Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4838 February 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LIM CO

012 Phil 703:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4838. February 3, 1909. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIM CO, Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor-General Harvey, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. IMMIGRATION LAWS; CHINESE; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. — Held., That the evidence submitted does not establish the contention of the defendant and appellee that he is a Chinese merchant as the term is used in Act No. 702, enacted by the Philippine Commission in pursuance of the provisions of the Act of Congress of April 29, 1902.

2. ID., ID., CERTIFICATE OF RESIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF. — Held, That the proceedings instituted under the provisions of Act No. 702, upon a sworn complaint alleging that the defendant is a Chinese laborer, the defendant not having in his possession the certificate of residence prescribed by said Act, the burden of proof is upon him into to establish the facts upon which he bases his claim to the right to continue his residence in the Philippine Islands.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


This is an appeal taken by the United States from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, discharging from custody Lim Co, the defendant and appellee. The proceedings were had under and by virtue of the provisions of Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission, upon a sworn complaint alleging that the defendant is a Chinese laborer; that he was found in the city of Manila on the 12th day of November, 1907; that at that time he did not have in his possession a certificate of residence prescribed for such persons in the above-mentioned Act, and that he never has acquired such certificate.

The trial court found that Lim Co was born at Amoy, China; that he is about 30 years of age and came to the Philippine Islands about twenty-two years ago; that for a number of years and covering the period in which certificates of registration were being issued he was operating an opium store; that he gave up the opium store upon the change in the law in relation to the selling of opium, and operated a pansiteria in which he had invested P500; that he also has an interest in the manufacture and sale of vermicelli in which business he has invested the sum of P2,000; that the license for conducting the business is in the name of his partner, and that the partnership agreement, which is written in Chinese in the books of the firm, indicates that the business belongs to the defendant with his partner; and that the evidence is satisfactory to show that the defendant, Lim Co, is not a Chinese laborer; and that the certificate of registration required by Act No. 702 is not necessary to said Lim Co.

To this judgment and to the order overruling a motion for a new trial plaintiff excepted, and the case is now submitted to this court on plaintiff’s bill of exceptions, to which no objection has been made either as to form or content.

The Act of Congress of April 29, 1902, entitled "An Act to prohibit the coming into and to regulate the residence within the United States, its Territories, and all territory under its jurisdiction, and the District of Columbia, of Chinese and persons of Chinese descent." provides in section 1 as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That all laws now in force prohibiting and regulating the coming of Chinese persons and persons of Chinese descent into the United States, and the residence of such persons therein, including sections five, six, seven, eight nine, ten, eleven, thirteen, and fourteen of the Act entitled ’An Act to prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers into the United States,’ approved September thirteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, be, and the same are hereby reenacted, extended, and continued so far as the same are not inconsistent with treaty obligations, until otherwise provided by law, and said laws shall also apply to the island territory under the jurisdiction of the United States, and prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers, not citizens of the United States, from such island territory to the mainland territory of the United States, whether in such island territory at the time of cession or not, and from one portion of the island territory of the United States to another portion of said island territory: Provided, however, That said laws shall not apply to the transit of Chinese laborers from one island to another island of the same group; and any islands within the jurisdiction of any State or the District of Alaska shall be considered a part of the mainland under this section."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 4 of said Act of Congress provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That it shall be the duty of every Chinese laborer, other than a citizen, rightfully in and entitled to remain in any of the insular territory of the United States (Hawaii excepted) at the time of the passage of this Act, to obtain within one year thereafter a certificate of residence in the insular territory wherein he resides, which certificate shall entitle him to residence therein, and upon failure to obtain such certificate as herein provided he shall be deported from such insular territory; and the Philippine Commission is authorized and required to make all regulations and provisions necessary for the enforcement of this section in the Philippine Islands, including the form and substance of the certificate of residence so that the same shall clearly and sufficiently identify the holder thereof and enable officials to prevent fraud in the transfer of the same: Provided, however, That if said Philippine Commission shall find that it is impossible to complete the registration herein provided for within one year from the passage of this Act, said Commission is hereby authorized and empowered to extend the time for such registration for a further period not exceeding one year."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to the authority conferred by Congress in the latter section, the Philippine Commission on March 27, 1903, passed Act No. 702, entitled "An Act to regulate the registration of Chinese persons in the Philippine Archipelago, and to carry into effect and enforce the provisions of section four of the Act of Congress approved April twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and two, entitled ’An Act to prohibit the coming into and to regulate the residence within the United States, its Territories, and all territory under its jurisdiction, and the District of Columbia, of Chinese persons and persons of Chinese descent." ’

In section 3 of this Act it is provided as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Each certificate of registration shall contain the name, age, date, and place of birth, registry of birth, if any, local residence, occupation, and photograph of the person therein described, and such other data in respect to him as shall be prescribed by the Insular Collector of Customs, and shall be issued by the proper officer upon payment to him of a fee of fifty cents, United States currency, said fee to be accompanied by a true photograph of the applicant in triplicate to the satisfaction of such officer."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 5 of the Act provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Every Chinese person having a right to be and remain in the Philippine Islands shall obtain the certificate of registration specified in section three of this Act as evidence of such right and shall pay the fee and furnish his photograph in triplicate as in said section prescribed; and every Chinese person found without such certificate within the Philippine Islands after the expiration of the time limited by law for registration shall be presumed, in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, to be a Chinese laborer and shall be subject to deportation as provided in section four of this Act. Every Chinese person shall, on demand of any customs official, police, Constabulary or other peace officer, exhibit his certificate, and on his refusal to do so may be arrested and tried as provided in section four of this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

Said section 4, above-mentioned, provides in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any Chinese laborer within the limits of the Philippine Islands who shall neglect, fail, or refuse to obtain within the time prescribed by section four of the Act of Congress of the United States referred to in section one of this Act, the certificate of registration by this Act provided to be issued, and who shall be found within the Philippine Islands without such certificate of registration after such time has elapsed, may be arrested upon warrant issued by the Court of First Instance of the province or by the justice’s court of the municipality returnable before said Court of First Instance, by any customs official, police, Constabulary, or other peace officer of the Philippine Islands and brought before any judge of a Court of First Instance in the Islands, whose duty it shall be to order that such Chinese laborer be deported from the Philippine Islands, either to China or the country from hence he came, unless he shall affirmatively establish clearly and to the satisfaction of such judge, by at least one credible witness other than Chinese, that although lawfully in the Philippine Islands at and ever since the passage of this Act he has been unable by reason of accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause to procure the certificate within the time prescribed by law, in which case the court shall order and adjudre that he procure the proper certificate within a reasonable time and such Chinese laborer shall bear and pay the costs of the proceeding Provided, however, That any Chinese laborer failing for any reason to secure the certificate required under this law within two years from the date of its passage shall be deported from the Islands. If it appears that such Chinese laborer had procured a certificate in due time but that the same has been lost or destroyed, he shall be allowed a reasonable time to procure a duplicate from the Insular Collector of Customs or from the officer granting the original certificate, and upon the production of such duplicate such Chinese laborer shall be discharged from custody upon payment of costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be seen that under the provisions of section 5 of Act No. 702, every Chinese person found without the prescribed certificate after the expiration of the time limited by law for registration is presumed, in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, to be a Chinese laborer, and is subject to deportation, as provided in the Act; in other words, in proceedings looking to the deportation of Chinese persons under the provisions of this section, the burden of proof rests upon the defendant to show that he is not a Chinese laborer.

Similar provisions in the Chinese Exclusion Act of May 5, 1892 (27 Stat. at L., 25) have been held valid. (Low Foon Yin v. Commissioner of Immigration, 145 Fed. Rep., 791; see also U. S. v. Lung Hong, 105 Fed. Rep., 188; U. S. v. Sing Lee, 125 Fed. Rep., 627; U. S. v. Yee Gee You, 152 Fed. Rep. 157-159.) And it has been held that proceedings brought under the Chinese Exclusion Act for the deportation of a Chinese person are civil and not criminal (In re Lam Jung Sing, 150 Fed. Rep., 608); and that the facts constituting the defense in such cases are peculiarly within the knowledge of the party charged, and .the burden of proof is naturally placed upon him. (In re Sing Lee and In re Ching Jo, 54 Fed. Rep., 334.) Reference to these cases appears to furnish a sufficient answer to contentions based upon the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act in this regard.

Defendant and appellee does not deny that he is a Chinese person or that he was found, as alleged in the complaint, in the city of Manila, on the 12th day of November, 1907, without the certificate prescribed in the above-cited provisions of law for persons of his race and citizenship; but he denies that he is a Chinese laborer, alleging that he is a merchant and that he is now and has been ever since the passage of the Act lawfully in the Philippine Islands, but that he was unable, by reason of sickness and other unavoidable causes, to procure a certificate within the time prescribed by law.

The evidence introduced at the trial in support of defendant’s allegations consists of the testimony of the defendant himself, and of the witnesses, Adriano Cabuncal, Ng Tao, Lim Tao, and Ng Kim Tiu.

The defendant swore that he had a pansiteria store at 209 Calle Lavezares, and that he is a partner in a vermicelli factory at No. 75 Calle Ilaya; that the pansiteria store is worth P500; that his share in the vermicelli factory is worth P2,000; that he has been in the business and connected with these stores about four years; that the pansiteria is a Chinese "chow house" or a restaurant where cooked food is sold; that the vermicelli factory is a camarin (warehouse) where vermicelli is manufactured; that vermicelli is prepared as a food; that there are three kinds of vermicelli made out of flour; that the license for the factory is in the name of his partner, and that the business is conducted not in his own name but in the name of his partner; that in the Chinese book it appears that the witness is as partner although the business is not conducted in his name, but in the name of another Chinaman; that the witness does not buy and sell merchandise in this vermicelli factory, but that the factory is conducted by his companion; that the license is not in his name because he has not had a picture taken, that is to say, he has not a certificate of registration; that he has no certificate of any kind either as a merchant or as a laborer, although he has been in the Philippine Islands for twenty years and has been living in Manila all the time; that the only reason he did not get a registration certificate was that he was sick with beri-beri in the years 1903 and 1904; that he was born at Chincan, China. On examination by the court defendant stated that he had an opium store about five years ago, but that he closed that business as soon as the Americans commenced regulating that business, as it was too troublesome, and that he had about P1,500 invested in the opium business at that time; on cross-examination he stated that the opium store was both for selling and smoking opium, and that the people who patronized it came in and paid for the opium and smoked it on the premises, but on redirect examination by his counsel he testified that he sold opium to people who smoked on the premises and also to people who carried it away.

Adriano Cabuncal testified that he is a plumber at the market; that he has known the defendant Lim Co ever since Spanish times; that he knew him when he had a store in the pueblo of Arayat; that the defendant now has a store of pansit (pansiteria), and a vermicelli factory; that he could not state the value of the store. On cross-examination he stated that all he knew about the pansiteria business is that occasionally he goes and buys and eats there; that there are many kinds of pansit; that there is glug glug which is eaten with sauce, and pansit eaten with soup; that it is a food prepared to eat, which anyone can buy at the pansiteria.

Ng Tao testified that he had lived in Manila for more than sixteen years; that he has known the Chinaman Lim Co for about the same time; that Lim Co dealt in opium; that he went to the provinces as a trader, but that he now has a vermicelli factory and a pansiteria; that, in the opinion of the witness, the pansiteria is worth about P500; that Lim Co has an interest of about P2,000 in the vermicelli factory; that in the camarin a large business is done manufacturing vermicelli and selling it to all the stores; that Lim Co works in the pansiteria, but he does not work in the vermicelli factory but pays the laborers; that he is a partner and it is not necessary for him to work there; that Lim Co is what might be called the head man and sees that the laborers work, and pays them; that once the witness went to the factory to buy vermicelli and saw Lim Co there, and that he seemed to be a kind of head man; that at times when he saw Lim Co he was weighing the mishwa, and placing it in large boxes; that the pansiteria is a shop where you sit down, and that Lim Co collects the money from those who go there and eat.

Ng Kim Tiu testified that he has known this Chinaman, Lim Co, since Spanish times; that Lim Co has a pansiteria and is witness’ partner in a vermicelli factory; that his business is worth about P6,000 and Lim Co’s share is about P2,000; that he is mentioned in the Chinese books as the partner of the witness; that there are four books in the store, a book for the partnership, a book of daily sales, a book of those people who owe the firm, and a book for the workmen; that the vermicelli business is conducted in the name of the witness, Ng Kim Tiu, and the license for the business is in his name, as also are all the books pertaining to the business; that he has now no company name and none of the business is done in the name of the defendant Lim Co. Over the objection of counsel for the plaintiff, the following question was asked: "Who appears in the books of your business as owning it?" to which witness replied: "In the Chinese book it appears that he (defendant) is a partner and has a share, but the license could not be taken in his name because he has not a picture like me." It further appears from the record that this witness produced a certificate as a Chinese laborer, and that his license, No. 1095, is issued in the name of Ng Kim Tiu, and purports to be a manufacturer’s license. The finding of the trial court that the defendant operates a pansiteria in which he has invested P500, and that he has an interest in the manufacture and sale of vermicelli, in which business he has invested the sum of P2,000, is not satisfactorily established by the testimony of record; and there is no competent evidence in the record in support of the finding that "the partnership agreement, which is written in Chinese, indicates that the business belongs to the defendant with his partner." The evidence with which the defendant undertakes to establish his allegations, that he is the owner of a pansiteria worth P500 and that he has an interest of P2,000 in a vermicelli factory is unconvincing and unsatisfactory. We do not think that the owner of such property, situated in the city of Manila, would have failed to introduce more satisfactory proof of these allegations, in proceedings looking to his deportation from the Islands, if these allegations were true, for it would appear that strong and convincing proof must have been easily available, and might readily have been produced in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, in which city the store and factory are said to be located. The only evidence introduced in support of these allegations consists of the verbal declarations of the defendant himself and of his alleged partner. The testimony of the other witnesses that they had seen the defendant working in and about the store and factory does not support the truth of the allegations that he was owner or part owner of these establishments. The verbal testimony as to the contents of the alleged partnership books was clearly incompetent and inadmissible over the objection of the plaintiff not being the best evidence as to the truth of the contents thereof. This secondary evidence should not have been admitted over the objection of counsel for the United States, which was interposed in due time; and in our opinion the trial court undoubtedly erred in admitting this testimony and in refusing to accede to the motion of counsel for plaintiff to compel the defendant to bring the books into court. The burden of proof resting upon the defendant, it would seem that he should have offered the books in evidence, if he conceived that they could, or would sustain any of his material allegations, and his failure so to do after their production had been called for, justifies the presumption that, if introduced in evidence, they would not have supported defendant’s allegations.

But disregarding the question of the inadmissibility of some of the testimony, and granting that the statements of the defendant and his witnesses could be accepted as satisfactory evidence in this case, such evidence is not in our opinion sufficient to sustain the ultimate conclusion of fact by the trial court that Lim Co is a "merchant" and not a "Chinese laborer." There is no evidence whatever in the record to show that the pansiteria was conducted in the name of the defendant; and it affirmatively appears that the vermicelli factory was not conducted in the name of the defendant but in the name of his alleged partner, and that the license therefor was also in the name of the alleged partner. The term "merchant," as defined in the Act, is limited to a person engaged in buying and selling merchandise at a fixed place of business, which business is conducted in his name, and the defendant having wholly failed to prove that either the pansiteria or vermicelli factory is conducted in his own name, he must be presumed, under the provisions of section 5, to be a Chinese laborer and subject to deportation, as provided in section 4, since it is not denied that he is a Chinese person found without the prescribed certificate within the Philippine Islands, after the expiration of the time limited by law for registration.

We are satisfied that the meaning which we have given to the words "Chinese laborer" and "Chinese merchant,’’ as used in the Act of the Commission, is in conformity with the express provisions of the Act itself; and it will be found that a similar meaning has been given these words as used in the Chinese Exclusion Acts of the Congress of the United States by the Federal courts of the United States and the rulings and regulations of the Treasury Department, which, by the express provisions of section 12 of the Act, are made authoritative guides as to the definition which should be given these terms in this jurisdiction.

In the case of U. S. v. Chung Ki Foon (83 Fed. Rep., 143, 144) it was held that "Chinese laborers," as used in Act of November 3, 1893 (c. 14, sec. 1, 28 Stat., 7, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1322), relating to certificates of residence, "refer not only to those actually engaged in manual labor at the date of the passage of that Act, but were intended to include all Chinese persons dependent upon their manual labor as a means of securing an honest livelihood and self-support, and those who are not ’officers, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for curiosity,’ within the meaning of the treaty of November 17, 1880, between the United States and China."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of U. S. v. Pin Kwan (100 Fed. Rep., 609) it was held that proof "that a Chinese person, since he came to the United States, has been assisting in the business of a mercantile company, keeping the books and selling the goods, and that he has an interest in the stock of goods of such company, is insufficient to establish his status as a merchant within the statute."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of U. S. v. Chung Ki Foon (83 Fed. Rep., 143, 144) it was held that "the words, ’Chinese laborers,’ in the Act of November 3, 1893 (28 Stat. 7, sec. 1), amending the Act of May 5, 1892 (27 Stat. 25, sec. 6), and relating to certificates of residence, included a Chinaman engaged in the business of keeping a restaurant and lodging house, and all Chinese persons, dependent upon their labor for support whether actually employed as laborers or not."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of U. S. v. Quan Gin (61 Fed. Rep., 395) it was held that under the statute not only must the business be conducted in the Chinese person’s own name, but that a Chinese person seeking admission upon the ground that he was a returning merchant must be excluded where it appears that the business was conducted under a firm name of which his own name was no part. In that case there was evidence that the defendant was a partner and that Chinese persons do not in general conduct business in individual or partnership names, but the court said (p. 397):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is contended in opposition to this view of the law, that such an interpretation will exclude nearly every Chinese merchant seeking to enter the United States, since, as before states it is claimed that Chinese merchants do not, as a rule, conduct their business affairs in individual or partnership names. This may be so, but if it is so, it is a consideration to be addressed to the lawmaking power and not to the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

And referring to an opinion of the Attorney-General of the United States, dated April 6, 1904, the court further said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Attorney-General gives a most convincing reason for his interpretation of the statute. He says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘This requirement that a merchant must conduct a business in his own name can have but one purpose, to wit, that he who is a merchant in fact shall also be known to be such by the parties with whom he deals and by the public generally. That purpose could readily be defeated if it were possible to conceal his identity by trading under an assumed name, or under the disguise of a "Co." ’

"When it is considered how easy it is for a Chinese person seeking admission into the United States to claim a small interest in the business of buying, and selling merchandise, it is evident that the statute has been wisely framed to prevent the admission of Chinese persons into the United States upon the fictitious and fraudulent claim that they are merchants. In my opinion, therefore, when an application is made by a Chinaman for entrance into the United States on the ground that he was formerly engaged in business in this country as a merchant, he must, before being admitted, establish by the testimony of two credible witnesses, other than Chinese, among other things, that he conducted the business in which he was engaged, either in his own name, or in a firm name of which his own is a part."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Department of Commerce and Labor of the United States (to which by Act of Congress the final decision of administrative appeals from rulings of immigration officers has been transferred from the Treasury Department) ruled on May 18, 1904, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Another and more important reason exists, however, for the denial of the appellant, to wit: According to his own sworn statement, the Canton firm in which he claims membership is engaged in the manufacture of ’black-wood furniture,’ a circumstance which removes him from the mercantile class as contemplated by the Chinese Exclusion Law. Upon this point see department decision of December 7, 1903 (No. 10723-C), and December 14, 1903 (No. 9774-C), in the last mentioned of which the following passage is quoted from the decision rendered February 18, 1895, in the Lai Moy case, by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (66 F. R., 955):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘The designation "merchant" does not include, comprehensively, all who are not laborers, but strictly "A person (to quote the Act) engaged in buying and selling merchandise." To fabricate merchandise as appellant did is not to buy and sell it. Nor may both be done, for the "merchant" may not (again to quote the Act) "engage in the performance of any manual labor except such as is necessary in the conduct of his business as such merchant ," that is, in buying and selling merchandise; and the manual labor which is precluded is skilled as well as unskilled." ’

It has been suggested that while the defendant failed to offer affirmative proof that he conducted the pansiteria or restaurant in his own name, nevertheless, in view of the fact that he testified that he is the owner of the pansiteria and that no evidence was introduced in rebuttal of this testimony, the fact that the business was conducted in the name of the defendant might fairly be presumed from his claim of ownership thereto. We do not think that this contention is well founded since the burden of proof to establish the fact that he is a merchant, is placed upon the defendant merchant by the express provisions of law, and especially in view of his own statement that the reason the vermicelli factory was not conducted in his name was that he could not secure a license because he had no certificate of registration. It may fairly be presumed that the same reason would have prevented him from obtaining a license for the pansiteria, and indeed we are satisfied that if it had been conducted in his own name he would have said so.

But even were it true that he owned and conducted in his own name a Chinese restaurant or "chow house," worth at his own estimate about P500, we do not think that fact would make him a merchant within the meaning of the term as used in the Act. The proprietor of a small eating house where raw food is cooked and served upon the premises can hardly be said to be engaged in buying and selling merchandise. He is in truth no more than a skilled laborer and is not entitled to the privileges accorded "merchants" under the Act.

"A restaurant proprietor, who keeps a place for serving meals, and provides, prepares, and cooks raw materials to suit the tastes of his patrons, is a laborer, and is not privileged to enter the United States as a merchant." (In re Ah Yow, 59 Fed. Rep., 561.)

"A Chinese man, who owns an interest in a mercantile firm, but is not actively engaged in the conduct of its business, and who works as head cook in a restaurant, of which he is a part proprietor, is a laborer, and not a merchant, within the terms of the Act of November 3, 1893 (28 Stat., 8)." (Mar Bing Guey v. United States, 97 Fed. Rep., 561.)

See also In re Wentworth Lunch Co. (159 Fed. Rep., 413, May 21, 1908), wherein it is held, in construing the bankruptcy law, that "a corporation operating a restaurant is not subject to adjudication as a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898, c.541,30 Stat., 544 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3118], authorizing all ad judication against corporations engaged in ’mercantile pursuits;’ the dishes furnished not being merchandise, nor the proprietor a merchant engaged in ’mercantile pursuits." ’

It appearing that the defendant is not a ’’merchant’’ within the meaning of that term as used in the Act, and that he is a Chinese laborer, and that he has neglected, failed or refused to register under the provision of the Act of Congress of April 29, 190,, and the provisions and regulations enacted pursuant thereto by the Philippine Commission in Act No. 702, it was the duty of the trial court to order his deportation from the Philippine Islands, and the judgment of that court discharging him from custody is, therefore, reversed without costs in this instance.

In twenty days judgment will be entered reversing the judgment of the trial court and ten days thereafter the record will be returned to the court wherein it originated, where judgment will be entered in conformity herewith. So ordered.

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

Tracey, 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