Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 5240 November 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LINO EGUIA LIM BUANCO, ET AL.

014 Phil 472:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 5240. November 19, 1909. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LINO EGUIA LIM BUANCO (alias LIM BUANCO) and LUCIANO DE LOS REYES, Defendants-Appellants.

O’Brien & De Witt for appellant Lim Buanco.

Felipe Buencamino for appellant Luciano de los Reyes.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TWO DEFENDANTS CHARGED IN ONE INFORMATION; SEPARATE TRIALS; SINGLE JUDGMENT. — When two defendants are charged jointly in one information and separate trials are demanded, the constitutional right thereto is preserved if the cases are tried separately, and the conclusions of facts and law reached in each case solely upon the separate and distinct records made therein, although the trial court embodies its findings and conclusions in one sentence. It must, however, clearly appear that the sentence as to each defendant is based upon the evidence submitted upon the separate trial of his case.

2. JUDGMENT; STATEMENT IN FINDINGS THAT DEFENDANT FAILED TO TESTIFY IN HIS OWN BEHALF. — A statement in the findings of the trial court that the defendant did not testify in his own behalf is not a violation of the constitutional right of the defendant, if it clearly appears that his neglect or refusal to testify was in no manner used against him.

3. ID.; ID. — If the findings of fact and conclusions of law are based solely on the evidence actually introduced, a mere statement by way of recital preliminary to the actual findings that the defendant did not testify in his own behalf is not a violation of the statutory provision that "his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall in no manner prejudice or be used against him."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION CHARGING "ESTAFA." — The information examined and found to contain the allegations essential to the crime of estafa.

5. CHECK BY DRAWER WITH NO FUNDS ON DEPOSIT; "ESTAFA;" PRINCIPALS IN CRIME. — Where a customer of a bank draws a check thereon when he has no funds to his credit, and through a previous understanding with a clerk in the bank, the check is by said clerk marked as entitled to payment, and is paid by the bank in reliance on said certification, the drawer of the check and the clerk are guilty as principals of the crime of estafa.

6. ID.; ID.; NEGLIGENCE OF BANK OFFICIALS AS DEFENSE. — Under such circumstances the fact that the officials of the bank may be guilty of negligence, or acting in violation of the laws of the bank in paying the check, is not available as a defense on behalf of either the clerk or the fraudulent drawer of the check.

7. SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION; CONSPIRACY; "ESTAFA." — The crime of conspiracy as known to the common law does not exist under the system embodied in the Spanish Penal Code, which defines certain specific acts as conspiracies, and provides that a conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable only in the cases in which the law specifically makes them so. The information in this case charges the defendants with the crime of estafa, and does not attempt to charge them with the crime of conspiracy.


D E C I S I O N


ELLIOTT, J. :


The defendants, Lino Eguia Lim Buanco, (alias Lim Buanco) and Luciano de los Reyes, were charged jointly with the crime of estafa. Demurrers to the information were interposed and overruled. Separate trials were then demanded by the defendants and granted. Both defendants were found guilty as charged, and each was sentenced to two years and ten months of presidio correccional in the public carcel of Bilibid, in the city of Manila; to jointly and separately indemnity the Banco Español-Filipino in the sum of P2,273, Philippine currency, and in the event of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment for the time and in the manner and place prescribed by law.

The information charged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 6th day of October, 1906, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) and Luciano de los Reyes, conspiring and confederating together, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with intent of gain, defraud El Banco Español-Filipino, a corporation then and there duly organized, existing and doing a general banking business in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, of and in the sum of two thousand (P2,000) pesos, Philippine currency, by then and there pretending and representing that the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) did then and there possess property and credit which the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) did not possess and the use of other similar deceit, in this, to wit: That on or about the said 6th day of October, 1906, the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) then and there prepared, drew, executed, signed, presented, and caused to be presented for payment to the said El Banco Español-Filipino his personal check upon the said El Banco Español-Filipino, then and there doing a general banking business in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, as aforesaid, for the sum of two thousand (P2,000) pesos, Philippine currency, a true copy of which check, together will all the indorsements and notations thereon, made both before and after the same was paid by the said El Banco Español-Filipino, is hereto attached, marked ’Exhibit A,’ and made a part hereof, and the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) and Luciano de los Reyes, each well knowing that the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) did not then and there have any funds to his credit in said bank, and conniving, conspiring and concerting together to defraud said bank as aforesaid, did then and there falsely and fraudulently state and represent to said bank and its agents, and particularly to Lino Eguia, one of the agents and the cashier of said bank; that the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) then and there had sufficient funds deposited to his credit in said bank to meet and pay said check and that the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) was then and there a creditor of said bank in an amount more than equal to said check and that the said bank was obligated to pay and should then and there pay to the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) the amount of said check; that the said Luciano de los Reyes was then and there a clerk in the banking institution of ’El Banco Español-Filipino’ and as such was in charge of the book containing the entry and record of the account of the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) with said ’El Banco Español-Filipino’ and the said Luciano de los Reyes, cooperating, as aforesaid, with the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) to defraud the said ’El Banco Español-Filipino.’ at the request and in cooperation with the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco), did then and there falsely state and cause it to appear upon the books of the said bank and in the account of the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) that the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco, (alias Lim Buanco) had to his credit in said bank more than enough to pay the said check of two thousand (P2,000) pesos, and was then and there a creditor of said bank in more than the amount of said check, and did further then and there, falsely and fraudulently in combination with the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco), as aforesaid place upon the back of said check over his signature the word ’corriente,’ thereby stating and causing it to appear and be understood by the said ’El Banco Español-Filipino’ and its agents, and particularly the said Lino Eguia, agent and cashier of said bank, that the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) had then and there deposited to his credit in said bank funds more than sufficient to pay the amount of said check and that the said ’El Banco Español-Filipino’ was obligated then and there to pay and should pay to the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco), the amount of said check; that relying on the false and fraudulent representations, as aforesaid, of the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco), and Luciano de los Reyes the said ’El Banco Español-Filipino’ was induced to pay and did pay to the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) and his order the said sum of two thousand (P2,000) pesos, Philippine currency, which said sum the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco), and the said Luciano de los Reyes then and there converted to their own use, to the damage and prejudice of the said ’El Banco Español-Filipino’ in the said sum of two thousand (P2,000) pesos, Philippine currency, equivalent to and of the value of ten thousand pesetas, Philippine currency.

"All contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

The evidence shows conclusively that for at least three and a half years prior to the 6th day of October, 1906, Luciano de los Reyes was employed in the Banco Español-Filipino, and there served and acted as bookkeeper and check registry clerk. During that time he was in charge of certain current account-books of the bank, and it was his duty to inspect certain checks presented to the bank for payment, including those drawn by Lim Buanco; to examine the account of the maker of said checks, and determine whether or not the drawer of the check had a sufficient balance to his credit to justify the payment of the check. In the performance of these duties, Reyes was required to indorse upon each check, if it was entitled to payment, the words "Corriente. P.O. Luciano de los Reyes." After the check was marked in this manner it was passed to the cashier of the bank, who in reliance upon the indorsement, paid or ordered the same to be paid.

During the period referred to the defendant Lim Buanco had an account with the bank, and drew large sums of money therefrom by means of checks signed by him, and inspected and indorsed as above by Reyes.

During this time a conspiracy existed between the defendants Lim Buanco and Reyes for the withdrawal of funds from the bank by Lim Buanco, regardless of whether he had any funds in the bank to his credit, and in furtherance of this conspiracy the entries in the account of Lim Buanco on the books of the bank were fraudulently and illegally manipulated by Reyes in such a manner as to make the books show an apparent credit balance, when in fact Lim Buanco was owing the bank a large amount of money.

On the 6th day of October, 1906, Lim Buanco drew a check on the Banco Español-Filipino for the sum of P2,000, and this check was through the agency of another bank in which it was deposited by Lim Buanco, presented in due course of business to and paid by the Banco Español-Filipino. Before the check was thus paid, Reyes, acting in his capacity as an employee of the bank, indorsed thereon the words "Corriente. P. O. Luciano de los Reyes," although at the time when this indorsement was made Lim Buanco had no actual credit balance in the bank, and no permission had been given him by any officer or officers in authority of said bank to overdraw his account. In this manner the defendants Lim Buanco and Reyes, in furtherance of the conspiracy to cheat, deceive, and defraud the bank, secured the payment of the check, although they both knew at the time that the defendant Lim Buanco had no credit balance in said bank, but was in fact indebted to the bank in the sum of more than 300,000 pesos, which had previously been withdrawn from the bank by means of similar checks drawn by Lim Buanco and fraudulently indorsed as correct by Reyes.

The amount of money thus fraudulently obtained from the bank by means of the check as aforesaid, with interest thereon at the rat of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the check to the date of the decision in the court below, to wit, January 16, 1909, amounted to the sum of P2,273, Philippine currency, equivalent to 11,365 pesetas, which the court determined to be the damage occasioned to and suffered by the bank by reason of the aforesaid fraudulent conduct of the defendants, acting together in furtherance of said conspiracy. No part of the said sum has been returned or paid back to the Banco Español-Filipino by Lim Buanco, or by Reyes, or by any person acting for on in his or their behalf. The trial court also found that Lim Buanco and Reyes each had voluntarily admitted the crime as charged against him.

Separate trials were granted to the defendants, but the court, after both were convicted, embodied its findings of facts and conclusions in one decision, and one joint sentence was pronounced upon the defendants. Thereafter each defendant separately moved for a new trial, which was denied, and an appeal was taken to this court, where, as in the court below, they appear by separate attorneys. Although separate briefs are filed, the various assignments of errors raise essentially the same questions.

1. It appears that he court in fact granted the motion of the defendants for separate trials, and that Lim Buanco was tried on January 7 and 12, 1909. This trial was followed immediately by that of Reyes, and on January 16, after both trials were completed, the court announced its findings of facts and conclusions in each case in one decision, and imposed one sentence which included both defendants. The practice of entering one sentence against several defendants thus jointly charged and separately tried is not that which prevails in the United States, but it was approved by this court in United States v. Fernandez (9 Phil. Rep., 269), and in the recent case of United States v. Raymundo, No. 4947. 1

It appears clearly that the sentence as to each defendant was based upon the evidence submitted upon the separate trial of his case. Every right intended to be protected, and every purpose sought to be effected by the privilege of a separate trial were effectually preserved. No rights which accrue to a defendant after the decision and sentence can be prejudicially affected by the fact that another defendant is included in that sentence. The right of each to move for a new trial, and to appeal and have his appeal considered upon the record made in his case is preserved unimpaired, and in its entirely. The practice is convenient, and saves much time and labor, and as it can in no way prejudice the rights of a defendant, there is no reason why it should not be approved.

2. In the statement preliminary to the findings, and by way of recital, the trial court stated that neither of the defendants testified as a witness in his own behalf. The defendants contend that this was a violation of their constitutional right. In proceedings under the jury system it is generally provided by statute that the court must not in the presence of the jury refer to the fact that the defendant has availed himself of the right to decline to be a witness, but much of the importance of the matter disappears when the case is tried by a court without a jury. The judge is necessarily in possession of the fact that the defendant has a right to testify or not, as he may be advised, and this statutory prohibition is upon the court drawing any inference of guilt from the fact that the defendant elects not to testify. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a defendant has the right to appear and defend in person or by counsel, and if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness, but "his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall in no manner prejudice or be used against him." The question under this statute is not whether the court referred to the fact that the defendant did not testify, but whether his failure to testify was used to his prejudice. The reference here is in the preliminary statements and it is very clear from the entire proceedings and the sentence that this circumstance was not considered as an evidential fact, and that it in no manner affected the conclusion reached by the court upon the question of the guilt of the defendants or either of them.

3. It is urged that the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to constitute the crime of estafa, because it does not allege specifically that Lim Buanco did not at the time when the check was drawn have funds to his credit in the bank sufficient to pay the check. The position is without merit, because the complaint does in fact allege that the check was drawn by Lim Buanco, and "that the said Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco), and Luciano de los Reyes, each well knowing that the said Lim Buanco did not then and there have any funds to his credit in said bank, and conniving, conspiring and concerting together to defraud the bank, etc." Under the liberal rule of construction prescribed by General Orders, No. 58, and frequently approved by this court, this, when read in connection with the rest of the complaint, must be construed as a sufficient allegation that both Lim Buanco and Reyes when the check was drawn knew that Lim Buanco did not have sufficient money in the bank to pay the same. (see U.S. v. Cajayon, 2 Phil. Rep., 570.)

It is also claimed that the court erred in finding the defendants guilty of the crime of estafa, because the evidence fails to prove the essential elements necessary to constitute this offense. This claim rests upon the assertion that the evidence shows that the money must have been obtained with the consent of the bank; that Lim Buanco never presented the check to the bank, or made any representations to the bank nor any person that he had sufficient money in the bank to pay the check; that he merely used the check in his commercial transactions with the Chartered Bank, of India, Australia, and China, and had it credited to his account in that bank, with the understanding that it would be presented to the Banco Español-Filipino, and if paid, the credit should stand; otherwise it should be canceled. It is true that Lim Buanco drew the check and deposited it to his own credit in the Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China, by which it was presented for payment to the Banco Español-Filipino, upon which it was drawn. The Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China was not defrauded, because the check was in fact paid. The implied representation to the Chartered Bank that the check would be paid in the ordinary course of business was made good, and therefore the Chartered Bank suffered no loss, but the argument based on this fact loses sight of the real offense which was committed against the Banco Español-Filipino. That bank never intended to allow Lim Buanco to overdraw his account, although it did intend to pay the check; that is, it intended to perform the physical act of paying the check, but that act was induced by the combined fraudulent act of Lim Buanco and Reyes. Through the fraudulent machinations and devices of these two defendants, the Banco Español-Filipino was induced to part with its money. In order to obtain this result, Lim Buanco drew the check, and Reyes, acting and operating in connection with him, falsified the records of the bank, and thus accomplished their fraudulent purpose. The allegation in the information, and the statement in the findings of the trial court, that the defendants conspired and confederated together to defraud the bank, and that in furtherance of the conspiracy the defendants did defraud the bank, means no more than that they operated together, and so operating succeeded in defrauding the bank.

Counsel for the defendant Reyes contends that the court committed an error in holding that the evidence shows that Reyes is guilty as principal of the crime of estafa. Upon this record we are satisfied that both the defendants are equally guilty. Each performed the part which was necessary to enable them to accomplish the criminal purpose they had in view. Article 535 of the Penal Code says that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The following shall incur the penalties of he preceding articles:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. He who shall defraud others by using a fictitious name, by assuming fictitious power, influence, or attributes, or by pretending to possess imaginary property, credit, commission, enterprises, or business, or by using any other similar deceit that is not one of those mentioned in the following cases."cralaw virtua1aw library

Lim Buanco certainly by implication represented to the bank that he possessed a credit to which he was not entitled, and with the assistance of Reyes he gave that claim the color of truth, and thus deceived the bank. The fact that Reyes falsified the accounts-current of Lim Buanco, making him appear as a creditor when as a matter of fact he was a debtor of the bank, together with the fact that he acted in collusion with Lim Buanco, made him guilty of a deceit under the province of the paragraph above quoted. We can not see that this conclusion is in the least affected by the fact that under the by-laws of the bank it may have been the duty of the directors of the bank to ascertain the correctness of the entries made by Reyes before the payment of the check. The fraudulent conduct of Reyes can not be deprived of its criminal character by the fact that other officers, directors, or employees of the bank may have been careless in the performance of their duties. Whatever may have been the strict duty of the other officers of the bank, the fact remains that Reyes was guilty of fraudulently manipulating the records of the bank, and he can not escape the legal consequences thereof by showing that if others had properly performed their duties he would not have been able to have accomplished anything by his fraudulent acts. We are referred to a judgment of the supreme court of Spain of March 22, 1871, to the effect that one who misstates the boundaries of land upon which he places a mortgage to secure the payment of a loan of money, is not guilty of the crime of estafa, because such misstatement did not amount to a false representation that he owned any property, credits, or business which he did not have. We can not see that this decision is at all applicable to the present case. Here the bank was deceived by the affirmative act of Reyes, acting in conjunction with Lim Buanco. In the case referred to the boundaries of the land were well known, and the creditor had the right to ascertain for himself the superficial area of the property before he accepted the same as security. Had the party by some fraudulent suggestion or device misrepresented the area of the land, and prevented the person to whom he was giving the mortgage from making any examination for himself, it is probable that a different conclusion would have been reached.

It is impossible to accept the contention that this was merely a case of overdraft on the part of Lim Buanco, and that the bank intentionally and in the ordinary course of business permitted the overdraft. All the facts are inconsistent with such a claim, and the evidence fails to justify the conclusion that the bank or its proper authorities ever intended to permit Lim Buanco to overdraw his account. It is somewhat difficult to understand why these irregularities, which extended over many months, were not previously discovered, but the failure earlier to discover the fraud does not deprive the acts of the defendants of criminality.

The defendants contend that the crime charged in the information is conspiracy, and not estafa. As we read the complaint and consider the evidence, the conspiracy referred to therein means no more than an agreement or understanding between the parties that they should work together to accomplish a fraudulent purpose. The crime of conspiracy as known to the common law does not exist under the system embodied in the Penal Code. Under the common law, a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act by lawful means, or a lawful act by unlawful means, to the prejudice of an individual or the public, is a distinct offense. The Penal Code defines certain acts as conspiracies and makes them punishable, and the statutes of the Philippine Islands have created certain crimes which are denominated conspiracies. Article 4 of the Penal Code says that there is a conspiracy when two or more persons act together for the commission of a crime, and decide to commit it, but it also provides that a conspiracy or proposition to commit a crime is punishable only in the cases in which the law specifically makes them so. A penalty for such conspiracies is provided in but a few instances. Article 137 provides that conspiracies to commit any of the crimes mentioned in the three preceding articles, which relate to the crime of treason, shall be punishable with the penalty of presidio mayor. Article 157 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death upon any person who shall kill the king, and article 158 provides that a conspiracy to commit such a crime shall be punished with reclusion temporal. Article 164 provides that a conspiracy to kill the immediate successor to the crown, or the regent of the kingdom, shall be punished with the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum degrees. Article 235 provides that conspiracies to commit the crime of rebellion shall be punished with the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum degrees, and article 240 provides that a conspiracy to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished with the penalty of arresto mayor or prision correccional in its minimum degree. These are the only conspiracies which are made punishable by the Penal Code. (See 3 Alcubilla, 281.) Sections 4, 7 and 8 of Act No. 292, and section 1 of Act No. 1692, declare that certain specified acts shall constitute criminal conspiracies, and provide for their punishment, but the legislature has not yet deemed it advisable to adopt the general common law of conspiracy. It thus appears that when two or more persons act together for the commission of a crime, and proceed to commit the crime of estafa, the act is not a criminal conspiracy under the Penal Code, because no penalty has been provided therefor nor is it within the provisions of Acts Nos. 292 or 1692. No crime of conspiracy is attempted to be charged against the defendants by this information. They are charged with the crime of estafa, committed in the manner described in the information, and upon the evidence they were properly convicted of that crime.

The judgment and sentence of the trial court should be and are therefore affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered.

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

Endnotes:



1. Page 416, supra.




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