Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4895 June 15, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. W. O. BINGHAM, ET AL.

013 Phil 558:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4895. June 15, 1909. 1 ]

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. O. BINGHAM, C. D. SQUIRES, and ALBERT BRYAN, Defendants-Appellees.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellant.

W. H. Bishop, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. Firearms; Bond; Penalty; Enforcement After Impossibility of Performance Without Negligence. — On the 22d day of August, 1906, the said Bingham, with the other two defendants as sureties, obtained permission from the authorities of the Insular Government to purchase and keep one revolver and one hundred rounds of ammunition, with the condition that he would deliver the same to the Government of the Philippine Islands on demand. Prior to the time when the demand was made for the return of the said revolver and ammunition, Bingham was engaged in the business of pearl fishing and while thus engaged a severe storm overtook him, and his boat was sunk in eighty fathoms of water, through no fault of his or of his crew, and the said revolver and ammunition being on board, went down and were lost. The violence of the storm was such that neither the said Bingham nor any member of the crew had time to save the said revolver and ammunition and it was impossible to recover the same on account of the depth of the sea wherein they were lost: Held, That an obligation, consisting in the delivery of a specified thing, shall be extinguished when the said thing shall be lost or destroyed without the fault of the obligor and before he shall be in default. No one shall be liable for events (obligations) which could not be foreseen, or which being foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of cases expressly mentioned in the law, or in those in which the obligation so declares. In the absence of stipulations to contrary, impossibility of performance, without the negligence of the parties, prevents the enforcement of bond or contract.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


On the second day of August, 1907, the plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover of the defendants the sum of 200 dollars, United States currency, basing said action upon a failure on the part of the defendants to perform the conditions of a certain bond. On the 25th day of February, 1908, the defendants filed a general and special answer to said complaint. On the second day of March, 1908, the attorneys for the respective parties entered into an agreement in words and figures as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For the trial and determination of the issues joined in this cause and now submitted to the court, and for the purpose of such trial, the said parties, by their respective attorneys, agree that the facts are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That in pursuance of the provisions of Act No. 652 of the Philippine Commission, amendatory of Act No. 175, as amended from time to time, and of Executive Order No. 9 of March 25, 1903, as amended by Executive Order No. 27, issued May 16, 1906, in conformity with the requirements of the aforesaid Act, the chief of police of the city of Manila did on the 22d day of August, 1906, issue to W. O. Bingham a license to purchase and keep the following firearm, viz., one revolver, Smith & Wesson, caliber .38, No. 154990, and one hundred rounds of ammunition.

"2. That said W. O. Bingham, in accordance with the requirements of the aforesaid Executive Order No. 9, did, on August 21, 1906, execute this bond or written obligation with C. D. Squires and R. W. Squires as his sureties on said bond, whereby they acknowledged themselves held and firmly bound unto the plaintiff in the sum of $200, United States currency, to be paid to said plaintiff; the said bond was and is subject to the certain condition thereunder written in the following words and figures, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘The condition of this obligation is such that, whereas, the chief of police has on this 22d day of August, 1906, issued to the above-bounden W. O. Bingham a license to purchase and keep the following firearm, viz., one revolver, Smith & Wesson, caliber .38, No. 154990, and 100 rounds of ammunition; and the above-bounden W. O. Bingham has covenanted and agreed, and does hereby covenant and agree, that he will safely keep the said arms and each of them, and will deliver the same to the Government of the Philippine Islands on demand.’

"The said bond is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Know all men by these presents, that we, W. O. Bingham, residing in the town of Manila, Province of Manila, Philippine Islands, as principal, and C. D. Squires, residing in the town of Manila, Province of Manila, Philippine Islands, and R. W. Squires, residing in the town of Manila, Province of Manila, Philippine Islands, as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto the Government of the Philippine Islands in the penal sum of two hundred ($200) dollars (two hundred dollars for each firearm), United States currency, to the payment of which sum well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

"‘The condition of this obligation is such that, whereas, the chief of police has on this 22d day of August, 1906, issued to the above-bounden W. O. Bingham, a license to purchase and keep the following firearm; viz: One revolver, Smith and Wesson, caliber 38, No. 154990, and 100 rounds of ammunition, and the above-bounden W. O. Bingham has covenanted and agreed and does hereby covenant and agree that he will safely keep the said arms and each of them, and will deliver the same to the Government of the Philippine Islands on demand.

"‘Now, therefore, if the above-bounden W. O. Bingham shall and will in all respects duly and fully observe and perform all and singular the aforesaid covenants, conditions, and agreements, by the said W. O. Bingham to be observed and performed, according to the true intent and meaning thereof, then the above obligation shall be void and of no effect; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.’

"3. That on the 18th day of April, 1907, the plaintiff demanded of the said W. O. Bingham the delivery of the aforesaid revolver and ammunition mentioned and described in said bond, but notwithstanding said demand, the said W. O. Bingham failed to deliver to the plaintiff the aforesaid revolver and ammunition and has not delivered same.

"4. That on the 3d day of January, 1907, prior to the aforesaid demand may upon the said W. O. Bingham for the delivery of said revolver and ammunition or, in default thereof, for compliance with the conditions of said bond, the said W. O. Bingham, with said revolver and ammunition in his possession, was engaged in the business of pearl fishing, and with a crew of eight men was on board his pearling schooner known as the Tamarao about 2 1/2 miles south of the Island of Miripipi; that while thus engaged at said time and place there arose a severe storm; that said schooner was sunk in about 80 fathoms of water through no fault of the said W. O. Bingham or his crew, and that the said revolver and ammunition, being then and there on board said schooner, went down with it and were lost.

"5. That the violence of the storm was such that neither the said W. O. Bingham nor any member of the crew had time to save the said revolver and ammunition, and that it is impossible to recover same on account of the depth of the sea wherein they were lost as aforesaid.

"And upon the foregoing facts this case is submitted to the court upon the issues joined herein, with leave to either party to except to any rulings of the court upon propositions of law that may be moved by either as applicable to this case and to take a bill of exceptions in respect thereof. — (Signed.) Gregorio Araneta, for plaintiff. — W. H. Bishop, for defendant."cralaw virtua1aw library

After considering the agreed facts, the lower court upon the 30th day of June, 1908, rendered a judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed said cause, without making any findings as to costs. The judgment of the lower court is so full in its discussion of the facts and the law applicable thereto that we hereby make it a part of this decision. The decision of the lower court was, in part, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Therefore, from the facts agreed upon between the parties to this suit it appears:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) That W. O. Bingham bound himself to the Government of the Philippine Islands to keep and care for a revolver and ammunition, for the possession of which he was granted a license by the chief of police of this city on the 22d of August, 1906, in accordance with the legal provisions cited, and to surrender the said revolver and ammunition whenever so required by the Government.

"(b) That said obligation was secured by the other two defendants jointly and severally with W. O. Bingham, the principal, in the sum of $200, United States currency, payable to the plaintiff in case the said principal did not keep and care for the said weapon and ammunition, or failed to surrender the same when called upon by the Government of these Islands.

"(c) That the said revolver and ammunition was not surrendered, nor could the same be surrendered by the defendant W. O. Bingham when he was called upon, for the reason that, without any fault of the defendant, they were lost during a strong gale which caused the foundering of the sloop Tamarao, on which the defendant, together with several members of the crew, was fishing pearls from the sea, toward the south of Miripipi Island; the revolver and ammunition went to the bottom of the sea together with the vessel, and it was impossible to recover the same.

"The representative of the plaintiff, in view of the above facts, asks that judgment be entered as against the defendants sentencing them to pay the aforesaid $200, United States currency, with interest thereon from the 18th of April, 1907, and costs, for the reason that the plaintiff had been prejudiced to the said amount on account of the non-fulfillment of the said bond, and the defendants in turn claim that they be acquitted and exempted from such payment.

"It is of course evident that the loss of the said revolver and ammunition, and the material impossibility on the part of the defendant, Bingham, to deliver said article to the plaintiff on demand was due to causes which were independent of his will; to an event which he could not have foreseen, or which, even if he had foreseen it, was unavoidable; to an event known under the Spanish law by the name of caso fortuito, and designated in American law as ’an act of God.’ arising out of a natural cause, and not from man’s will.

"As a matter of fact, as maintained by the representative of the plaintiff, it is a well-established rule in American law, that where a person enters into or contracts an obligation by means of an express contract he can not be permitted to evade its compliance on the plea that such a contract is impracticable, or that it can not be carried out owing to an act of God, or to a, caso fortuito or force majeure. It differs from where the obligation is imposed by the law, in which case the person bound may be relieved from complying by reason of facts or acts of such nature. This doctrine has been established by the courts of the United States in several decisions cited by the said representative.

"However, this rule is not so absolute as to lack exceptions even within the American law, and its application must be adjusted to the principles of justice and equity, and depends upon the character, the nature, and sometimes upon the very conditions in the contract.

"‘Executory agreements ordinarily are made on the implied condition that the performance of the agreement shall not be rendered impossible by the intervention of some accidental and uncontrollable superior agency. In the civil law this agency is termed vis major; in the common law, act of God; and means an inevitable accident produced by an irresistible physical cause which human skill could not have prevented or human judgment foreseen. The intervention of such an agency may excuse performance.’ (Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., vol. 1 (7), p. 147.)

"‘The act of God which exempts one from an obligation in a contract is that which renders its performance impossible.’ (Dewey v. Alpena School Dist., 43 Mich., 480, 38 Am. Rep., 206.)

"‘And akin to this is the case of contracts relating to some specific article which the act of God destroys. Here there is an implied condition in the promise that the preventing contingency shall not arise.’ (Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., vol. 7, p. 148.)

"Furthermore, ’the rule that the intervention of the act of God will excuse performance does not apply where the essential purpose of the contract is capable of substantial accomplishment, although a literal performance has become physically impossible.’ (Ibid.)

"In the present case the purpose or essential object of contract entered into between the government of the Philippine Islands and the defendant, W. O. Bingham, was that the latter should care for and keep said weapon and ammunition, and deliver the same to the Government when the latter should demand it. This purpose, this end, can not be substantially accomplished because the said articles have disappeared and can not be recovered, as the parties have agreed to, and therefore, said rule may be applied to the said contract, or what is the same thing, that fortuitous event, that act of God excuses the defendant from the performance of said contract, and that the purpose or the essential object of the contract was what has already been stated is evident because the intention of the Government, upon imposing said obligation on the defendant, and of the latter in accepting it, was certainly not that said defendant and his bondsmen should pay the $200, United States currency, amount of the bond, but to prevent said revolver and ammunition passing into the possession of another person, or falling into the hands of evil doers, lawbreakers, or of persons who might make unlawful use of the same.

"It is also an established rule in American law, that: ’When performance of a contract is dependent upon the continued existence of a given person or thing, and such continued existence was assumed as the basis of the agreement, the death of the person or the destruction of the thing puts an end to the obligation.’ (7 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., p. 116.) And that ’where a contract is entered into, of a continuing character, or to be performed at a future time, dependent upon the continued existence of a particular person or thing, or the continuing ability of the obligor to perform, subsequent death, destruction or disability will excuse the obligor from compliance with the terms of the contract.’ (1 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., pp. 590, 591, and decisions cited therein.)

"And the reason of said rule is, that ’the liability of an obligor in a contract having reference to the continued existence of a particular person or thing does not in strictness constitute an exception to the general rule as to the liability of obligors in express contracts, but results from a reasonable construction of the contract with reference to its subject-matter.’ (Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, ibid., 592.)

"In the case at bar, the obligation contracted by the defendant, W. O. Bingham, and secured by the other two defendants, his bondsmen, was to care for and keep the revolver and ammunition, the use and possession of which had been granted to the former, and to surrender the same revolver and ammunition to the Government whenever so demanded; so that the said contract was based on the assumed existence of a determined thing, of the revolver and ammunition specified in the respective license, and the compliance of said contract was fixed for a future time, that is to say, whenever the Government should demand the surrender of the said weapon and ammunition, on the basis, of course, that such articles were in existence.

"Therefore, inasmuch as the said revolver and cartridges were lost, or rather, buried at the bottom of the sea beyond the possibility of finding or recovering them, which is equivalent to their destruction, there can be no doubt whatever that, in applying the provisions of said rule of the American law, the defendant, W. O. Bingham, and consequently the other defendants, his bondsmen, have been excused from the performance of said obligation for the reasons which will hereafter be states.

"The said rule in the American law is more clearly and precisely contained in the provisions of article 1182 of the Civil Code in force, which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘An obligation, consisting in the delivery of a specified thing, shall be extinguished when said thing should be lost or destroyed without fault of the debtor and before he should be in default.’

"‘It is understood,’ so reads article 1122 of the same code, ’that the thing is lost when it perishes, becomes unsalable, or disappears in such a manner that it existence is unknown, or it is not possible to recover it.’

"As the revolver and cartridges that were in the possession of W. O. Bingham sank with the sloop Tamarao, they undoubtedly became unsalable, disappearing in such a manner that it is not known where they are, that is, their existence; they were lost, and it is now impossible to recover the same, as has been agreed to between the parties to this suit. Said loss occurred without the fault of said defendant and before he was in default, because the Government did not call upon him to surrender the weapon and cartridges before the shipwreck took place, but several months after the occurrence.

"It is therefore unquestionable that the provisions of the Civil Code in regard to this matter are also in accordance with the American law. Both are based on the same thing, which is the material impossibility to comply with or substantially perform an obligation where the subject-matter does not exist. W. O. Bingham is not bound to comply with the said obligation for the reason that, according to law, it has become extinguished.

"The bond obligation contracted for by the other two defendants jointly and severally with the principal obligor, W. O. Bingham, that it, the defendant, is accessory to the obligation contracted by the latter to deliver to the Government the revolver and cartridges whenever so required, and consequently it became extinguished at the same time as the principal obligation on account of the loss of said articles. (Art. 1847, Civil Code.)

"That obligation was also an accessory one which was established or determined by the penalty clause to pay the plaintiff $200, United States currency, in case the defendant, W. O. Bingham, should fail to comply with the principal obligation, that is, to surrender said weapon and ammunition whenever required to do so because the said obligation was secured by means of said penalty clause; the defendants can not be compelled to suffer said penalty, to wit, to pay the said sum in lieu of delivering the revolver and cartridges mentioned above, for the reason that it is not an alternative obligation, since the defendant, W. O. Bingham, could not choose between delivering the weapon and ammunition when o required, or paying said amount; he was expressly obliged to keep said weapon and ammunition, and surrender them to the Government whenever so demanded in view of the special purposes of the Government in granting such licenses, which purposes are no other than, as it has already been stated, to prevent firearms in the hands of private individuals or of municipalities from falling into the possession of evil doers and enemies to law and order, and to be in a position at any given moment, to gather in said weapons in order to attain said purpose; and this could not be effected if the possessor or possessors of the weapons could, at their choice, fail to deliver them and pay the penalty to the Government.

"Finally, the case of the The Government of the Philippine Islands v. Graciano Punsalan et. al., which was decided by the Supreme Court of these Islands on the 26th of February, 1907, cited by the representative of the plaintiff in order to sustain the theory that, as the defendants had bound themselves unconditionally in the contract, they can not be excused from complying therewith, and consequently from the payment of the bond as indemnity for the damages suffered for the loss of the revolver and cartridges abovementioned, can not serve as a precedent for the decision of the question at bar, because in said case the loss of the rifles was partly due to the negligence of the members of the municipality who had charge of said weapons; said weapons passed into the possession of the bandits who stole them; from this it could not be held that they were lost in the legal sense of the word for the very reason that it was not impossible to recover them, and because their whereabouts could be determined in some manner, while in the present case the revolver and cartridges that were in the hands of the defendant, W. O. Bingham, were totally lost, disappeared and became unsalable, not through his fault but by ac act which was independent of his will which he could not foresee or avoid; by a fortuitous event or by an act of God; and as it is no longer possible to recover the said articles, the essential purpose of the contract, entered into between him and the Government with respect to the said revolver and cartridges, ca not be substantially complied with.

"For the reasons above set forth the court absolves the defendants of the complaint without any special ruling as to the costs. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this decision the plaintiff appealed, and made the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The court erred in not determining the liability of defendants and appellees according to American legal precedents.

"2. The court erred in determining the liability of defendants and appellees under their contract or bond according to the Spanish Civil Code in force in the Philippine Islands.

"3. The court erred in holding and deciding that the obligation of defendants and appellees under their contract or bond was extinguished under the provisions of the Spanish Civil code by reason of the fact that the loss of said firearms and ammunition resulted from fortuitous events.

"4. The court erred in holding and deciding that, even under American legal precedents, defendants and appellees would be released from the obligation of their bond by reason of the fact that the firearms and ammunition were lost by act of God.

"5. The court erred in holding and deciding that the essential purpose of the contract or bond of defendants and appellees was to prevent the firearms and ammunition from falling into the hands of wrongdoers, violator of the law, or persons who would use them for some illegal purpose.

"6. The court erred in rendering judgment for defendants and appellees against plaintiff and Appellant.

"7. The court erred in denying the motion of plaintiff and appellant to set aside the said judgment and award it a new trial on the ground that said judgment was contrary to law and that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the decision."cralaw virtua1aw library

With reference to the first above assignment of error, it may be noted that the lower court cited both American and Philippine authorities and by following the doctrine of one or of the other, he would have reached the same conclusions. We are at a loss to understand why this particular law (Act No. 652, amending Act No. 175) should be solely construed under American precedents any more than any other law enacted by the legislative department of the Philippine Government. But whether this case is decided by applying American jurisprudence or the laws of the Philippine Islands, we are of the opinion that the result will be the same. Justice is about the same under whatever law. Civilized nations everywhere have adopted about the same rules of justice and law when they relate to fundamental principles affecting the rights of men. The rule of the Shylock-pound-of-flesh is no longer in force where impossibility has prevented the performance of an obligation between men, which impossibility neither of the parties could reasonably anticipate nor prevent. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the lower court committed no error in applying the jurisprudence which he cites in his decision. This we believe answers both the first and the second assignments of error

The third and fourth assignments of error may be considered together. The obligation which the defendants in their bond assumed was that the said revolver and ammunition should be returned to the plaintiff upon demand of the plaintiff or of its representatives. No demand was made until after the said revolver and ammunition were lost in the manner described in paragraph 4 of the stipulated facts. Said paragraph 4 shows that the revolver and ammunition were lost in about 80 fathoms of water, through no fault of the defendants.

Article 1182 of the Civil Code provides that —

"An obligation, consisting in the delivery of a specified thing, shall be extinguished when said thing should be lost or destroyed without fault of the debtor and before he should be in default."cralaw virtua1aw library

It would seem that this article was a complete answer to the contention of the plaintiff. (See also decision of the supreme court of Spain of the 18th of February, 1897.) Under article 1183 of said code, the loss shall be presumed to be by the negligence of the person upon whom the obligation rests to return it unless there is proof to the contrary. In the present case it is expressly admitted that there was no fault on the part of the defendants.

Article 1105 of said Civil Code provides that —

"No one shall be liable for events (speaking of obligations) which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the present case there were no exceptions expressly mentioned in the law; neither were they any mentioned in the bond. The loss in the present case was certainly one which, even though it might have been foreseen, was inevitable under the circumstances.

There is no doubt but that the general rule is that one who obligates himself to do or not to do a particular thing is obliged to comply with his obligation unless he is relieved by some express exception or stipulation. But this general rule has so many exceptions that in fact it has but little application. The general exception is the one commonly quoted to wit, the act of God or the public enemy. To this, or to these, may be added many others.

In the case of Clifford v. Watts (Law Reps., 5 Com. Pleas, 577), Watts undertook to dig from the premises of the plaintiff, and obligated himself under a bond to do so, not less than 1,000 tons of potter’s clay annually. There was a default on the part of Watts, and Clifford brought an action against him. Watts pleaded that there never had been so much as 1,000 tons of clay under the land. The court held that the plea furnished a good answer to the plaintiff’s claims. Brett, J., who wrote the opinion, said: "both parties might well have supposed that there was a clay equal to the amount which the defendant had obligated to dig under the land." It was absolutely impossible for the defendant to comply with his obligation, and the mere fact that he was mistaken in the amount of clay which might be dug and the mere fact that he did not make an exception in his contract, were not sufficient to render him liable.

Another illustration may be given. Parties may bind themselves in a lawful contract without making any exceptions whatever and be prevented from the performance of the contract by a legal impossibility arising from a change in the law. An impossibility arising in this manner will certainly relieve the parties from their obligations. To illustrate by a specific example: A enters into a contract with B, obligating himself under a bond to construct a dwelling house or other building upon a particular tract of land. Before the construction of the house or building is completed by an act of the legislative department of the government, acting under the law, the land is appropriated under the power of eminent domain for some public purpose thus preventing the contractor from complying with his obligation. The plaintiff sues him for a failure to comply with the conditions of his bond. Will it be contended by any court that, notwithstanding the fact that he had been legally prevented from carrying out his contract, he is still liable? Such a conclusion is nauseating to the very idea of justice.

A case in point may be found in Baily v. De Crespigny (Law Reps., 4 Q. B., 180); Cordes v. Miller (29 Mich., 581); People v. Globe Mutual Life Ins. Co. (91 N. Y., 174); Jamison v. Indiana Natural Gas Co. (128 Ind., 555).

There are also other exceptions to the general rule above stated, to-wit: where the existence of a specific thing is essential to the performance of the contract. If the specific thing essential to the performance of the contract is destroyed from no fault of either of the parties, such destruction will operated as a discharge of the parties from their obligation. To illustrate: A rents of B a hall for the purpose of giving a public concert on a particular day. B obligates himself to furnish the hall under a penalty. Before the day for the concern the hall is destroyed by fire, or storm, or earthquake, for which destruction B was in noway responsible. This illustration covers the facts in the present case. Certainly under this contract A could not recover any damages from B for his failure to furnish the hall. (Dexter v. Norton, 47 N. Y., 62; Stewart v. Stone, 127 N. Y., 500; Walker v. Tucker, 70 Ill., 527; "The Tornado," 108 U. S., 342; Cleary v. Sohier, 120 Mass., 210; Butterfield v. Byron, 153 Mass., 517; supreme court of Spain, July 2, 1899; supreme court of Spain, July 8, 1903; Taylor v. Caldwell, 3 B. & S. (Eng. Reps.) , 826; Appleby v. Meyers, Law Reps., 2 Com. Pleas, 651.)

A further exception to the general rule is in contracts which have for their base the rendering of personal service. Suppose a man should obligate himself in a contract to render some particular personal service and give a bond for the performance of such service, but, before the time arrives for the performance of the obligation, the performer dies. Can the person to whom the obligation runs enforce the bond? This question was presented in the case of Robinson v. Davison (Law Reps., 6 Excheq., 269) and Bramwell, J., in answering the question said (p. 277):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This is a contract to perform a service which no deputy could perform and which, in case of death, could not be performed by the executors of the deceased, and I am of opinion that by virtue of the terms of the original bargain incapacity of body or mind in the performer, without default on his part, is an excuse for nonperformance. The contract must in my judgment be taken to have been conditional and not absolute."cralaw virtua1aw library

So also may an unforeseen peril, as a general conflagration or inundation, or the prevalence of a contagious disease, and many other things which can not be avoided, work a discharge and a release from an absolute obligation fixed in a contract. (Lakeman v. Pollard, 43 Me., 463.)

With reference to the fifth above assignment of error, we find that the court committed no error in his statement as to the purpose of the bond in question. That was a mere opinion, and in our judgment did not influence the conclusions of the court.

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the assignments of error numbered six and seven.

In the foregoing conclusions we have not overlooked the decisions of this court in the case of The Government of the Philippine Islands v. Punzalan Et. Al. (7 Phil. Rep., 546), and the case of the Government of the Philippine Islands v. Amechazurra Et. Al. (10 Phil. rep., 637). Neither is it intended herein to overrule those decisions. There is no reason why those decisions should not be allowed when the facts are as the facts were in those cases. In the present case it was admitted by both parties that the impossibility on the part of the defendant to comply with the terms of his bond was caused through no fault of the said defendant. In the case of Punzalan Et. Al., this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There is evidence of record tending to show that there was more or less negligence in the performance of their duties as municipal officials on the part of some, if not all, of the defendants, which may have contributed to the loss of these arms."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Amechazurra there is not reference in detail to conditions under which the firearms in question were lost, but inasmuch as the court followed the doctrine in the cause of Punzalan, it is to be presumed that the facts were the same substantially.

For all of the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Carson and Willar, JJ., dissent.

Endnotes:



1. Cause No. 4896, The Government of the Philippine Islands v. W. O. BINGHAM, C. D. SQUIRES, and ALBERT BRYAN, involving the same subject-matter was considered and decided at the same time with the same result




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