Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 3377 August 24, 1909 - BONIFACIO PIMENTEL v. EUGENIO GUTIERREZ

014 Phil 49:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 3377. August 24, 1909. ]

BONIFACIO PIMENTEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUGENIO GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Dadivas, Rich & Azarraga for Appellant.

Barrios & Acuña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ACTION ON CONTRACT; LIABILITY OF PARTIES TO A CONTRACT. — G., M., and M. entered into a contract by the terms of which they promised to pay to P. the sum of P3,000 with interest. Later certain payments were made which were applied to the payment of the interest due. Subsequently G., representing himself, as well as M. and M., entered into a new contract with P., by which the original contract was to cease to draw interest from a certain date. An action was brought by P. upon the said contract, making G. and M. parties defendant. The third party, M., was dead at the time the action was brought or died during the time the action was pending; the evidence does not disclose when he died. G. answered for himself and the other defendants, pretending to represent them. G. in his answer alleged that a new contract had been made between himself, representing his co-defendants, and P., by which the contract was to be liquidated by the payment of P30 per month. P. admitted that he had entered into a contract with the defendants, by which the contract was not to draw interest from the 1st of December, 1904, but denied the contract set up by G., by which he was to receive P30 per month until the full amount of the said contract should be paid.

Held.

First. That the defendants were severally and not jointly liable under the terms of the contract, and that each was liable to pay an aliquot part of said contract.

Second. That the lower court committed an error in holding that G. was liable for the full amount of the said contract.

Third. That the third party defendant, M., having died either before or during the trial, and his estate not being represented in any way in the action, his responsibility, or the responsibility of his estate for the payment of the aliquot part of the original indebtedness, was in no way affected.

2. WITNESSES; REFUSAL OF JUDGE TO POSTPONE HEARING OF CAUSE. — In the present case the lower court committed no error in refusing to adjourn or postpone the trial of the cause, upon the application of the defendant, for the reason that he did not have present in court certain witnesses. The cause had been at issue for more than a year before the time set for the trial. It was not shown that the facts which the party desired to prove by the absent witness not be proven by other witnesses obtainable. The party making the application had not used due diligence in preparing himself for the trial of the cause.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


On the 27th day of February, 1905, plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Romblon against the defendant, for the purpose of recovering a judgment for the sum of P3,000, with interest at 10 per cent per annum from the 20th day of March, 1901.

The basis of the plaintiff’s claim was contract which he alleged was executed and delivered by the defendants upon the 20th day of March, 1901, for the sum of 3,000 pesos at 10 per cent per annum.

On the 23d day of August, 1905, Eugenio Gutierrez, for himself and as representative of the defendants, Leon Montaña and Feliciano Moreno, filed an amended answer, admitting a part of the allegations of the plaintiff and denying others. The defendant admitted the execution and delivery of the original contract for 3,000 pesos and alleged that a part of said amount had been paid, and further alleged that upon the 1st day of December, 1904, he and the plaintiff had entered into a new contract, by virtue of the terms of which they, the defendants, were to pay the balance of said contract by paying P30 per month until the full amount of said contract should be paid, and alleging further that the plaintiff in the new contract of the said 1st day of December (1904) had agreed to forego the collection of the interest agreed upon in the original contract. The defendant admitted that there was still due the plaintiff on said original contract the sum of P2,636.44, and prayed that the said action might be dismissed with cost against the plaintiff.

On the 30th day of August, 1905, the plaintiff replied to the amended answer of the defendant, in which he denied certain of the allegations of the answer and admitted others. The plaintiff denied that he had executed and delivered or had consented to the execution and delivery of the said contract of the 1st day of December, 1904, by which he had agreed to accept P30 per month until the full amount was paid, but admitted that he had agreed to suspend the interest and also admitted that the defendant had paid in money and effects the sum of P785.36; that this amount of P785.36 had been applied to the payment of the interest on said original contract.

On the 1st day of December, 1905, the defendant presented a motion asking that the said amended complaint be struck from the files, for the reason that it was not a proper reply to the answer of the defendant, which motion the court denied.

On the 1st day of December, 1905, the defendant presented a demurrer to the said amended complaint, upon the ground that the complaint did not allege the period within which defendants were to pay the sum of the original contract of 3,000 pesos, which demurrer was also denied by the court.

On the 23d day of February, 1906, the defendant asked that the deposition of one Eduardo Montiel, who was then a prisoner in Bilibid, be taken, which motion was denied.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Eugenio Gutierrez, for the sum of P3,366.38. The lower court found that the defendant had paid the sum of P747.03, at different times which was applied upon the payment of interest. From this judgment of the lower court the defendant appealed, and made the following assignments of error:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

"I.


"The court below erred in overruling the motion of the defendants of September 1, 1905, requesting that the reply of the plaintiff filed on the 29th of August, 1905, amending his original complaint of the 27th of February, 1905, be stricken from the record.

"II.


"The court below erred in overruling the motion of September 1, 1905, requesting the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the facts therein stated are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

"II.


"The court below erred in overruling the motion of the defendants of February 23, 1906, requesting that the testimony of Eduardo Montiel, who is confined in Bilibid Prison and therefore absent from the Province of Romblon, be taken by deposition, as they consider said witness an important one.

"III.


"The court below erred in sentencing the defendant Eugenio Gutierrez alone to pay the total amount of the debt, and dismissing the case, on account of lack of evidence, with respect to the other defendants, Feliciano Moreno and Leon Montaña.

"IV.


"The court below erred in holding in its judgment that if the plaintiff signed the document offered in evidence by the defendant Gutierrez (Exhibit D of the defendants) in order to prove that the plaintiff had agreed to accept monthly payments of P30 until the debt was paid in full, he did so in ignorance of the contents of the instrument.

"V.


"The court below erred in holding in its judgment that such a stipulation as the one contained in the said document Exhibit D of the defendants, to accept monthly payments of P30, is invalid for the reason that no obligating motive for said stipulation exists; in view of which, the court below erred in failing to consider it as a renewal of the contract.

"VI.


"The court below erred in holding that interest on the loan ceased only on the 1st of January, 1905, instead of on the 1st of December, 1904.

"VII.


"The court below erred in admitting as evidence the document which appears as Exhibit B, first sheet, offered by the plaintiff in order to establish the fact that the latter received from the defendant Gutierrez only P747.03 on account of interest.

"VIII.


"The court below erred in holding that the sum of P685.85 contained in the first receipt, Exhibit B of the defendants of April 8, 1904, is included in the sum of P747.03 contained in the second receipt, Exhibit A of the defendants of December 6, 1904.

"VIII.


"The court below erred in considering that the earnings which appear in the account-book, Exhibit 2 of the court, and which were entered subsequently to the 8th day of April, 1904, are fictitious and false.

"IX.


"The court below erred in holding that on the 20th of March, 1901, the plaintiff loaned to the defendant Gutierrez 3,000 pesos, Philippine currency, as indicated by the sign P.

"X.


"The court below erred in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same amount or sum in Philippine currency which he loaned in 1901 in Mexican currency, without establishing the legal ration of exchange between the two currencies."cralaw virtua1aw library

With reference to the first assignment of error, to wit, that the lower court committed an error, in admitting the reply of the plaintiff, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the lower court committed no error, for the reason that the defendant in his amended answer had alleged certain new matter, to wit, payments and a new contract, which the plaintiff, by virtue of section 104 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, had a right to answer by a replication. It is true that section 104 gives the plaintiff the right reply t new matter or special defenses set up in the defendant’s answer, by an amendment to his complaint, but it is not necessary. If the plaintiff does not reply to new matter set up in the complaint, under the provisions of section 104, he is deemed to have denied them without a replication, and would be permitted to present proof denying the new matter in the answer without a replication. In the present case, however, the plaintiff preferred to file an amended complaint or replication. No error was committed in permitting him so to do.

With reference to the second assignment of error, to wit, that the court committed an error in not sustaining the demurrer of the defendant to the amended complaint or reply of the plaintiff, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the court committed no error in overruling the demurrer, if what the defendant presented could be considered a demurrer. The reply was sufficient in form and substance.

With reference to the third assignment of error, to wit, that the court committed an error in denying the application of the defendant to be permitted to take the deposition of one Eduardo Montiel, it appears that the application to take the said deposition was made on the 23d day of February, 1906. From the record, it appears that the trial of the cause was set for the 23d day of February, 1906. It will also be noted from an examination of the record that all of the pleading had been filed in the cause and the case was ready for trial on the 16th day of February, 1905. More than a year had elapsed, therefore, after the cause was at issue, before the time set for trial. The record does not disclose on what date the court had fixed the day of the trial. It must have been, however, naturally some time before the said 23d day of February.

The defendant had, therefore, all of the time between the 16th day of February, 1905, and the 23d day of February, 1906, within which to have obtained the deposition of the said Montiel, had he really desired it; and moreover, under the provision of section 361 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, the defendant might have taken the deposition of the witness without the intervention of the court. Said section 361 provides the method for taking depositions of witnesses, when the same is permitted under section 355. It appears that the defendant, therefore, had not used due diligence in preparing himself for the trial of the cause, and furthermore the affidavit presented by the defendant does not attempt to show that the facts which he expected to prove by the witness Montiel could not have been proven by some other accessible witness. The defendant should have taken advantage of the provisions of section 361 prior to the time fixed for the trial of the cause, or have shown to the court that he had used due diligence in an effort to secure the presence of the said Montiel, and that he could not safely proceed to the trial of the cause without the presence of said witness or his deposition. It would appear that the effort of the defendant was simply to delay the trial of the cause. In our opinion, the court, under the circumstances, committed no error in refusing to delay the trial of the cause for the reasons stated by the defendant.

With reference to the fourth assignment of error, to wit, that the court committed an error in rendering a judgment against the defendant Eugenio Gutierrez alone, for the full amount of the debt, dismissing the case as to the other defendants, Leon Montaña and Feliciano Moreno, the defendant contends that under the contracts the defendants were only liable for their proportionate share of the obligation, citing articles 1137 and 1138 of the Civil Code. It is true that under said articles of the Civil Code, where two or more person are obligated in the same contract, and where there is nothing in the contract to the contrary, the parties are liable pro rata upon said contract; in other words, by virtue of the provisions of the Civil Code, where two or more persons sign a contract, in order that each shall be responsible for the full amount of the obligation, express words to that effect must be used. If two persons sign a contract under the provisions of the Civil Code, and no words are used to make each liable for the full amount, each is only liable for a proportionate amount of the contract. In the present case the contract was written in the following words:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We, Feliciano Moreno, Eugenio Gutierrez, and Leon Montaña, hereby acknowledge to have this day received from Bonifacio Pimentel the sum of three thousand pesos in silver coin, as a loan, which sum of money we three will use in business transactions, it having been agreed with the lender that said money will earn a premium or interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, that is to say we promise to pay three hundred pesos at the end of each year, and said amount will commence to bear interest from the date; likewise we agree that in case of an unexpected event our property is to serve as collateral.

"In witness to the truth, we, together with the lender, sign this formal agreement in duplicate.

"Romblon, March 20, 1901.

(Signed) "FELICIANO MORENO.

"EUGENIO GUTIERREZ.

"LEON MONTAÑA.

"BONIFACIO PIMENTEL."cralaw virtua1aw library

From a reading of the contract in question, it will be seen that it is una obligacion mancomunada y no solidaria and that the three debtors are not liable separately for the payment of the full amount. They are each only liable for an aliquot part of the original obligation. (See articles 1137 and 1138, Civil Code.) The lower court therefore committed an error in rendering a judgment for the full amount against one of the said codebtors.

It appears from an examination of the record that Eugenio Gutierrez has assumed all responsibility in relation to the contract. Not only by his answer does this fact appear, but by the alleged contract (Exhibit D) of December 1, 1904. He there assumes to make a contract for himself and for the other defendants. Under this contract and the pleadings filed in this cause, the defendant Gutierrez tried to assume all obligation in respect to the said original contract. The record shows that Leon Montaña had died (the record does not show the date) prior to the 1st of December, 1904. There is nothing to show that the said Gutierrez represented the estate of the said Montaña in this litigation. The personal representatives of the said Leon Montaña were not made parties to this action. Therefore no judgment can be rendered which would affect their rights or interests in any way. Inasmuch, however, as the said Gutierrez represented himself and the other defendant, Feliciano Moreno, Feliciano Moreno being thus represented in litigation, and the contract being one creating a joint liability, a judgment may properly be rendered against each of them, Gutierrez and Moreno. In view of the fact that the contract was a joint obligation and not a several one, the lower court committed an error in dismissing the action as to the said Moreno. The lower court should have rendered a judgment against each of the said defendants Moreno and Gutierrez for an aliquot part of the original contract.

With reference to the fifth assignment of error, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the plaintiff did not execute and deliver the alleged contract, by which he was to receive P30 per month until the said obligation was fully liquidated. We do find, however, that the plaintiff agreed to forego the payment of the interest upon said contract until the same was paid.

With reference to the sixth assignment of error, having found that the lower court committed no error in declaring that the plaintiff did not execute and deliver the contract of December 1, 1904, makes it unnecessary for us to discuss this assignment of error.

With reference to the seventh assignment of error, to wit, that the lower court committed an error in holding that the contract did not draw interest after the 1st day of January, 1905, instead of the 1st day of December, 1904, we are of the opinion that the court committed an error in this respect, for the reason that, by virtue of the indorsement signed by the plaintiff, made upon the original contract (Exhibit A), it was thereby agreed that the interest upon said contract should cease upon the said 1st day of December, 1904.

With reference to the eight assignment of error, to wit, that the lower court committed an error in holding that the defendant paid to the plaintiff the sum of P747.03 to be applied upon the interest, it will be noted that upon the first page of Exhibit B there appears to be a credit of P717.41, while upon the second page of Exhibit B a credit seems to have been given on the 6th day of December, 1904, of P747.03. The defendant himself testified that the credit on the first page of Exhibit B, of P686.85, was included in the credit of P747.03. There is no question, it would seem, therefore, about the payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff of this sum of P747.03. The only question between the two parties with reference to this sum is whether it was a part payment of the principal or a payment on the interest due. The plaintiff claims that it was a payment of the interest due; the defendant denies this fact. There is no proof that the defendant, at the time he made the payment, indicated to what it should be applied. It is a rule well established that when a debtor makes payment to his creditor, in a case where the creditor holds two or more accounts against him, the creditor may apply the payment to whichever him, the creditor may apply the payment to whichever of the indebtedness he pleases, in the absence of an express statement on the part of the debtor that the payment should be applied to one or another of the different claims. There being no proof, therefore, or request on the part of the defendant that the sum should be applied upon the payment of the principal, the plaintiff had a right to apply it to the payment of the interest then due. The lower court committed no error, therefore, in view of the proof, in applying this payment to the liquidation of the interest due. (See arts. 1172, 1173, 1174, Civil Code.)

With reference to the ninth assignment of error, the defendant himself testified (p. 22-a of the record) that the sum of P686.85, mentioned in Exhibit B, was included in the sum of P747.03. Therefore the finding of the court was in accordance with the proof adduced during the trial of the cause.

With reference to the tenth assignment of error, the record does not disclose that the book which was marked "Exhibit No. 2" was ever presented in evidence as proof. It is true that certain questions were asked with reference to the same. Granting that the parties intended to offer it as evidence, and that it was actually admitted as proof, while it contains some items which can scarcely be explained, yet the last page of it disclose the fact that the plaintiff’s claim was proven beyond question, or at least by a preponderance of proof, to wit, that the defendant had paid only the sum of P747.03, and the sum of P38.35. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the statement of the lower court with reference to this exhibit in no way affects or vitiates his conclusions.

With reference to the eleventh assignment of error, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the lower court committed no error in indicating the kind of money in which the judgment was rendered by the sign for pesos. This court has held, in the case of Dougherty v. Evangelista (7 Phil. Rep., 37), that in the absence of explanation or proof to the contrary the word "peso" in the judgment of the court must be understood to be "peso" in the established currency of this country at the time when the judgment was rendered. (See also Gaspar v. Molina, 5 Phil. Rep., 197).

With reference to the twelfth assignment of error, the lower court found that there was due from the defendant to the plaintiff a certain number of "peso," without indicating whether they were Mexican or Filipino pesos. The original contract expressly stated "Mexican pesos." There was no evidence adduced during the trial which in any way indicated that there was any difference between the value of Mexican pesos and Filipino pesos, and unless the proof showed that there was a difference, under the decision of this court in the case of Dougherty v. Evangelista, supra, we will assume that the word "peso" used in the judgment of the lower court means the peso constituting the currency of this country. The defendant in the court below not having attempted to show that there was a difference, and not having called the attention of the court below to the fact that there was a difference, we will consider that there was no difference and that the judgment of the lower court will not therefore be set aside for the reasons contended for by the Appellant.

Our conclusions upon all of the facts of the record are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That the plaintiff loaned to the defendant, upon the 20th day of March, 1901, the sum of P3,000, at 10 per cent per annum.

Second. That upon the 1st day of December, 1904, the plaintiff agreed to relieve the defendant from the necessity of paying interest upon the said sum thereafter. (See Exhibit C.)

Third. That the defendant had paid to the plaintiff the sums of P747.03 and P38.35, to be applied on the payment of the interest of said note, or a total of P785.38.

Fourth. That under the terms of the contract the defendants were each liable to pay an aliquot part of the said original contract.

Fifth. That the estate of Leon Montaña not being represented in this action, no judgment can be rendered against him or his personal representative.

The contract was executed and delivered on the 20th day of March, 1901, and drew interest at the rate of 10 per cent until the 1st day of December, 1904. The defendants had paid to the plaintiff the sum of P785.38. This amount was applied to the payment of the interest by the plaintiff. The interest due upon the 1st day of December, 1904, was P1,109.16. Deducting the amount paid (P78.38) from the amount of interest due (1,109.16) left a balance of interest unpaid on the 1st day of December, 1904, of P323.78. The total amount due on said contract, then, on the 1st day of December, 1904, was the amount of the original contract (3,000) plus the interest unpaid (P323.78), making a total of P3,323.78. This action was commenced on the 27th day of February, 1905. The plaintiff is entitled, therefore, to draw interest from the date of the judicial demand (the 27th of February, 1905).

The judgment of the lower court is hereby modified, and it is hereby directed that a judgment be entered against the defendants, Eugenio Gutierrez and Feliciano Moreno, each respectively, for a one-third part of the sum of P3,323.78, with interest from the 27th day of February, 1905, with costs. Leon Montaña nor his representatives not being made a party in this action, no judgment can be rendered against him. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Moreland, 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