Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4606 October 19, 1909 - JUAN RODRIGUEZ v. FINDLAY & CO.

014 Phil 294:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 4606. October 19, 1909. ]

JUAN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FINDLAY & CO., Defendant-Appellee.

Basilio R. Mapa for Appellant.

Kinney & Lawrence, and John W. Sleeper for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. SHIPS AND SHIPPING; BREACH OF CONTRACT; DAMAGES. — Where a contract to furnish the machinery complete, including a propeller, for a freight ship for coastwise trade in these Islands contained the following: "One brass propeller of 8’ diameter and suitable pitch for an expected speed of ship about 9 1/2 knots," and also the following specification applying to the machinery as a whole: "The whole to be suitable for a wooden ship of 150 ft. long by 24 ft. beam and 14 ft. depth, as per plan supplied by Sr. Juan Rodriguez;" it appearing that the person who was to furnish such machinery knew the purpose for which the ship was to be used and its general form and construction. Held, That the propeller must be such as to give to such ship a speed of about 9 1/2 knots per hour, and that furnishing a propeller which gave the ship a speed of only about 7 knots an hour was not a compliance with the terms of the contract: And, Held further, That the damages recoverable of a manufacturer or dealer for the breach of warranty of a sale of goods which he knew at the time of the sale were intended to be used for a particular purpose or to accomplish a particular result, the measure of damages is not confined to the difference in value of the machinery as warranted and as it proves to be, but includes such consequential damages as are the direct, immediate, and probable result of the breach.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


The complaint asks damages for breach of a written contract between plaintiff and defendant for the delivery of the machinery, complete, for a ship in process of construction belonging to the plaintiff.

The defendant, in its answer, denies the allegations of the complaint generally, and sets up as a counterclaim the balance due from plaintiff on the purchase price of the machinery aforesaid, and asks for an affirmative judgment against the plaintiff accordingly.

The defendant secured in the court below an affirmative judgment against the plaintiff for the sum of P9,216.60, with interest thereon, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, from February 28, 1907. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial upon the grounds that the evidence does not justify the decision of the court and that the decision is contrary to law. This motion was denied, and the plaintiff duly excepted and perfected his appeal.

On the 19th of September, 1907, the plaintiff was the owner of a freight ship called the Constancia, then in course of construction in plaintiff’s shops in the city of Manila. The vessel was designed for the coastwise trade in the Philippine Islands. On that date, and for some time prior thereto, one William Swann was the consulting engineer of the defendant, in charge of its machinery department. Swann was at that time an engineer and naval architect and had been working as an engineer substantially all his life. On the date mentioned he was, and for some time theretofore had been, a naval architect, a member of the Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders of Scotland, and a member of the Institute of Naval Architects of Great Britain. The plaintiff was acquainted with Swann and knew him to be an engineer and naval architect of long experience. On the date referred to Rogaciano Rodriguez, acting for and on behalf of the plaintiff and as his agent, made a written contract with Swann, acting for and on behalf of the defendant and as its agent, wherein an whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase of the defendant, and the defendant agreed to sell and deliver to the plaintiff, certain machinery, complete, for the ship Constancia already referred to. Prior to the making of the contract on the date referred to, and during the negotiations leading up to the contract and in connection with them, Swann, the agent of the defendant, visited the shipyard of the plaintiff and inspected the steamship Constancia, then being constructed. This he did several different times. The inspections were made for the purpose of determining the kind and nature of the machinery which would be suitable to the ship referred to. Neither the plaintiff nor his agent, Rogaciano Rodriguez, was a marine or other engineer and they knew little or nothing about the kind of machinery which should be placed in the ship they were building. They relied entirely upon the recommendations, knowledge, and experience of the engineer Swann. The plaintiff had in mind and stated to Swann, among other things, the speed which it was necessary that the Constancia should have in order to be available as a coastwise vessel, and left the kind, nature, and construction of the machinery to the greater knowledge and experience of Swann. This is particularly true of the propeller placed in that vessel, the questions relative to which are the main issues of this case. The contract, so far as its interpretation is disputed, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"One brass propeller of 8’ diameter and suitable pitch for an expected speed of ship about 9 1/2 knots.

x       x       x


"The whole to be suitable for a wooden ship of 150 ft. long by 24 ft. beam and 14 ft. depth, as per plan supplied by Sr. Juan Rodriguez."cralaw virtua1aw library

Before the contract was entered into, the plaintiff delivered to Swann, as the defendant’s agent, a plan of the hull of said vessel. Thereafter Swann delivered to the plaintiff a plan of the entire vessel, showing the machinery placed therein. The plans in question showed length and breadth of the hull, its general outline and the number of feet of water which it drew. These plans also showed location and outline of the sternpost and rudderpost of said ship.

In the process of manufacturing the propeller the defendant thought it discovered that the propeller described in the contract would not give the speed required by the contract and notified the plaintiff to that effect, and at the same time asked permission to put in its place a propeller 10 feet in diameter. This the plaintiff declined to permit.

The machinery, so purchased, was delivered, except certain items which were required to be upon all vessels by the rules of the customs officials of the city of Manila and about which there is little or no dispute. Certain other articles of small value, necessary for the completion of the machinery, seem not to have been delivered, but concerning these there is very little dispute between the parties.

The machinery was duly installed in the vessel upon its delivery. Upon the trial of the ship, after the installation of its machinery, it was found that all of the machinery worked well except the propeller. This, instead of giving the ship a speed of about 9 1/2 knots an hour, gave a speed of less than 7 knots an hour. The failure of the propeller to give the required speed to the vessel is substantially the only point in controversy in this case.

The contention of the plaintiff is that, under the terms of the contract, the defendant was obliged to furnish a propeller 8 feet in diameter which would give the Constancia a speed of 9 1/2 knots an hour, and that, failing in that, the contract was broken and the defendant should be held liable for all damages resulting.

The defendant contends that the machinery was to be according to the specifications in the contract and that, if these specifications were complied with, it does not matter what may be the actual speed of the vessel. It claims that it had nothing to do with the construction of the steamship or the placing therein of the machinery. The defendant also claims that, under the terms of the contract, there was no guaranty of speed, and that, if the propeller was 8 feet in diameter and of brass, it would fulfill the terms of the contract even though the speed of the vessel should not exceed a knot per hour.

The contract, by its words, expressly requires that the defendant must furnish a propeller which shall give to the steamship Constancia a speed of about 9 1/2 knots per hour.

The language of the contract is so plain, and the negotiations leading up to the execution of the contract point in one direction so clearly, that there ought to be little need of discussion. But the parties have insisted so strongly upon the justice of their several contentions that a detailed discussion is considered advisable.

The language is without ambiguity. The defendant agrees therein to furnish "One brass propeller of 8’ diameter and suitable pitch for an expected speed of ship about 9 1/2 knots;" and "The whole to be suitable for a wooden ship 150 ft. long by 24 ft. beam and 14 ft. depth, as per plan supplied by Sr. Juan Rodriguez."cralaw virtua1aw library

The ship for which the machinery, including the propeller, was designed, is specifically described in the contract and is identified without question. That ship is the Constancia, a coastwise vessel 150 feet long, 24 feet wide and 14 feet deep. These are the measurements contained in the contract. This was the only ship for which the plaintiff needed machinery. It was the only ship he was constructing. During the course of the negotiations the defendant’s agent, Swann, its engineer and naval architect, in company with the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s agent, several times visited the yard wherein the ship was being built and examined it for the purpose of making the contract for the machinery. During these different visits the kind of machinery, its purpose and value were discussed by the parties. This is conceded. Plans of the hull and the interior of the vessel were exchanged by the parties at various times, either before or after the making of the contract. The plaintiff, in particular, delivered to the defendant, prior to the execution of the contract, a plan of the hull of the vessel, with its measurements. Later the defendant delivered to the plaintiff a plan, in considerable detail, showing the vessel with the machinery figured as having been already placed in it.

Swann was a naval architect and marine engineer of long experience, which fact was known to the plaintiff and his agent, and the general details relative to the kind and character of the machinery were left to the defendant. The thing mainly insisted upon by the plaintiff was the result that should be produced. The plaintiff himself testifies, and this is undisputed by the defendant, that he relied upon Swann in these particulars, especially in reference to the propeller and the pitch which it should have; and, by reason of that reliance, the pitch in feet and inches which the propeller should have when placed in the ship was not stated in the contract. Instead, the plaintiff placed in the contract what the propeller should do, rather than what it should be. The diameter of the propeller was fixed by the structure of the vessel and could not exceed 8 feet or 8 1/2 feet. The pitch which the propeller should have in order to give 9 1/2 knots an hour to the steamship was left to the greater knowledge and experience of the defendant’s agent, Swann. The plaintiff placed the condition only that it should produce a certain result when attached to the ship Constancia.

The words of the contract clearly demand, upon the part of the defendant, that it furnish a propeller with a pitch proper to give the steamship Constancia a speed of about 9 1/2 knots per hour. Language for that purpose could scarcely be made plainer than the language used.

The defendant contends that "the machinery was to be according to the specifications in the contract and that, if these specifications were complied with, it does not matter what may be the actual speed of the vessel." The trouble with this contention is that one of the specifications of the contract is speed, namely, a speed of 9 1/2 knots per hour, and the specifications of the contract can not be complied with unless a speed of 9 1/2 knots an hour, or thereabouts, is given. Simply because the specific pitch in feet and inches is not stated in the contract does not mean that there is no specification upon that point. The contract provides that the defendants shall supply to the plaintiff, among other things, one brass propeller 8 feet in diameter with suitable pitch for an expected speed of ship about 9 1/2 knots. The word "suitable" has reference to two objects, the antecedent subject, "pitch" of the propeller, and the subsequent object, "ship;" and the meaning of the word requires that the subject, "pitch" of the propeller, shall have qualities which will harmonize so perfectly with the qualities of the object, "ship," that a certain and specified result, viz, a speed of 9 1/2 knots, shall be produced. The word "suitable," referring to the vessel in which the propeller is to be placed as well as to the propeller itself, the pitch of the propeller must, therefore, be suitable to that vessel, and it is not suitable to that vessel, under the terms of the contract, unless with the other machinery mentioned in the contract it gives to that vessel a speed of about 9 1/2 knots an hour. Therefore, the specifications contained in the contract are not complied with until the vessel shall have received from the machinery installed a speed of about 9 1/2 knots an hour. The word "suitable" is perfectly definite and clear in its meaning and its reference is undoubted.

The defendant, in the contract, not only agrees to furnish a propeller 8 feet in diameter and of brass, but also agrees to furnish a propeller with certain other characteristics, among them being a pitch suitable to produce a certain speed in a certain vessel. If the pitch of the propeller was suitable to do that, it would do it. The failure of the propeller to give a speed anything like 9 1/2 knots an hour indicates clearly and beyond question that the pitch of the propeller was not suitable for the purposes specified in the contract.

The contention of the defendant is, further, that the pitch of the propeller as furnished, viz, 15 1/2 feet, was suitable to give a speed of more than 9 1/2 knots an hour; and in its argument it quotes the expert, Swann, who testifies, in relation to the pitch of the propeller, that with the pitch of 15 1/2 feet the propeller would have a speed of a little over 11 knots per hour. The defect in this contention is that a propeller has no such quality as speed; that the thing which Swann figures out as 11 knots an hour is not speed but pitch. A propeller has, aside from the material of its construction, three qualities — diameter, area, and pitch. A propeller has no such quality as speed. The pitch of the propeller is described by Swann and Gilchrist as the distance which it would travel if it were turned one revolution in a substance which, although yielding sufficiently to permit the passage of the propeller, would admit of no slip. In other words, if a propeller were immersed in wax and then given a turn amounting to one revolution, the pitch of the propeller would be the distance which it would travel through the wax in that one revolution. The expert Swann says that the way to determine the speed of a propeller is to "take the pitch, multiply it by the revolutions, which would give me the distance the propeller would advance in any one minute; then multiply that by sixty, which would give me the amount in one hour; then divide by 6,080, which is the number of feet in a knot, and that would give me the number of knots per hour which the propeller would advance;" and then says that the speed of the propeller would be more than 11 knots. The mere fact that Swann multiplies the pitch of the propeller by a number of figures, and then divides that product by other figures, does not change pitch into speed. It remains pitch still. In other words, the 11 knots per hour which Swann refers to as the speed of the propeller is the distance which the propeller, unattached to any vessel, would travel, in wax in one hour if it was turned at the rate of 84 revolutions per minute. But this is the acknowledged definition of pitch, not speed. It is manifestly absurd to contend that the propeller can have a speed independent of the vessel to which it may be attached. Speed is a quality of the vessel itself and not a quality of the propeller. To be sure, the propeller, operated by the engine, is able to give speed to the vessel, but in and of itself it has no such quality.

It is apparent, therefore, that the contention of the defendant that the propeller was so constructed as to have a speed of 11 knots an hour is absurd. In other words, the contention of the defendant is that a guaranty in a contract to give a ship a speed of 20 knots an hour is complied with if there is furnished to that ship a propeller with a pitch, which, multiplied by certain figures and divided by others, would produce twenty something at the conclusion of the calculation, and this absolutely regardless of whether the ship on which the propeller is to be placed is a war ship or a pleasure yacht, whether it is 100 or 1,000 feet long, 10 feet or 100 feet wide, whether it draws 5 feet or 60 feet of water and wholly regardless of the form of the vessel’s hull. It is recognized by all authorities upon the construction of steamships that "the most important point to be considered in propulsive efficiency is the shape of the vessel’s hull." In respect of speed this is one of the greatest problems and one of the most perplexing with which marine engineers have to deal. The defendant, by its contention, avoids all the trouble of figuring out this difficult problem by simply giving a speed to its propeller.

It was a condition, and not a theory, which confronted the plaintiff when he purchased the machinery in question including the propeller. He had a vessel which was designed for the coastwise trade and, in order to be useful and efficient in that connection, it was necessary that it should have a speed of about 9 1/2 knots an hour. All of this the defendant knew. Speed being so important in a vessel carrying freight in competition with other vessels having a speed of 9 1/2 knots an hour, the parties placed in the contract a specification by which this vessel should receive machinery of such a character that it would be able to compete with other vessels in a similar occupation. These specifications required that the vessel should have a speed of about 9 1/2 knots per hour and that the machinery furnished for the vessel should be arranged to that end, particularly the propeller.

The defendant not only asserts that it furnished a propeller with a speed of more than 9 1/2 knots an hour, but also contends that the reason why the vessel did not have a speed of 9 1/2 knots an hour after the installation of the machinery was because the propeller was, by the construction of the vessel, forced to work in a position where it could not display its properties adequately. To this end, it asserts, through its expert witness Swann, "that the propeller was, so to speak, too close to both the stern and the rudder posts, so that the propeller could not receive the water or throw it away from it in the manner wanted; that is, in a line with the boat’s keel more or less. It could not do anything else because it was practically watertight, so to speak, that is, to all intents and purposes, watertight between these two large chocks of timber, the rudder and stern posts, and hence could not throw the water off or receive the water from forward in the manner it should, and hence would throw it sideways; that is the effect. The propeller could not get a chance to work."cralaw virtua1aw library

The expert then goes on to assert that the pitch had nothing to do with it, that the diameter of the propeller had nothing to do with it, and that the sole and only reason why the vessel did not receive a speed of 9 1/2 knots an hour from the propeller furnished was because of the sternpost and the rudderpost.

It should be noted, however, that, before the contract was signed, the defendant, and its agent, Swann, were furnished with a plan or plans of the hull of the vessel, showing the sternpost and the rudderpost fully and fairly; that Swann had himself inspected the vessel several times at the yard where it was being built and knew all about the said sternpost and rudderpost and their relative locations. Yet, with that plan in his hand and with that knowledge in his head, he, nevertheless, made a contract in which he agreed to furnish a propeller which would give a speed of 9 1/2 knots an hour to that very ship. It must also be remembered that the events proved the contention of the expert Swann to be wholly unfounded when he claimed that the reason why the propeller would not work was because of its position between the sternpost and the rudderpost. The trial of the propeller furnished by the defendant having demonstrated that it was ineffective and that its pitch was too coarse and its area too great for the purposes specified in the contract, the plaintiff placed in the steamship another propeller in exactly the same position in the vessel as the other, i. e., between the sternpost and the rudderpost, with a diameter only 6 inches more than the diameter of the propeller furnished by the defendant, and the vessel immediately attained a speed of 9 knots, or thereabouts, per hour. It is thus apparent that the expert Swann again made a serious mistake in claiming that the failure of speed was due solely to the place in which the propeller worked.

The defendant also maintains that the plaintiff ought not to recover in this case because before the propeller was constructed the defendant notified him that a propeller 8 feet in diameter would not produce the results specified in the contract and that in order to attain those results it would be necessary to place in that ship a propeller 10 feet in diameter; that the plaintiff rejected this proposal and refused to accept a propeller of any dimensions different from that specified in the contract, and that, therefore, he brought his misfortune on his own head. In reply to this contention it is sufficient to state that, by reason of the construction of the vessel, which Swann knew perfectly before hand, the placing of a propeller 10 feet in diameter in the ship in question would necessitate cutting away a large portion of the rear part of the vessel’s hull. The plaintiff was perfectly justified in refusing to change the whole structure of the rear of his vessel in order to accommodate the defendant. His refusal was justified by subsequent events; for, later, as before stated, a propeller 8 1/2 feet in diameter, but of different pitch and area, was placed in the ship, without any change in the construction of the hull, and the vessel immediately attained a speed of 9 knots, or thereabouts, per hour.

There seems to be no question that the expert witness for the plaintiff was entirely correct when he stated that the fault of the propeller furnished by the defendant was in its pitch and area. He testified that the pitch of the propeller was too coarse and the area was too great for the kind of vessel in which it was placed.

It is thus apparent that the defendant failed to comply with the terms of the contract in respect to the propeller therein described, and the plaintiff, in consequence, is entitled to recover appropriate damages by reason thereof.

The damages recoverable of a manufacturer or dealer for the breach of warranty of machinery which he contracts to furnish or place in operation for a known purpose are not confined to the difference in value of the machinery as warranted and as it proves to be, but include such consequential damages as are the direct, immediate, and probable result of the breach. (30 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 217, and cases there cited.)

The loss of the buyer’s time and of that of his laborers resulting from the breach is recoverable where the circumstances of the sale were such as to have put the seller upon notice that such a loss would probably result from a breach.

Indemnity for losses and damages includes not only the amount of the loss which may have been suffered, but also that of the profit which the creditor may have failed to realize. (Art. 1106, Civil Code.)

The losses and damages for which a creditor in good faith is liable are those foreseen, or which may have been foreseen, at the time of constituting the obligation, and which may be a necessary consequence of its nonfulfillment. (Art. 1107, Civil Code.)

In an action against a manufacturer or dealer for a breach of warranty upon a sale of goods, which he knew at the time of the sale were intended to be used for a particular purpose, the measure of damages is not limited to the difference in value of the goods as warranted, and as they prove to be, as in cases where like articles are sold as merchandise for general purposes; but profits lost and expenses incurred, because of the breach, may be recovered. (Swain v. Schieffelin, 134 N. Y., 471; New York and Colorado Mining Syndicate and Company v. Fraser, 130 U. S., 611; Accumulator Company v. Dubuque Street Railway Company, 64 Fed. Rep., 70.)

It is apparent from the authorities above cited that the plaintiff is entitled to recover P375, the value of 30 tons of coal consumed in the trials necessarily made to determine whether or not the propeller had the qualities specified in the contract; also the sum of P707, the wages of employees and other necessary expenses incurred during said trials.

The plaintiff not having presented competent proof as to the loss he sustained by reason of his ship being out of commission during the time intervening between the trial of the first propeller and the installation of the second, nothing can be awarded him as damages in relation thereto. He is, however, entitled to be allowed as damages the sum of P2,770.36, the amount paid by him for the first propeller, as its purchase price, the same being worthless to him for the purpose for which he bought it — said propeller to be and remain the property of the defendant, with the right to retake the same if it has not already done so.

The defendant failed to deliver to the plaintiff the following machinery and materials which it agreed to deliver under the contract, which said machinery and materials the plaintiff was obliged to purchase of other parties, paying therefor the following prices, which this court finds reasonable in amount, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

One brass cock with flange for the donkey feed, weight 57

pounds P144.00

One do. do. check valve for the engine, weight 62 pounds 124.00

One do. do. 3/4-inch blow-off for the boiler 7.50

One cast brass elbow for the steam valve, weight 97 pounds 145.50

One new 1 1/4-inch tube with flange for the blow-off cock of the donkey boiler 7.00

One brass cock with flanges, connections, and strainer for

the surface blow-off 166.00

For turning the two covers of the high and low pressure

cylinders, and placing new bushes with 5/8 x 9 1/2-inch studs and nuts 85.00

Three cast-iron pistons, turned, with rod and spiral steel

springs, brass covers and valves for the cylinders 185.00

Four cast-iron seatings for the boiler 217.00

Five 1/4-inch pet cocks for the donkey pump and two for the

cylinder blow-off 15.00

One 1/8-inch air-cock for the donkey pump 1.80

Two 1/2-inch test cocks with stuffing boxes for the steam

gauges on boiler 9.00

Two straight 1/2-inch test cocks with stuffing box for the

boiler and donkey boiler 9.00

One lubricator with a 3/8 x 1 1/2-inch male thread for the donkey 3.40

One 1-inch check valve with test cock and hand wheel for the

donkey boiler 26.25

One 1 1/4-inch globe valve with flange and wheel for the steam winch 18.00

_______

Total 1,133.45

We find, therefore, that the defendant is entitled to recover in this action of the plaintiff the sum of P5,213.54, that being the difference between the balance remaining due from plaintiff to the defendant on the purchase price of said machinery, viz, P10,199.35, and the aggregate amount of the damages herein allowed to the plaintiff by reason of the breach of said contract by the defendant, as aforesaid, viz, P4,985.81, with interest on said P5,213.54 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from February 28, 1907, and he is hereby given judgment for that amount.

The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, modified to the extent and in the particulars above enumerated, and, as modified, affirmed, with costs against the defendant.

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

Carson, J., dissents.




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