Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4963 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO CHICO

014 Phil 128:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 4963. September 15, 1909. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GO CHICO, Defendant-Appellant.

Gibbs & Gale for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. THE FLAG LAW; INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1 OF ACT NO. 1696. — "Any person who shall expose, or cause or permit to be exposed, to public view on his own premises, or who shall expose, or cause to be exposed, to public view, either on his own premises or elsewhere, any flag, banner, emblem, or device use during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device used or adopted at any time by the public enemies of the United States in the Philippine Islands for the purposes of public disorder or of rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States in the Philippine Islands, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device of the Katipunan Society, or which is commonly known as such, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred pesos nor more than five thousands pesos, or by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court:" Held first, that a specific criminal intent, apart from the act of displaying, is not necessary to a violation of said statute; held, second, that said statute includes not only the identical flags, etc., actually used in the insurrection referred to but also every flag, etc., of that type.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


The defendant is charged with the violation of section 1 of Act No. 1696 of the Philippine Commission, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any person who shall expose, or cause or permit to be exposed, to public view on his own premises, or who shall expose, or cause to be exposed, to public view, either on his own premises or elsewhere, any flag, banner, emblem, or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device used or adopted at any time by the public enemies of the United States in the Philippine Islands for the purpose of public disorder or of rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States in the Philippine Islands, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device of the Katipunan Society, or which is commonly known as such, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendant was tried in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on the 8th day of September, 1908. After hearing the evidence adduced the court adjudged the defendant guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him under that judgment to pay a fine of P500, Philippine currency, and to pay the costs of the action, and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment during the time and in the form and in the place prescribed by law until said fine should be paid. From that judgment and sentence the defendant appealed to this court.

A careful examination of the record brought to this court discloses the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the 4th day of August, 1908, in the city of Manila, the appellant Go Chico displayed in one of the windows and one of the show cases of his store, No. 89 Calle Rosario, a number of medallions, in the form of a small button, upon the faces of which were imprinted in miniature the picture of Emilio Aguinaldo, and the flag or banner or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate and identify those in armed insurrection against the United States. On the day previous to the one above set forth the appellant had purchased the stock of goods in said store, of which the medallions formed a part, at a public sale made under authority of the sheriff of the city of Manila. On the day in question, the 4th of August aforesaid, the appellant was arranging his stocks of goods for the purpose of displaying them to the public and in so doing placed in his showcase and in one of the windows of his store the medallions described. The appellant was ignorant of the existence of a law against the display of the medallions in questions and had consequently no corrupt intention. The facts above stated are admitted.

The appellant rests his right to acquittal upon two propositions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That before a conviction under the law cited can be had, a criminal intent upon the part of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second. That the prohibition of the law is directed against the use of the identical banners, devices, or emblems actually used during the Philippine insurrection by those in armed rebellion against the United States.

In the opinion of this court it is not necessary that the appellant should have acted with criminal intent. In many crimes, made such by statutory enactment, the intention of the persons who commits the crime is entirely immaterial. This is necessarily so. If it were not, the statute as a deterrent influence would be substantially worthless. It would be impossible of execution. In many case the act complained of is itself that which produces the pernicious effect which the statute seeks to avoid. In those cases the pernicious effect is produced with precisely the same force and result whether the intention of the person performing the act is good or bad. The case at bar is a perfect illustration of this. The display of a flag or emblem used, particularly within a recent period, by the enemies of the Government tends to incite resistance to governmental functions and insurrection against governmental authority just as effectively if made in the best of good faith as if made with the most corrupt intent. The display itself, without the intervention of any other factor, is the evil. It is quite different from that large class of crimes, made such by the common law or by statute, in which the injurious effect upon the public depends upon the corrupt intention of the person perpetrating the act. If A discharges a loaded gun and kills B, the interest which society has in the act depends, not upon B’s death, but upon the intention with which A consummated the act. If the gun were discharged intentionally, with the purpose of accomplishing the death of B, then society has been injured and its security violated; but if the gun was discharged accidentally on the part of A, then society, strictly speaking, has no concern in the matter, even though the death of B results. The reason for this is that A does not become a danger to society and its institutions until he becomes a person with a corrupt mind. The mere discharge of the gun and the death of B do not of themselves make him so. With those two facts must go the corrupt intent to kill. In the case at bar, however, the evil to society and to the Government does not depend upon the state of mind of the one who displays the banner, but upon the effect which that display has upon the public mind. In the one case the public is affected by the intention of the actor; in the other by the act itself.

It is stated in volume 12 of Cyc., page 148, that —

"The legislature, however, may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission a crime without regard to the intent of the doer, and if such an intention appears the courts must give it effect although the intention may have been innocent. Whether or not in a given case the statute is to be construed is to be determined by the court by considering the subject-matter of the prohibition as well as the language of the statute, and thus ascertaining the intention of the legislature."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of The People v. Kibler (106 N.Y., 321) the defendant was charged with the sale of adulterated milk under a statute reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No person or persons shall sell or exchange or expose for sale or exchange any unclean, impure, unhealthy, adulterated, of unwholesome milk."cralaw virtua1aw library

It was proved in that case that one Vandenburg purchased at the defendant’s store 1 pint of milk which was shown to contain a very small percentage of water more than that permitted by the statute. There was no dispute about the facts, but the objection made by the defendant was that he was not allowed, upon the trial, to show an absence of criminal intent, or go to the jury upon the question whether it existed, but was condemned under a charge from the court which made his intent totally immaterial and his guilt consist in having gold the adulterated article whether he knew it or not and however carefully he may have sought to keep on hand and sell the genuine article.

The opinion of the court in that case says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As the law stands, knowledge or intention forms no element of the offense. The act alone, irrespective of its motive, constitutes the crime.

x       x       x


"It is notorious that the adulteration of food products has grown to proportions so enormous as to menace the health and safety of the people. Ingenuity keeps pace with greed, and the careless and heedless consumers are exposed to increasing perils. To redress such evils is a plain duty but a difficult tack. Experience has taught the lesson that repressive measures which depend for their efficiency upon proof of the dealer’s knowledge or of his intent to deceive and defraud are of little use and rarely accomplish their purpose. Such an emergency may justify legislation which throws upon the seller the entire responsibility of the purity and soundness of what he sells and compels him to know and to be certain."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Gardner v. The People (62 N.Y., 299) the question arose under a statute which provided that an inspector of elections of the city of New York should not be removed from office except "after notice in writing to the officers sought to be removed, which notice shall set forth clearly and distinctly the reasons for his removal," and further provided that any person who removed such an officer without such notice should be guilty of a misdemeanor. An officer named Sheridan was removed by Gardner, the defendant, without notice. Gardner was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor under the statute. He appealed from the judgment of conviction and the opinion from which the following quotation is made was written upon the decision of that appeal. Chief Justice Church, writing the opinion of the court, says in relation to criminal intent:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In short, the defense was an honest misconstruction of the law under legal advice. The court ruled out the evidence offered, and held that intentionally doing the act prohibited constituted the offense. It is quite clear that the facts offered to be shown, if true, would relieve the indeed, from any intent to violate the statute. The defendants made a mistake of law. Such mistakes do not excuse the commission of prohibited acts. The rule on the subject appears to be, that in acts mala in se, the intent governs but in those mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated?’

x       x       x


"The authorities seem to establish that to sustain an indictment for doing a prohibited act, it is sufficient to prove that the act was knowingly and intentionally done.

x       x       x


"In this case, if the defendants could have shown that they believed that in fact notice had been given to the inspector, although it had not, they would not have been guilty of the offense, because the intention to do the act would have been wanting. Their plea is: True, we intended to remove the inspector without notice, but we thought the law permitted it. This was mistake of law, and is not strictly a defense.

x       x       x


"If the offense is merely technical, the punishment can be made correspondingly nominal; while a rule requiring proof of a criminal intent to violate the statute, independent of an intent to do the act which the statute declares shall constitute the offense, would, in many cases, prevent the restraining influence which the statute was designed to secure."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Fiedler v. Darrin (50 N. Y., 473) the court says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"But when an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of The Commonwealth v. Murphy (165 Mass., 66) the court says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In general, it may be said that there must by malus animus, or a criminal intent. But there is a large class of cases in which, on grounds of public policy, certain acts are made punishable without proof that the defendant understands the facts that give character to his act.

"In such cases it is deemed best to require everybody at his peril to ascertain whether his act comes within the legislative prohibition.

x       x       x


"Considering the nature of the offense, the purpose to be accomplished, the practical methods available for the enforcement of the law, and such other matters as throw light upon the meaning of the language, the question in interpreting a criminal statute is whether the intention of he legislature was to make knowledge of the facts an essential element of the offense, or to put upon everyone the burden of finding out whether his contemplated act is prohibited, and of refraining from it if it is."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Halsted v. The State (41 N.J.L., 552; 32 Am. Rep., 247), the question of a criminal intent arose under a statute, under which the defendant was convicted of a crime, providing that if any township committee or other body shall disburse or vote for the disbursement of public moneys in excess of appropriations made for the purpose, the persons constituting such board shall be guilty of a crime. The defendants was one who violated this law by voting to incur obligations in excess of the appropriation. He was convicted and appealed and the opinion from which the quotation is taken was written upon a decision of that appeal. The court says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When the State had closed, the defense offered to show that the defendant, in aiding in the passage and effectuation of the resolution which I have pronounced to be illegal, did so under the advice of counsel and in good faith, and from pure and honest motives, and that he therein exercised due care and caution.

x       x       x


"As there is an undoubted competency in the lawmaker to declare an act criminal, irrespective of the knowledge or motive of the doer of such act, there can be, of necessity, no judicial authority having the power to require, in the enforcement of the law, such knowledge or motive to be shown. In such instances the entire function of the court is to find out the intention of the legislature, and to enforce the law in absolute conformity to such intention. And in looking over the decided cases on the subject it will be found that in the considered adjudications this inquiry has been the judicial guide."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Rex v. Ogden (6 C. & P., 631; 25 E.C.L., 611), the prisoner was indicted for unlawfully transposing from one piece of wrought plate to another the lion-poisson contrary to the statutes. It was conceded that the act was done without any fraudulent intention. The court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There are no words in the act of Parliament referring to any fraudulent intention. The words of it are, ’Shall transpose or remove, or cause or procure to be transposed or removed, from one piece of wrought plate to another.’"

In the case of The State v. McBrayer (98 N.C., 623) the court stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is a mistaken notion that positive, willful intent to violate the criminal law is an essential ingredient in every criminal offense, and that where there is an absence of such intent there is no offenses; this is especially true as to statutory offenses. When the statute plainly forbids an act to be done, and it is done by some person, the law implies conclusively the guilty intent, although the offender was honestly mistaken as to the meaning of the law he violates. When the language is plain and positive, and the offense is not made to depend upon the positive, willful intent and purpose, nothing is left to interpretation."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of the Commonwealth v. Weiss (139 Pa. St., 247), the question arose on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment requiring him to pay a penalty for a violation of the statute of the statute of the State which provided that any person would be liable to pay a penalty "who shall manufacture, sell, or offer or expose for sale, or have in his possession with intent to sell," oleomargarine, etc. At the trial the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that if they believed, from the evidence, that the defendant did not knowingly furnish or authorize to be furnished, or knew of there being furnished, to any of his customers any oleo margarine, but, as far as he knew, furnished genuine butter, then the verdict must be for the defendant. The court refused to make the charge as requested and that is the only point upon which the defendant appealed.

The court says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The prohibition is absolute and general; it could not be expressed in terms more explicit and comprehensive. The statutory definition of the offense embraces no word implying that the forbidden act shall be done knowingly or willfully, and, if it did, the designed purpose of the act would be practically defeated. The intention of the legislature is plain, that persons engaged in the traffic so engage in it at their peril and that they can not set up their ignorance of the nature and qualities of the commodities they sell, as a defense."cralaw virtua1aw library

The following authorities are to the same effect: State v. Gould (40 Ia., 374); Commonwealth v. Farren (9 Allen, 489); Commonwealth v. Nichols (10 Allen, 199); Commonwealth v. Boynton (2 Allen, 160); Wharton’s Criminal Law, section 2442; Commonwealth v. Sellers (130 Pa., 32); 3 Greenleaf on Evidence, section 21; Farrell v. The State (32 Ohio State, 456); Beekman v. Anthony (56 Miss., 446); The People v. Roby (52 Mich., 577).

It is clear from the authorities cited that in the act under consideration the legislature did not intend that a criminal intent should be a necessary element of the crime. The statutory definition of the offense embraces no word implying that the prohibited act shall be done knowingly or willfully. The wording is plain. The Act means what it says. Nothing is left to interpretation.

Care must be exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act. The accused did not consciously intend to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself — intent and all. The wording of the law is such that the intent and the act are inseparable. The act is the crime. The accused intended to put the device in his window. Nothing more is required to commit the crime.

We do not believe that the second proposition of the accused, namely, that the law is applicable only to the identical banners, etc., actually used in the late insurrection, and not to duplicates of those banners, can be sustained.

It is impossible that the Commission should have intended to prohibit the display of the flag or flags actually used in the insurrection, and, at the same time, permit exact duplicates thereof (saving, perhaps, size) to be displayed of a certain banner is a crime and that the display of its exact duplicate is not is to say nonsense. The rules governing the interpretation of statutes are rules of construction, not destruction. To give the interpretation contended for by the appellant would, as to this particular provision, nullify the statute altogether.

The words "used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States" mean not only the identical flags actually used in the insurrection, but any flag which as of that type. This description refers not to a particular flag, but to a type of flag. That phrase was used because there was and is no other ways of describing that type of flag. While different words might be employed, according to the taste of the draftsman, the method of description would have to be the same. There is no concrete word known by which that flag could be aptly or properly described. There was no opportunity, within the scope of a legislative enactment, to describe the physical details. It had no characteristics whatever, apart from its use in the insurrection, by which it could, in such enactment, be identified. The great and only characteristics which it had upon which the Commission could seize as a means of description was the fact that it was used in the insurrection. There was, therefore, absolutely no was in which the Commission could, in the Act, describe the flag except by reciting where and how it was used. It must not be forgotten that the Commission, by the words and phrases used, was not attempting to describe a particular flag, but a type of flag. They were not describing a flag used upon a particular field or in a certain battle, but a type of flag used by an army — a flag under which many persons rallied and which many persons rallied and which stirred their sentiments and feelings wherever seen or in whatsoever form it appeared. It is a mere incident of description that the flag was used upon a particular field or in a particular battle. They were describing the flag not a flag. It has a quality and significance and an entity apart from any place where or form in which it was used.

"Language is rarely so free from ambiguity as to be in capable of being used in more than one sense, and the literal interpretation of a statute may lead to an absurdity, or evidently fail to give the real intent of the legislature . When this is the case, resort is had to the principle that the spirit of a law controls the letter, so that a thing which is within the intention of a statute is as much within the statute as if it were within the letter, and a thing the statute unless it be within the intention of the makers, and the statute should be so construed as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief contemplated by the framers. (U.S. v. Kirby, 7 Wall., 486; State v. Bolden, 107 La., 116, 118; U.S. v. Buchanan, 9 Fed. Rep., 689; Green v. Kemp, 13 Mass., 515; Lake Shore R.R. Co. v. Roach, 80 N.Y., 339; Delafield v. Brady, 108 N.Y., 524; Doyle v. Doyle, 50 Ohio State, 330.)

"The intention of the legislature and the object aimed at, being the fundamental inquiry in judicial construction, are to control the literal interpretation of particular language in a statute, and language capable of more than one meaning is to be taken in that sense which will harmonize with such intention and object, and effect the purpose of the enactment." (26 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 602.)

Literally hundreds of cases might be cited to sustain this proposition.

"The preamble is no part of the statute, but, as setting out the object and intention of the legislature, it is considered in the construction of an act. Therefore, whenever, there is ambiguity, or wherever the words of the act have more than one meaning, and there is doubt as to the subject-matter to which they are to be applied, the preamble may be used." (U.S. v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 91 U.S., 72; Platt v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 99 U.S., 48; Myer v. Western Car Co., 102 U.S., 1; Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S., 457; Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina, 114 U.S. 550; Cohn v. Barrett, 5 Cal., 195; Barnes v. Jones, 51 Cal., 303; Field v. Gooding, v. The People, 47 N.Y., 330; The People v. Davenport, 91 N.Y., 574; The People v. O’Brien, 111 N.Y., 1.)

"The statute, then, being penal, must be construed with such strictness as to carefully safeguard the rights of the defendants and at the same time preserve the obvious intention of the legislature. If the language be plain, it will be construed as it reads, and the words of the statute given their full meaning; if ambiguous, the court will lean more strongly in favor of the defendant than it would if the statute were remedial. In both cases it will endeavor to effect substantial justice." (Bolles v. Outing Co., 175 U.S., 262, 265; U.S. v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat., 76, 95; U.S. v. Reese, 92 U.S., 214.)

"It is said that notwithstanding this rule (that penal statutes must be construed strictly) the intention of the lawmakers must govern in the construction of penal as well as other statutes. This is true, but this is not a new, independent rule which subverts the old. It is a modification of the known maxim and amounts to this — that though penal statutes are to be construed strictly, they are not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious purpose of the legislature." (U.S. v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat., 76; Taylor v. Goodwin, L.R. 4, Q.B. Div., 228.)

In the latter case it was held that under a statute which imposed a penalty for "furiously driving any sort of carriage" a person could be convicted for immoderately driving a bicycle.

"It is presumed that the legislature intends to impart to its enactments such a meaning as will render them operative and effective, and to prevent persons from eluding or defeating them. Accordingly, in case of any doubt or obscurity, the construction will be such as to carry out these objects." (Black, Interpretation of Laws, p.106.)

In The People v. Supervisors (43 N. Y., 130) the court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The occasion of the enactment of a law may always be referred to in interpreting and giving effect to it. The court should place itself in the situation of the legislature and ascertain the necessity and probable object of the statute, and then give such construction to the language used as to carry the intention of the legislature into effect, so far as it can be ascertained from the terms of the statute itself." (U.S. v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 91 U.S., 72,79.)

We do not believe that in construing the statute in question there is necessity requiring that clauses should be taken from the position given them and placed in other portions of the statute in order to give the whole Act a reasonable meaning. Leaving all of the clauses located as they now are in the statute, a reasonable interpretation based upon the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used, requires that the Act should be held applicable to the case at bar.

The judgment of the court below and the sentence imposed thereunder are hereby affirmed. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, 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