title 12, book 3 [4], of the Recopilacion de las Leyes de Indias; and that when the title was issued, with royal approval, in favor of the Alferez Real Don Andres Blanco Bermudez, as successor to Don Domingo Antonio de Otero Bermudez, it was done without prejudice to third persons who might show a better right, which indicates that the ownership and possession of Don Andres Blanco Bermudez were not absolute.

With reference to the half of the Hacienda derived from Francisco Guido, the appellants allege that the said half is not entered in the registry of property, and that, according to article 23 of the Mortgage Law, the titles can not prejudice third persons. The said article provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The instruments mentioned in articles 2 and a which are not duly recorded or entered in the registry can not prejudice third persons.

"The record of real property and property rights, acquired through an inheritance or legacy, shall not prejudice third persons until five years have elapsed since the date thereof, excepting in cases of testate or intestate inheritances, legacies and additions thereto (mejoras), when left to legal heirs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Therefore, the defendants being third parties with respect to the plaintiffs, the titles of property presented by the latter can not prejudice the former.

With respect to the other half derived from the succession of Dominga Santa Ana, it is alleged that, although the possession is recorded in the registry of property, as such registration dates only from the 15th of July, 1899, it can not convert the title of possession into a title of ownership except at the expiration of twenty years, according to the provisions of article 393 of the Mortgage Law, and consequently the present title is not one of ownership.

The original title to the whole hacienda of Angono is by composicion and royal approval issued on the 16th of December, 1749, and 15th of September, 1752; the former being an order of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ORDER. — In the farmhouse of the hacienda of Angono, which is in the Province of La Laguna de Bay, on the 16th day of the month of December in the year 1749, the Señor Licenciado Don Pedro Calderon Enriquez, of His majesty’s council, oidor (associate justice) of the Real Audiencia of these Islands and special judge of the Commission for the sale and composition of lands in the whole district thereof. Having seen the instruments of title that General Don Domingo Antonio de Otero Bermudez has produced for the purpose of substantiating the legitimate ownership and possession that he has of the so-called hacienda of Angono, together with the other lands and estancia of Binangonan and the lime quarries of San Guillermo, all of them consolidated under the name of hacienda and estancia of Angono, with the acknowledgment and declaration which, in view of the said original documents, was made by Señor Don Juan de Ozaeta y Oro, who was a member of His Majesty’s council, oidor of the Real Audiencia of these Islands, and special judge of the said land commission for the year 1699, approving the said titles and holding the same to be good; and having also seen the record of the proceedings instituted by the natives of the town of Binangonan before the Superior Government of these Islands, wherein they claim to be entitled to certain lands belonging to said estancia, which record was forwarded to this land court; and bearing also in mind the proceedings upon the visit, demarkation and survey just made of the limits of said hacienda, together with the claims of the natives of some of the adjoining towns, and all other evidence leading to the greater and better knowledge of the true boundaries of the said hacienda, the said oidor said: That it was his duty to declare, and he does hereby declare, that the titles presented by the said general Don Domingo Bermudez are good and legitimate, and in consequence thereof the true limits of the said hacienda run through the places and localities stated in the proceedings in connection with the demarkation and survey just made."cralaw virtua1aw library

"ORDER. — At the city of Manila on the 15th day of the month of September, 1752, Señor Don Pedro Calderon Enriquez, of His Majesty’s council, oidor and alcalde del crimen of the Real Audiencia of these Islands and special judge of the Commission for the sale and composition of land in the whole of its territory, having seen the record of proceedings in which are described the demarkation and survey of the estancia of Angono with the prayer of the Alferez Real Don Andres Blanco Bermudez, who succeeds to said lands by reason of the death of said General Don Domingo de Otero Bermudez, his uncle, to the effect that his title to the said estancia and lime quarries be affirmed by means of a resolution, and after examining everything that was proper to see and examine the said gentleman stated that it was his duty to order, and that he does hereby order that title of confirmation in due form be issued to the said Alferez Real of this most noble city, Don Andres Blanco Bermudez of the aforesaid titles, and in view of the said instruments and declaratory order above inserted he directed that the present title of confirmation of the said titles be issued in proper form in order that they may be held and considered as such true and legitimate titles, and the Alferez Real Don Andres Blanco Bermudez as the lawful possessor and owner of the said hacienda, and he hereby orders every one not to presume to molest, disturb, or dispute the legitimacy of the aforesaid titles: Provided, however; That they shall not prejudice third persons having a better right, and that the said declaratory orders and this confirmation shall be observed by all judges and their substitutes until His Majesty may order otherwise."cralaw virtua1aw library

The first order was at the same time a resolution entered in the proceedings had before the Superior Government of these Islands by the people of Binangonan, and, in connection with the proceedings the said order contains this declaration:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the said natives do not possess, nor have they produced any lawful title to prove the ownership or possession of the lands belonging to said hacienda which they took and occupied by force of arms in the year 1745, at a time when several towns mutinied and revolted, and that none of the said natives, although they were summoned and saw the tape passed through the limits and neighborhood of their town, came forward to claim, contradict, or protest in any way or point out a different stream or river named Mabalan, and the said gentleman ordered that the inhabitants of the said town be notified to abstain in future from working the lands that they occupied and which are separated by said stream, as otherwise they would be punished for interference and for again occupying them without the will and consent of the owner thereof; for the same act the gobernadorcillo, officials and cabezas de barangay are sentenced to be deprived of their offices and to be confined with hard labor, in the Cavite Prison on ration and without salary, and otherwise as may be proper."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the foregoing it appears that the absolute ownership granted by the State to the first persons to acquire the property, Otero and Blanco, is fully proven; their titles of ownership are made final by virtue of the provision of the real cedula of October 15, 1754, article 5 of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Neither shall possessors of lands sold or adjusted by the various subdelegates from the year 1700 to the present time be molested, disturbed, or denounced, now or at any other time, with respect to such possession, if such sales or adjustments shall have been confirmed by me, or by the viceroy or the president of the court of the district in which the lands are located, while authorized to exercise this power. In cases where the sales or adjustments shall not have been so confirmed, the possessors will present to the courts of their respective districts and to the other officials hereby empowered to receive the same, a petition asking for the confirmation of said sales and adjustments. After the proceedings outlined by the subdelegates in their order with respect to the measurement and valuation of the said lands, and with reference to the title issued therefor, shall have been duly completed, said courts and officials will make an examination of the same for the purpose of ascertaining whether the sale or adjustment has been made without fraud or collusion, and for an adequate and equitable price, and a similar examination shall be made by the prosecuting attorney of the district, to the end that, in view of all the proceedings, etc., there will be issued to the possessor, in my royal name, a confirmation of his title, by authority of which his possession and ownership of lands and waters represented will be fully legalized, to the end that at no time will he or his heirs or assigns be disturbed or molested therein." (Cited in the case of Andres Valenton v. Manuel Murciano, 3 Phil. Rep., 537, 546)

The said titles are therefore absolute and unconditional notwithstanding the clause, of mere matter of form, of "without prejudice to third persons who may prove a better right." The natives or residents of the town of Angono could never be such persons with a better right either as against Otero, or Blanco, nor against their successors Miguel Cacho, Pascual Santa Ana, and Francisco Guido, because, in the first place, they constituted a town within the same Estancia or Hacienda of Angono, and they could hardly constitute a different entity which for the time being — that is at the commencement of the hacienda — might invoke a right of its own, when those tenants of the hacienda had but a precarious right in opposition to the owners thereof; and, in the second place, because similarly to those of Binangonan who expressed their opposition, it may he said and shown, as stated and established in the judgment appealed from, that up to this day they have not been able to produce their title of ownership or of possession.

It must be added to this that if they ever held any right, they can not exercise it except in the form and manner prescribed in article 8 of the royal decree of the 26th of January, 1889, and article 5 of the royal decree of the 26th of October, 1881; they could only direct their claims against the administration, and in no wise against the grantees of the land. (Valenton v. Murciano, 3 Phil. Rep., 537, 554, 555.)

With respect to the half of the hacienda that according to the last transfers, was derived from Francisco Guido, the appellants have only alleged, as has been seen, that at the present time said titles of ownership lack force as against third persons, such as they hold themselves to be, for the reason that they are not registered in the registry of property.

It is a frequent error to mistake the third person of the civil law for the third person of the Mortgage Law; this error arises from the lack of knowledge, evidenced in many cases which have been heard by this Supreme Court, of the character of the latter law which operates in favor of third persons against third persons, in relation to the solemnity and efficiency of the registration of a real right, in no wise in favor of a person who turns out to be and calls himself a third party because there are two other prior parties between whom some act or contract of acquisition or conveyance of ownership or of some other real right exists; the appellants themselves have cited a paragraph of the commentaries to the Mortgage Law by Galindo and Escosura, of which the first lines reveal the intent and purposes of said law: "The object of the present mortgage system was to protect the rights of the person who registers his property against him who has not registered . . . ." (2, p. 419), and Manresa, the commentator of the Civil Code, in speaking of the Mortgage Law, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The law always tends to protect registered rights, to favor him who registers, and therefore, that the registration made shall prejudice those who have not registered. As a general rule it may be affirmed that where the law speaks of prejudice to a third person, said third person is the one defined by article 27, as he who has not registered, nor participated in the act or contract that was registered; and whenever it says that a third person can not be prejudiced such third person is he who bases his right on a registered title." (4 Civil Code, 302.)

"The different persons who may generally be considered as third parties with respect to each act or contract, are divided by the Mortgage Law into two groups; third parties for the effects of the civil law, and third parties for the effects of the Mortgage Law. While no registered title exists the civil law governs; real rights arise or not independently of the registration, and the third parties may or may not be prejudiced without the intervention of the Mortgage Law. From the time that a written act or contract exists, there are third parties for the effects of said law, and registration determines preference and acquisition of rights to their prejudice." (Ibid., 302.)

The provisions of the Mortgage Law are absolutely inapplicable to the present contention because the matter at issue does not fall within the purpose of said law; not one of the rights that are contested is registered; they are rights which can only be discussed and decided under the precepts of the civil law or of the Civil Code now in force; and in the face of the Civil Code in force, against the titles of ownership put forward by the appellees, for the purpose of effecting the recovery of possession of the hacienda of Angono, the residents of said town, the appellants herein, set up no title whatever, either of ownership or of possession; they only oppose the mere fact of the material possession of certain parcels of land of the said hacienda which they held on lease or lease on shares until the year 1903 when, as one of the appellees states, they rose against the ownership of the hacienda.

FOURTH AND FIFTH ERRORS.

The court below has not erred in considering as proven that all the appellants are tenants or lessees on shares of the hacienda of Angono.

Neither has it erred in considering as proven that they owe the appellees for ground rent, tenancy, or lease on shares, the amounts in money or in products itemized in the statements Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 filed with the complaint.

These allegations of error are based on the lack of identity of the defendants herein as such tenants or lessees on shares of the hacienda of Angono. It is admitted in the brief that out of 155 defendants al are shown to be tenants according to documentary evidence offered and admitted at the trial; it appears therein that they subscribed to proceedings served in February, 1898, on them personally as such tenants of the said hacienda, to compel them to deposit what they respectively had to pay for ground rent, tenancy, or lease on shares; but that it has not been proven that the others are such tenants, except by the testimony of one witness and the four statements which accompany the complaint.

For the purpose of deciding this question, the reason alleged by the appellees in their answer is conclusive.

"The identity said in the brief of the adverse party to be lacking with respect to some of the defendant appellants is altogether unnecessary and immaterial from the moment that the defendants, all of them, have appeared before the lower court and answered the complaint by their own names, as they are named in the complaint. No question has been raised in the court below with respect to any of the names of the defendant appellants; on the contrary as has been said they all appeared, and all of them answered the complaint by the same names that appear therein, which fact shows their admission of and conformity to this part of the complaint." (Brief, 17.)

FIRST ERROR

The court below did not err in considering that all the defendants are properly joined in the complaint of the plaintiff appellees.

The appellants allege that they are not united in one sole contract so that by reason thereof, they may be sued jointly, and that the parcels of land which they respectively hold constitute matter for separate and distinct causes of action.

The accumulation of parties in this case is a result of the unity of action, unity of object, and the unity of defense. Unity of action inasmuch as, in view of the attitude of the defendants, who seek to obtain the ownership of the hacienda, the complaint has for its object the recovery of possession of the lawful owners who, until 1903, allowed the defendants to remain in possession of certain parcels thereof under contract of lease or lease on shares; unity of object, which can not be less than the entire hacienda, because it is detained in its entirety by the defendants, united together with manifest intent for the purpose; and unity of defense, because the pretension of the defendants is one, to wit, that of being themselves the owners of the hacienda. Joinder could not have been more imperative even if, after considerable expense and delay, a separate action had been brought against each one of the tenants who now detain the hacienda. Section 114 of the Code of Civil procedure, which the court below took into consideration, is applicable herein:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any person should be made a defendant who has or claims an interest in the controversy or the subject-matter thereof adverse to the plaintiff, or who is a necessary party to a complete determination or settlement of the questions involved therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

Exhibit P, offered in evidence by the plaintiffs and admitted by the lower court over the exception of the defendants, which exception however, has not been brought before this court, is a notarial act drawn up at the instance of one the plaintiffs ,Justo Guido, for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the resolution agreed upon by the tenants, and which Guido testified was delivered to him by Dominador Gomez, to whom the original was returned. It reads thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . all the residents of this town (Angono) attended a meeting, and being, assembled, Councilor Januario Villamayor, as president, took the floor and informed those present at the meeting that in consequence of the oppressed condition of this town, the inhabited portion of which is surrounded by an hacienda possessed by the heirs of Doña Dominga Santa Ana, an investigation and search for documentary proofs to permit those who claim to be the owners to exercise acts of ownership was contemplated . . .; hence, in order to avoid, as much as possible, disturbing the peace of the inhabitants as always happens in litigious questions of this kind, it is the opinion of the majority of the residents that an agreement should be entered into between the latter and the owners of the former, with the intervention of the Honorable W. Kincaid and Doctor Gomez, who promise to settle this matter peacefully upon an offer to pay them with one-half of the level lands of the hacienda within a reasonable period of time. Thereupon all parties present, after an extensive discussion of the matter, assented to said agreement being carried out and that adequate and clear contracts should be drawn up and subjected to sound and indulgent criticism . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is evident that they unanimously promised to dispose of one-half of the hacienda in payment for their defense as though they were coowners, knowing that they disposed of one-half of the hacienda which, as they say, "surrounds the inhabited portion of the town," "the hacienda that is possessed by the heirs of Doña Dominga Santa Ana, whom "within a reasonable period of time" they purposed to spoliate of the whole of it, and immediately thereafter to dispose of one-half of its level lands in order to pay their lawyer and the above-named Doctor Gomez.

SECOND ERROR.

Neither has the court below erred in holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim brought by the plaintiff appellees — that is to say, the second cause of action with reference to the prayer that the defendants, now the appellants, be sentenced to pay the plaintiffs the amounts owing for ground rent, tenancy, or lease on shares, as itemized in the statements filed with the complaint as a part thereof.

The argument on appeal consists of the citation of paragraph 3, section 56 of Act No. 136, and of the fact that, "from the same judgment appealed from, it has been fully demonstrated that, with the exception of Felix Miranda, none of the other defendants owe any one or all of the plaintiffs any amount in money or in products equal to the sum of 100 dollars or more, excluding interest," which is the amount fixed by said section with reference to the jurisdiction of a Court of First Instance.

In proof of its jurisdiction the court below cites section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the appellees cite in corroboration section 427 of the Code of California, according to which plaintiff may join several causes of action in the complaint when they are based on "claims to recover a specific piece of realty, with or without damages for its retention or injury, and the rents and products of the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

The natural effect of an action for recovery is the restoration of the thing together with its fruits, accessories, and payment of damages. In the second finding of the judgment appealed from, the plaintiffs were not granted the fruits or crops and plantings of the defendants on the hacienda of Angono, but in exchange, each of them was sentenced to pay the amounts in cash and in palay (paddy) which they appeared to be owing, as specified in the statements attached to the complaint as a part thereof.

The fruits that the defendants are obliged to restore, together with the thing, not belonging to but retained by them, are not only the natural fruits, which have justly been denied by the judgment appealed from, but also the civil fruits which consist of the rent for the buildings and the price of the lease of the lands. (Civil Code, 355.)

Beginning with the fact that the crops or products of the detained land are fruits obtained by those who, as tenants, worked the lands, it was not proper to deprive them of the same; but from the moment that they desired to usurp the ownership of the hacienda, and commenced to act in the bad faith with which they at present retain possession, instead of owing those fruits they owe the civil, not, however, by virtue of a contract which they now disown, but by virtue of the right of accession which accompanies the right of recovery. And if they were sued as one sole party for the restitution of the hacienda, they must be sued as such for the restitution of its civil fruits, in their character of accessories, not as a matter of compliance with a lease contract; for all of which reasons the finding in the judgment is fully in accordance with the law.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellants.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson Carson and Willard, 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





February-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4206 February 1, 1909 - VICENTE M. SANDOVAL v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 4717 February 1, 1909 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. TOMAS LEDESMA

    012 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 4737 February 1, 1909 - ATANASIO PANDAQUILA v. MIGUEL GAZA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 4785 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 4839 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SY QUIAT

    012 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 4852 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE CALIMAG

    012 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 4373 February 2, 1909 - SAMUEL BISCHOFF v. JUAN D. POMAR, ET AL.

    012 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 4589 February 3, 1909 - GERONIMO DE GUZMAN v. JOAQUINA ORTIZ

    012 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 4838 February 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LIM CO

    012 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 4013 February 4, 1909 - JUSTO GUIDO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN DE BORJA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 4904 February 5, 1909 - ROSALIA MARTINEZ v. ANGEL TAN

    012 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 4723 February 8, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TAYCO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 4566 February 9, 1909 - YUENG SHENG EXCHANGE AND TRADING COMPANY v. G. URRUTIA & CO., ET AL.

    012 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 4910 February 10, 1909 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION VACANI v. ENRIQUE LLOPIS

    012 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. 4415 February 13, 1909 - PAULINO DOLIENDO, ET AL. v. SANTOS DEPIÑO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 4758 February 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. T. E. SANTOS

    013 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4794 February 16, 1909 - WARNER v. ROMAN AND CIRILO JAUCIAN

    013 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 4392 February 17, 1909 - PATRICIO UBEDA v. AGAPITO ZIALCITA

    013 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 4790 February 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION

    013 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 4216 February 19, 1909 - KUENZLE & STEREIFF v. A. S. WATSON & CO., ET AL.

    013 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 4943 February 19, 1909 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. ANGEL LUNA

    013 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 4939 February 20, 1909 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY COMPANY v. ESTEBAN SOLON

    013 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5028 February 20, 1909 - JUANA VALENCIA v. CARMEN DE ROXAS

    013 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 5085 February 20, 1909 - IN RE: JUAN TOLEDO

    013 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 4386 February 24, 1909 - CHANG YONG TEK v. GENEROSA SANTOS

    013 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 4868 February 24, 1909 - JUAN SISON v. FAUSTINO RAMOS

    013 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 4878 February 27, 1909 - IN RE: JOAQUINA MIJARES DE FARINAS v. VICENTE LAVIN

    013 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. 4978 March 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO MABILING

    013 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. 4761 March 2, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. MARIANO FUENTEBELLA

    013 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 4874 March 2, 1909 - MARIANO VELOSO v. ANICETA FONTANOSA

    013 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 4899 March 2, 1909 - JUANA DIZON v. EDMUNDO ULLMANN

    013 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 4443 March 4, 1909 - CHO CHUNG LUNG v. FIGUERAS HERMANOS

    013 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 4929 March 5, 1909 - JUAN BUENCAMINO v. NICASIA VICEO

    013 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 4979 March 5, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR ABLANA

    013 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 3545 March 6, 1909 - REGINO ARISTON v. MANUEL CEA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 3805 March 6, 1909 - ALBINO SARMIENTO v. IGNACIO VILLAMOR

    013 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 4202 March 9, 1909 - MAMERTO GILLESANIA, ET AL. v. NICOLAS MENASALVAS, ET AL.

    013 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 4714 March 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO BURIAS, ET AL.

    013 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. 5099 March 9, 1909 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. GRANT TRENT

    013 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 5144 March 9, 1909 - BEHN, MEYER & CO., LTD. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 4119 March 11, 1909 - EUGENIA PAGALARAN v. VALENTIN BALLATAN, ET AL.

    013 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 5000 March 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR SANTO NIÑO

    013 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 5007 March 11, 1909 - SONG FO & CO. v. TIU CA SONG

    013 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 5013 March 11, 1909 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIA

    013 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 5200 March 11, 1909 - VICENTE BANDOY v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

    013 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 3894 March 12, 1909 - JUAN IBAÑEZ DE ALCOA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    013 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 4555 March 12, 1909 - SEVERO HERNANDO v. SEVERO SAMBRANO

    013 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 4962 March 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE AGBAYANI

    013 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 5030 March 12, 1909 - JUAN M. MANZANO v. JOSE TAN SUNCO

    013 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 4802 March 13, 1909 - ANDRES PUIG, ET AL. v. ANTONIO MERCADO

    013 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 4776 March 18, 1909 - MANUEL ORMACHEA TIN-CONGCO v. SANTIAGO TRILLANA

    013 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 5002 March 18, 1909 - MARTIN BELEN, ET AL. v. ALEJO BELEN

    013 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 3678 March 19, 1909 - CELESTINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. JUANA MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    013 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 4898 March 19, 1909 - SALVADOR GUERRERO v. LEOPOLDO TERAN

    013 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 4114 March 20, 1909 - JUAN BRUSAS v. EUTIQUIO INFANTE

    013 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 4861 March 20, 1909 - F. W. PRISING v. MILTON E. SPRINGER

    013 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 2935 March 23, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE I. FRANK

    013 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 3643 March 23, 1909 - AMBROSIA POSTIGO v. DOLORES BORJAL

    013 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 3683 March 23, 1909 - MARIANO PERFECTO v. MUNICIPALITY OF GUINOBATAN

    013 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 4275 March 23, 1909 - PAULA CONDE v. ROMAN ABAYA

    013 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 4610 March 23, 1909 - AGUSTIN GA. GAVIERES v. FLORA BROTO

    013 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 4891 March 23, 1909 - SOFIA DEVESA v. CRISPIN ARBES

    013 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 5045 March 23, 1909 - GUILLERMO BOWLER v. PASTRO ALCAZAR

    013 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 4796 March 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO PEREZ, ET AL.

    013 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 4912 March 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIA GUY-SAYCO

    013 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 5008 March 25, 1909 - IN RE: MANUELA AMANCIO TOMAS, ET AL. v. JORGE PARDO

    013 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 3413 March 27, 1909 - POMPOSA BONJOC, ET AL. v. CANDELARIO CUISON

    013 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. 3876 March 27, 1909 - RUFINA YATCO v. JESUALDO GANA

    013 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 4053 March 27, 1909 - IN RE: SERAFIN CANO URQUISA

    013 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 4575 March 27, 1909 - TEODORICA ENDENCIA CUSAR v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    013 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 4783 March 27, 1909 - LUCIO J. BUZON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    013 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 4799 March 27, 1909 - AGRIPINO SEGOVIA v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ALBAY, ET AL.

    013 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 4825 March 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO SANCHEZ

    013 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 4882 March 27, 1909 - RUPERTO MONTINOLA v. LUCRECIO HOFILENA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 4937 March 27, 1909 - CRISPULO SIDECO v. FRANCISCO PASCUA

    013 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 4946 March 27, 1909 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARIA DEL CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    013 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 4966 March 27, 1909 - LUCIO BUZON v. MAXIMO LICAUCAO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 5074 March 27, 1909 - VICENTA FRANCO v. C. W. O’BRIEN

    013 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 4192 March 29, 1909 - DAVID SALVACION v. EUSTAQUIO SALVACION

    013 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 4559 March 29, 1909 - TOMAS S. GUISON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    013 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 4952 March 29, 1909 - TOMAS OLINO v. MARIANO MEDINA

    013 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 4329 March 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO MAGCOMOT, ET AL.

    013 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 4226 March 31, 1909 - LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. CANDIDA OBED, ET AL.

    013 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4380 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO ANABAN, ET AL.

    013 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 4462 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 4705 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONINA LAMPANO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4885 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VIDAL ROLDAN

    013 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 4894 March 31, 1909 - GEO WHALEN v. PASIG IRON WORKS

    013 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 4911 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    013 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 5029 April 1, 1909 - JOSE MCMICKING v. EL BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO

    013 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 4957 April 2, 1909 - MIGUEL PASCUAL v. MACARIO ANGELES, ET AL.

    013 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 4992 April 2, 1909 - AGUSTIN GA. GAVIERES v. ADMINISTRATORS OF LUIS PENA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 5012 April 2, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF U.S. IN THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PERDO CARMEN, ET AL.

    013 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. 4129 April 12, 1909 - ESTEBAN BERSABAL v. ANTONIO BERNAL

    013 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 4130 April 12, 1909 - REFINO BANES, ET AL. v. JACINTO CORDERO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 4454 April 12, 1909 - EX PARTE JUAN ONDEVILLA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 4501 April 12, 1909 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ROMANA GANSON

    013 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 4922 April 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO REYES CARRILLO

    013 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 4502 April 13, 1909 - LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ROMANA GANZON

    013 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 3075 April 14, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. PROVINCE OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    013 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 4394 April 19, 1909 - FRANCISCO T. FIGUERAS v. ROCHA & CO.

    013 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 4704 April 26, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN GIL

    013 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 4999 May 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO VARGAS

    013 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 4895 June 15, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. W. O. BINGHAM, ET AL.

    013 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 4773 July 13, 1909 - MANILA BUILDING and LOAN ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    013 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 4960 July 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO HERRERA

    013 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 4290 July 21, 1909 - ROBERT V. DELL v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    013 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 4881 July 24, 1909 - JOSE LIM v. DOMINGO LIM

    013 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 1917 July 26, 1909 - CATALINIBALDERAMA v. LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    013 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 5190 July 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CONSUELO

    013 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 5109 July 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BARBICHO

    013 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 2905 August 3, 1909 - LA VIUDA DE SOLER v. AURELIO RUSCA.

    013 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 3228 August 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. WENCESLAO MERCADO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 4163 August 4, 1909 - ED BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. 2894 August 5, 1909 - JOSE LASERNA TUPAZ v. RAFAEL LOZADA

    013 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 5114 August 5, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME ARREGLADO

    013 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 2085 August 10, 1909 - TIBURCIO SAENZ v. FIGUERAS HERMANOS

    013 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 5154 August 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SUPILA

    013 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 3666 August 17, 1909 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

    013 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. 5184 August 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PLATON IBAÑEZ

    013 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 343 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL RIOTA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4378 August 18, 1909 - CHAN KEEP, ET AL. v. LEON CHAN GIOCO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 4507 August 18, 1909 - MACARIA MANUEL, ET AL. v. FRIDOLIN WIGETT, ET AL.

    014 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 4859 August 18, 1909 - MANUEL JIMENO, ET AL. v. LOPE GACILAGO

    014 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 5071 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO CAS

    014 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 5111 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE REYES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 5220 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL PINDONG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 5235 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN CELESTINO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5110 August 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FABIANA LEGASPI, ET AL.

    014 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 4045 August 23, 1909 - ILDEFONSO DORONILA v. GRACIANO GONZAGA

    014 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 4674 August 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO PANALIGAN

    014 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 3377 August 24, 1909 - BONIFACIO PIMENTEL v. EUGENIO GUTIERREZ

    014 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4918 August 26, 1909 - FELICIANA DARIANO v. JOSE FERNANDEZ FIDALGO

    014 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 3989 August 28, 1909 - LI HANG SHEONG v. VENANCIO C. DIAZ

    014 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 4426 August 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FILOTEO

    014 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 5292 August 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MANALINDE

    014 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 5153 September 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME MIJARES

    014 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 5171 September 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LAO LOCK HING

    014 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. 5126 September 2, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO APOSTOL

    014 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 3862 September 6, 1909 - JUAN G. BOSQUE v. YU CHIPCO

    014 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 4437 September 9, 1909 - TOMAS OSMEÑA v. CENONA RAMA

    014 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 4471 September 9, 1909 - DAMASA SEGUI v. CANDIDO SEGUI

    014 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 5273 September 9, 1909 - FRANCISCA JOSE v. WENCESLAUA DAMIAN

    014 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 5067 September 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CORNELIO MANALO

    016 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 5618 September 14, 1909 - IN RE: H. G. SMITH

    014 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 4177 September 15, 1909 - AGATON ARANETA v. BRAULIO MONTELIBANO

    014 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 4235 September 15, 1909 - SANTIAGO TIN FIAN v. PABLO TAN

    014 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 4963 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO CHICO

    014 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 5156 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN MISOLA

    014 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 5165 September 15, 1909 - GERVASIO UNSON v. SEGUNDO ABRERA

    014 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 5185 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO MENESES

    014 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 5150 September 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MARCIANO LOPEZ

    014 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 4236 September 18, 1909 - SANTIAGO TIU FIAN v. HILARIO YAP

    014 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 4445 September 18, 1909 - CATALINA BUGNAO v. FRANCISCO UBAG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 4609 September 18, 1909 - QUE YONG KENG v. RAFAEL TAN QUICO

    014 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. 4694 September 18, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. MUN. OF ROSARIO

    014 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 4887 September 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 4973 September 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE CATIPON, ET AL.

    014 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 5003 September 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX DE JESUS

    014 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. 5262 September 18, 1909 - FRANCISCO ROSA HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. MELECIO PADUA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 4263 September 22, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEFANIA MENDOZA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. 4837 September 22, 1909 - FRANCISCO IMPERIAL v. JOSE ALEJANDRE

    014 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 4234 September 23, 1909 - RUPERTA ORAIS v. JACINTA ESCAÑO

    014 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 4759 September 23, 1909 - SEBASTIAN CABILLAS v. ALFONSO APDUHAN, ET AL.

    014 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 4971 September 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AUGUSTUS HICKS

    014 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 5194 September 23, 1909 - CHINESE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. PUA TE CHING, ET AL.

    014 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 5108 September 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES MORALES

    014 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4526 October 4, 1909 - TOMAS FORTUNA v. RUFINO VILORIA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 4602 October 4, 1909 - JUAN CO v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    014 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 5332 October 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORO BAGUIO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 4663 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO CABOLA ET AL.

    016 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 4846 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MAQUIRAYA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 4970 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO ARTICHO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 5138 October 9, 1909 - JOSE MCMICKING v. DOMINGO TREMOYA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 5423 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO POQUIS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 4009 October 11, 1909 - NICOLASA ARINGO v. URBANA ARENA

    014 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 4339 October 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO TREYES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 3865 October 16, 1909 - GREGORIO FERNANDEZ v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT CO.

    014 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 4362 October 19, 1909 - INSULAR GOV’T. v. DOROTEO NICO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. 4606 October 19, 1909 - JUAN RODRIGUEZ v. FINDLAY & CO.

    014 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. 5297 October 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MARTINA BACAS

    014 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 4935 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JAMES L. BROBST

    014 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 4998 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE C. SEDANO

    014 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 5069 October 25, 1909 - TAN CHUCO v. YORKSHIRE FIRE AND LIFE INSURANCE CO.

    014 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 5083 October 25, 1909 - TOMAS SUNICO v. JOSE VILLAPANDO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 5167 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN MENESES

    014 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 5227 October 25, 1909 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 4102 October 26, 1909 - JOSE CARDELL v. RAMON MAÑERU, ET AL.

    014 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 5072 October 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO AUSTERO

    014 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. 5424 October 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PRUDENCIO SOTO

    014 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4974 October 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 5098 October 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO MONASTERIAL, ET AL.

    014 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4934 October 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. A. C. V. ROSA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 5100 November 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO BEDOYA

    014 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 5386 November 8, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ARSENIO PALACIO

    016 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 4975 November 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO NARVAS

    014 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 5373 November 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CLAUDIO DE SILVA

    014 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 4947 November 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO RAYMUNDO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 5181 November 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ANACLETO ABAD

    014 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 4932 November 16, 1909 - WARNER, BARNES & CO. v. RAMON F. SANTOS

    014 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 5348 November 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJO PAGUIRIGAN

    014 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 5503 November 16, 1909 - CATALINA MONTEMAYOR v. MATEO CUNANAN

    014 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 4752 November 17, 1909 - FLORENTINO CORDERO v. PEDRO CABIGTING

    014 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 5036 November 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LUCIANO MALEZA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 5240 November 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LINO EGUIA LIM BUANCO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 5432 November 20, 1909 - TOMAS INOCENCIO v. MIGUEL GATPANDAN, ET AL.

    014 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 4996 November 26, 1909 - VICTORIANO SIGUENZA v. MUN. OF HINIGARAN

    014 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 5009 November 26, 1909 - TOMAS SUNICO v. MANUEL RAMIREZ

    014 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 4976 November 27, 1909 - A. J. EVELAND v. EASTERN MINING CO.

    014 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 4709 November 29, 1909 - CHAN SUANCO v. DOROTEO ALONSO

    014 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 5115 November 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL SAMANIEGO, ET AL.

    016 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 5208 December 1, 1909 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. JOSE TAN SUNCO ET AL.

    016 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 5044 December 1, 1909 - EDWIN CASE v. HEIRS OF TUASON Y SANTIBAÑEZ

    014 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 5075 December 1, 1909 - MAURICIO RAMIREZ v. SIMEON BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 4815 December 2, 1909 - LA YEBANA CO. v. FRANCISCO CHUA SECO & CO.

    014 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. 5096 December 2, 1909 - RAMON MORTERA v. INOCENTE MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 5244 December 2, 1909 - EULOGIO TRIA v. RAMON ORTIZ

    014 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 5306 December 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO JARABAS

    014 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 5307 December 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE GONZAGA CHANGCO

    014 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 5210 December 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIA DE CHAVES

    014 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 5385 December 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. 5275 December 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO BAUTISTA

    014 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 4871 December 10, 1909 - LEONCIO IMPERIAL v. ALFONSA TOLEDO

    014 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 5313 December 10, 1909 - JUANA ESPIRITU v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    014 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 5217 December 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL LOPEZ

    014 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 5344 December 14, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIANA DEUDA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 5202 December 16, 1909 - YAP UNKI v. CHUA JAMCO

    014 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 5295 December 16, 1909 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. MACKE & CHANDLER, ET AL.

    014 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 5393 December 16, 1909 - PEDRO TIRANGBUAYA, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    014 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 5200 December 17, 1909 - VICENTE BANDOY, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LA LAGUNA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 5397 December 17, 1909 - FABIANA C. ARRIOLA v. CAROLINA GOMEZ DE LA SERNA

    014 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 4667 December 18, 1909 - GEO. M. LACK, ET AL. v. PANTALEONA ALONSO Y SAN LUIS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 5256 December 21, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTASIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 5329 December 21, 1909 - SABINA CRUZ HERRERA DE LUKBAN v. JOSE McMICKING

    014 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 5318 December 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL BUMANGLAG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 5534 December 23, 1909 - HERBERT S. WALKER, ET AL. v. JOSE MCMICKING

    014 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 4724 December 24, 1909 - GREGORIA MONTAÑANO v. SILVESTRE SUESA

    014 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 5760 December 24, 1909 - MARTIN OCAMPO, ET AL. v. J. C. JENKINS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 4280 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO BUSTOS

    013 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 4206 February 1, 1909 - VICENTE M. SANDOVAL v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 4717 February 1, 1909 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. TOMAS LEDESMA

    012 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 4737 February 1, 1909 - ATANASIO PANDAQUILA v. MIGUEL GAZA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 4785 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 4839 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SY QUIAT

    012 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 4852 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE CALIMAG

    012 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 4373 February 2, 1909 - SAMUEL BISCHOFF v. JUAN D. POMAR, ET AL.

    012 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 4589 February 3, 1909 - GERONIMO DE GUZMAN v. JOAQUINA ORTIZ

    012 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 4838 February 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LIM CO

    012 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 4013 February 4, 1909 - JUSTO GUIDO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN DE BORJA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 4904 February 5, 1909 - ROSALIA MARTINEZ v. ANGEL TAN

    012 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 4723 February 8, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TAYCO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 4566 February 9, 1909 - YUENG SHENG EXCHANGE AND TRADING COMPANY v. G. URRUTIA & CO., ET AL.

    012 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 4910 February 10, 1909 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION VACANI v. ENRIQUE LLOPIS

    012 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. 4415 February 13, 1909 - PAULINO DOLIENDO, ET AL. v. SANTOS DEPIÑO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 4758 February 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. T. E. SANTOS

    013 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4794 February 16, 1909 - WARNER v. ROMAN AND CIRILO JAUCIAN

    013 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 4392 February 17, 1909 - PATRICIO UBEDA v. AGAPITO ZIALCITA

    013 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 4790 February 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION

    013 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 4216 February 19, 1909 - KUENZLE & STEREIFF v. A. S. WATSON & CO., ET AL.

    013 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 4943 February 19, 1909 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. ANGEL LUNA

    013 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 4939 February 20, 1909 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY COMPANY v. ESTEBAN SOLON

    013 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5028 February 20, 1909 - JUANA VALENCIA v. CARMEN DE ROXAS

    013 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 5085 February 20, 1909 - IN RE: JUAN TOLEDO

    013 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 4386 February 24, 1909 - CHANG YONG TEK v. GENEROSA SANTOS

    013 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 4868 February 24, 1909 - JUAN SISON v. FAUSTINO RAMOS

    013 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 4878 February 27, 1909 - IN RE: JOAQUINA MIJARES DE FARIÑAS v. VICENTE LAVIN

    013 Phil 63