Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4392 February 17, 1909 - PATRICIO UBEDA v. AGAPITO ZIALCITA

013 Phil 11:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4392. February 17, 1909. ]

PATRICIO UBEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AGAPITO ZIALCITA, Defendant-Appellee.

Kincaid & Hurd, for Appellant.

Felipe Buencamino, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES; ACTION FOR DAMAGES NOT MAINTAINABLE WHERE PLAINTIFF IS EQUALLY GUILTY. — One person can not maintain an action to recover damages for an injury to his business caused by another, when he is himself guilty of causing the same injury and damage to the business of his opponent.

2. ID.; INFRINGEMENT; ACTION NOT MAINTAINABLE; WHE PLAINTIFF IS GUILTY OF DECEIVING THE PUBLIC. — No action, suit, or criminal prosecution can be maintained in a case where a trade-mark or trade-name has been used by the complaining party, for the purpose of himself deceiving the public. (Sec. 9, Act No. 666.)

3. ID.; ID.; MARKS NOT REGISTERED ARE ALSO PROTECTED. — In order to recover for a violation of trade-mark rights, it is not necessary that the mark shall have been registered. It is sufficient if the party complaining shall prove that he has used the mark upon his goods so long that its use by another would injure him and is calculated to deceive the public. (Sec. 4, Act No. 666.)


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


Patricio, Ubeda, owner of the registered trade-mark "Ginebra Tres Companas," claims and alleges loss and damages by reason of the imitation of his trade-mark by the defendant, who has been selling gin in bottles bearing said trade-mark, and using a label design that greatly resembles his; that the only difference between them is that of the defendant, instead of bearing the words "Ginebra Tres Campanas," reads "Ginebra de Dos Campanas," and in the center thereof, instead of "Patricio Ubeda," it reads "Gavino Barreto;" that the remainder of the trade-mark is a copy of his own; and that as the defendant, the plaintiff avers, has thus sold gin to the value of not less than P50,000, from which he has obtained a profit of P10,000, the plaintiff’s sales have been decreased by that amount and he has failed to receive the said profit of P10,000 which he would have obtained if he had made such sales. In conclusion he prayed that the defendant be ordered to account for all sales made by him of gin put up in bottles bearing the trade-mark, design, or any of the distinctive marks belonging to the plaintiff, and that, after the extent of such sales has been ascertained, the said defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff double the amount thereof as indemnity for loss and damages; that the defendant be forever prohibited from using the device or trade-mark of the plaintiff, or any other trade-mark or design bearing any resemblance to those of the plaintiff, and that he be sentenced to pay the costs of the proceeding.

The defendant, Agapito Zialcita, opposed the demand for various reasons which he advanced as a special denial to the complaint, and the Court of First Instance of Manila, after hearing the evidence adduced at the trial, absolved him from the complaint filed by the plaintiff herein, Patricio Ubeda, with the costs against the latter. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment and moved for a new trial; his motion was overruled, to which motion he excepted, and submitted a bill of exceptions to this court for the purposes of his appeal and a review of the facts and evidence offered in the first instance.

On the appeal it appears:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That the plaintiff is the owner of a trade-mark described in the third clause of his complaint as:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Two concentric circles, the larger fifty millimeters in diameter, and the smaller thirty-three, eight millimeters apart. In the upper part of the ring formed by the imposition of one circle over the other, are the words ’Ginebra de Tres Campanas,’ and in the lower part, the name of the plaintiff, ’Patricio Ubeda.’ Inside the smaller or center ring there are three bells, tied together at the top by a ribbon, and an ear of some cereal, the ends of which fall over the two posterior and lateral bells. On the lower part of said bells the worlds ’Extra Superior’ are written. Above the two circles and almost diametrically crossing them, the facsimile of the signature and rubric of the plaintiff, that is ’Patricio Ubeda,’ is stamped in black ink; said facsimile commences on the three first letters of the word ’Ginebra,’ and ends at the letter ’P’ of the word ’Campanas,’ crossing the three bells; the rubric terminates on the lower part of the bell at the right of the other two, viewed from the front, though skirting it a little at the left. Outside, and above the larger ring, are the following words in small print: ’Para evitar la falsificacion, nuestras etiquetas se hallan depositadas y llevan nuestra firma.’ (To prevent falsification, our labels are registered and bear our signature), and below and also outside is the word ’Manila.’"

That said mark was registered at the office of the late Direccion General de Administracion Civil of the Spanish Government on December 24, 1898; that on July 31, 1905, the plaintiff cautioned the defendant to stop using a mark similar to his own, but, notwithstanding the warning, the defendant continued to use said mark; that the defendant, in addition to a general denial in his answer, alleged as a special defense: (1) That no similarity or resemblance exists between the trade-marks used by him and those of the plaintiff; (2) that long prior to 1880, the distinctive device or trade-mark "Ginebra de la Campana" of Van Den Bergh & Co. was entered and registered in the old Direccion General de Administracion Civil, at present the division of patents, copyrights, and trade-marks of the Executive Bureau, which trade-mark is similar to or greatly resembles the one described by the plaintiff in his complaint; and (3) that the device now used by the plaintiff, which is different from that registered by him, is also another falsification of that of Van Den Bergh & Co., and which he managed to register by taking advantage of the first days of the American occupation of the city of Manila; said plaintiff has been using both marks, one after the other, for the purpose of defrauding and deceiving the public as to the nature, origin, and properties of his gin, mixing it with that of Van Den Bergh & Co., and thus selling a cheap product at the same price as the gin of Van Den Bergh & Co., which, for the reason that it is imported from Europe, costs more than his.

The imitation charged by the plaintiff to the defendant was the subject of argument and proof, in the consideration of which the judgment appealed from deals at length; but for the purposes of the law, the following conclusions contained in the said judgment suffice to determine the question:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"First. That the title of ownership of the plaintiff, Exhibit A, was issued to the plaintiff on December 16, 1898, for a trade-mark which is not exactly the same as the one described in the complaint, because, although the said titles or trade-marks bear the same circular form, and around the two concentric circles the words ’Patricio Ubeda,’ ’Ginebra de Tres Companas’ and ’Extra Superior’ appear, and on the outside are the words ’ para evitar la falsificacion nuestras etiquetas se halland depositadas y llevan nuestra firma,’ and the center is of a gold color, which is the color of the entire label ’Tres Companas,’ and the signature ’Patricio Ubeda’ in black, yet on the lower part of said label, outside of the larger circle of the trade-mark is seen the word ’Amberes,’ (Antwerp), whereas on the other, in lieu thereof is printed the word ’Manila;’ this difference was explained at the trial as follows: That the said title was issued to the plaintiff to sell gin in these Islands imported from Antwerp, with the said label, but not manufactured by the plaintiff as stated in his complaint; the difference between the registered trade-mark and the other is also noticeable because on the latter the words or legends previously described are not embossed, nor is the gold coloring in the one of the same shade as in the other.

"Second. That on the other hand there appears from the certified copy, Exhibit 8, that a certificate was issued on the 11th of December, 1873, by the Ministerio de Fomento in Spain to Van Den Bergh & Co., manufacturers of wines at Antwerp, according them the use of the mark ’Ginebra de la Campana, Van Den Bergh & Co.,’ with the right to use said trade-mark in Spanish territory and foreign possessions; said mark appears as Exhibit 3, and bears a great resemblance to Exhibit A, the title of ownership of which, according to said exhibit, was issued to said plaintiff by the aforesaid Direccion General de Administracion Civil; the only difference between the two trade-marks being that three bells are printed on that of the plaintiff, in the center of the two circles, with the signature of Patricio Ubeda in black ink crossing the two circles, while that of Exhibit 3 has only one bell inside the circles, with the signature of Van Den Bergh & Co. crossing the said circles; there has been and there still is on sale in this market bottled gin bearing the said trade-mark, as was also proven at the trial; said trade-mark was registered in the Bureau of Archives in November, 1903, in view of the fact that no record could be found of the registration of the trade-mark ’Tres Campanas,’ and for the reason that said trade-mark of Van Den Bergh & Co. had already been registered in the United States.

"Third. That the similarity existing between the trademark ’Ginebra de la Campana, Van Den Bergh & Co.,’ and the trade-mark ’Ginebra de tres Campanas, Patricio Ubeda,’ under the circumstances mentioned with respect to the registration or issuance of the title of ownership of the second of the said trade-marks in favor of the plaintiff, should be taken into account for the due appreciation of the acts of the parties herein, and their respective rights in this litigation, because it all tends to explain in some way the conduct of the defendant . . . and at the same time shows that all the trade-marks bearing more or less bells, familiar to the trade here on gin bottles, are nothing more than a variation of the mark ’Ginebra de la Campana, Van Den Bergh & Co.,’ or bear some resemblance thereto, and shows that if it was a matter of judging simply from the similarity or resemblance between two trade-marks, the plaintiff has no right to charge the defendant with being a competitor in bad faith for having used the trade-mark ’Dos Campanas.’"

In effect, the following communication received by the plaintiff on the 12th of December, 1898, from the Direccion General de Administracion Civil, is one of the documents offered by him as a preliminary title:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"By a resolution of the 5th inst. . . . this Direccion General has been pleased to grant you the ownership of the inclosed trade-mark for wines denominated ’Tres Campanas,’ of which you are the importer in this market, upon payment of the corresponding fees."cralaw virtua1aw library

But the said trade-mark reads on the outside lower part, "Amberes," and in diminutive characters toward the right hand bears the lithographer’s name, "Litografia Ramirez y Ca., Madrid." So that the license granted him was for the use of an Antwerp trade-mark, for gin imported into these Islands, while the trade-mark described in the complaint as being imitated, is one for gin manufactured in these Islands, for which the license granted was not obtained; and according to a certificate of the Bureau of Archives of this Government, there is only one entry on file, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Registro Publico y General de Comercio. — Section 2, folio 3, 8. — Under date of December 16, 1898, His Excellency, the Governor-General, issued a title of ownership of a trade-mark in favor of Don Patricio Ubeda Gallego, as importer in this market of the wine denominated ’Tres Campanas.’"

This entry is not exactly that of the title, Exhibit A, issued on the 16th of December, 1898, but of its recording in the division of agriculture, industry, and commerce of the said Direccion which actually appears under entry No. 8 on folio 3 of the second register of industrial and commercial trade-marks, dated December 24, 1898.

On December 2, 1904, in reply to a communication from Van Den Bergh & Co. of Antwerp, Patricio Ubeda told the said gentlemen that he was the proprietor of the trademark "Ginebra Tres Campanas" for the Philippine Islands under entry No. 8, folio 3, of the second register of industrial and commercial trade-marks.

Upon comparing the trade-mark that appears at the foot of the title of ownership presented by the plaintiff, and which bears the word "Amberes" on the lower outer part thereof, with the real and undisputed mark of Van Den Bergh & co., of Antwerp, also bearing the said word upon the lower outer part, it is found that the description given in clause 3 of the complaint applies to the salient features of both, and that when viewed from a distance they appear alike; even to the characters used in the respective autographs stamped across both marks, the resemblance is perfect, and the type employed in the legend, the cautio, class, and place of origin is the same in both. So that it may be said of Van Den Bergh & Co.’s trade-mark (Exhibit 3), as of that of Patricio Ubeda’s (Exhibit A): Two concentric circles, the larger of 50 millimeters in diameter and the smaller 33, 8 millimeters apart. On the lower part of the bell the words "Extra Superior" are written. Above the two circles and almost diametrically crossing them, the facsimile of the signature and rubric of Van Den Bergh & Co. is stamped in black ink; said facsimile commences on the first letter of the word "Ginebra" and ends at the letter "P" of the word "Campana." Outside and above the larger ring and in small letters (identical in both) are the following words: "Para evitar la falsificacion nuestras etiquetas se hallan depositadas y llevan nuestra firma." Below, and also outside, is the word "Amberes," of the same type and size (in both trade-marks), not "Manila," as described in clause 3 of the complaint. The whole of the substitution consists of "Tres Campanas" for "La Campana," and "Patricio Ubeda" in lieu of "Van Den Bergh & Co.," both in the text and the signature; all are of the same color, and, viewed from a certain distance as a whole, of exactly the same appearance; in other words such a mark as is applied to a bottle of characteristic design as that used for putting up gin.

The conclusion contained in the judgment appealed from, "that all the labels with more or less companas (bells) used in this market on gin bottles are nothing more than a variation of the trade-mark ’Ginebra de la Campana, Van Den Bergh & Co.,’ or bear a great resemblance thereto," is correct.

The plaintiff presents a registered trade-mark which can be seen at the foot of the title of ownership obtained for imported gin. According to the registered mark it would be gin imported from Antwerp. As the plaintiff was well aware, this mark existed here, although he says he was given to understand that the copyright had expired. Ernest Appel, of the firm of C. Heinszen & Co. of this city, testified that he did not know when the "Ginebra de Una Campana" was first imported in these Islands, but according to the books of said firm, which is the importer of it, the latter received a shipment of 500 cases on the 15th of January, 1892.

The trade-mark of this gin was produced in evidence (Exhibit No. 3) prior to that of the plaintiff which, as stated by the latter "was registered in Spain," and he believed that it existed in the Islands, according to his declaration at folio 19 of the record; all the objection raised against its admission was based, first, in that the plaintiff did not derive any right from the mark of Van Den Bergh & Co.; second, in that said mark was not valid in the Philippines, because at the time when that of the plaintiff was registered the defendant had no right therein for the reason that any right which he might have possessed had expired; and third, in that this matter was foreign to the suit between the plaintiff and the defendant as res inter alios acta. Thus he assigns as error in the judgment "in admitting as proof the certificate issued in 1873 by the Ministerio de Fomento of Spain to Van Den Bergh & Co. for the use of the mark ’Ginebra de la Campana.’" (Brief, 2.) He added:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"So that although it be considered that the plaintiff’s mark is an imitation of that of Van Den Bergh & Co., yet from the fact that the mark of the latter had lapsed, it is evident that since 1898 the plaintiff was the only one who could lawfully use the mark ’Ginebra Tres Campanas,’ and all other variations of the same were illegal . . . In the said year 1898, apart from the said double expiration (through prescription of ownership and use) of the trademark ’Ginebra de la Campana,’ no one claimed to have any right thereto, and consequently the plaintiff, like any other person, could ask for, and the ownership could be granted him, not of a mark similar to that of Van Den Bergh & Co., but one exactly the same as the mark ’Ginebra de la Campana,’ and the grantee could not be charged with bad faith." (Brief, 7 and 8.)

But by section 9 of Act No. 666:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No action, or suit, or criminal prosecution shall be maintained under the provisions of this Act . . . in any case where the trade-mark, trade-name, or the indicia of origin, ownership, or manufacture have been used by the complaining and injured party for the purpose of himself deceiving the public with respect to the character of the merchandise sold by him or of the business or profession or occupation carried on by him."cralaw virtua1aw library

This is one of the defenses utilized by the defendant so far as he alleged that a party who had imitated the trade-mark of another could hardly be entitled to bring an action for an imitation of his own. If, as claimed by the plaintiff, the mark "Dos Campanas," used by the defendant, is an imitation and a variation of his own trade-mark "Tres Campanas," it is illegitimate and illegal, and the conduct of the person using the said imitation is deceitful and fraudulent and subject to an action for unlawful competition; it follows that the mark "Tres Campanas," of the plaintiff, being an imitation and a variation of the mark "La Campana" of Van Den Bergh & Co., is also illegitimate and illegal, and the conduct of the plaintiff is in turn deceitful and fraudulent and gives rise to an action for unlawful competition. And being deceitful and fraudulent, that is to say, inasmuch as the petitioner, who claims to be the injured party, made use of the mark "Tres Companas" for the purpose of deceiving the public with respect to the character of the merchandise sold by him, pretending, under the title of ownership produced in evidence, to cause it to pass as imported from Antwerp when it was manufactured in Manila, as he has testified in this case, he can not, under the provisions of said Section 9, exercise any right of action or sue for what he claims in his complaint.

Neither through the lack of registration of the trade-mark of Van Den Bergh & Co. nor by reason of the expiration of the copyright for its use, could the plaintiff consider himself at liberty to freely and with impunity use the same. Section 4 of the said Act reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In order to justify recovery for violation of trade-mark rights in the preceding sections defined, it shall not be necessary to show that the trade-marks have been registered under the royal decree of 1888, providing for registration of trade-marks in the Philippine Islands, in force during the Spanish sovereignty in these Islands, nor shall it be necessary to show that the trade-mark has been registered under this Act. It shall be sufficient to invoke protection of his property in a trade-mark if the party complaining shall prove that he has used the trade-mark claimed by him upon his goods a sufficient length of time so that the use of the trade-mark by another would be an injury to him and calculated to deceive the public into the belief that the goods of that other were the goods manufactured or dealt in by the complaining party."cralaw virtua1aw library

The fact that both have fraudulently imitated the trade-mark of a third person, one which antedated both of theirs, and which with variations was copied in order to sell as "La Campana" gin from Antwerp, those gins which the one and the other have offered the public under the trade-marks of "Dos Campanas" and "Tres Campanas," can not be considered res inter alios acta for the foundation of an action between the plaintiff and the defendant. The usurpation of a trade-mark by means of an imitation is punished by law, and this is what the plaintiff puts forward as his right of action against the defendant. The latter in turn, in answer to the plaintiff and for the purpose of denying his right of action ,sets up the same charge of imitation, and supports his exception by offering in evidence the trade-mark that was imitated, substituted, and originally usurped; the right of a third person is not contested except as a defense against the plaintiff, and whatever is legitimate as a cause of action is equally legitimate as a defense. If the action is a legitimate one, although the usurped trade-mark was not entered or registered, legitimate must also be the defense, although the mark, usurped in turn by the complaining and injured party, may not have been recorded or registered. Therefore, there is no injury to him who in turn damages another by the same kind of injury, or no action for usurpation can be maintained by one who in turn appears as guilty of identical usurpation; evidence to this effect with respect to an act relating to a third person is not res inter alios acta, but a necessary proof of the defense of the defendant. And, inasmuch as the provision of the law must be complied with, it is needless in order to decide this case to consider the other exceptions or defenses of the defendant; the lack of right of action stands foremost owing to its conclusive effect.

By virtue of the foregoing and on account of the circumstances as set forth, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the Appellant.

Torres, Mapa, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





February-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4206 February 1, 1909 - VICENTE M. SANDOVAL v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 4717 February 1, 1909 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. TOMAS LEDESMA

    012 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 4737 February 1, 1909 - ATANASIO PANDAQUILA v. MIGUEL GAZA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 4785 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 4839 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SY QUIAT

    012 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 4852 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE CALIMAG

    012 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 4373 February 2, 1909 - SAMUEL BISCHOFF v. JUAN D. POMAR, ET AL.

    012 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 4589 February 3, 1909 - GERONIMO DE GUZMAN v. JOAQUINA ORTIZ

    012 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 4838 February 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LIM CO

    012 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 4013 February 4, 1909 - JUSTO GUIDO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN DE BORJA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 4904 February 5, 1909 - ROSALIA MARTINEZ v. ANGEL TAN

    012 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 4723 February 8, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TAYCO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 4566 February 9, 1909 - YUENG SHENG EXCHANGE AND TRADING COMPANY v. G. URRUTIA & CO., ET AL.

    012 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 4910 February 10, 1909 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION VACANI v. ENRIQUE LLOPIS

    012 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. 4415 February 13, 1909 - PAULINO DOLIENDO, ET AL. v. SANTOS DEPIÑO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 4758 February 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. T. E. SANTOS

    013 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4794 February 16, 1909 - WARNER v. ROMAN AND CIRILO JAUCIAN

    013 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 4392 February 17, 1909 - PATRICIO UBEDA v. AGAPITO ZIALCITA

    013 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 4790 February 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION

    013 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 4216 February 19, 1909 - KUENZLE & STEREIFF v. A. S. WATSON & CO., ET AL.

    013 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 4943 February 19, 1909 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. ANGEL LUNA

    013 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 4939 February 20, 1909 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY COMPANY v. ESTEBAN SOLON

    013 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5028 February 20, 1909 - JUANA VALENCIA v. CARMEN DE ROXAS

    013 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 5085 February 20, 1909 - IN RE: JUAN TOLEDO

    013 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 4386 February 24, 1909 - CHANG YONG TEK v. GENEROSA SANTOS

    013 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 4868 February 24, 1909 - JUAN SISON v. FAUSTINO RAMOS

    013 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 4878 February 27, 1909 - IN RE: JOAQUINA MIJARES DE FARINAS v. VICENTE LAVIN

    013 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. 4978 March 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO MABILING

    013 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. 4761 March 2, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. MARIANO FUENTEBELLA

    013 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 4874 March 2, 1909 - MARIANO VELOSO v. ANICETA FONTANOSA

    013 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 4899 March 2, 1909 - JUANA DIZON v. EDMUNDO ULLMANN

    013 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 4443 March 4, 1909 - CHO CHUNG LUNG v. FIGUERAS HERMANOS

    013 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 4929 March 5, 1909 - JUAN BUENCAMINO v. NICASIA VICEO

    013 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 4979 March 5, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR ABLANA

    013 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 3545 March 6, 1909 - REGINO ARISTON v. MANUEL CEA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 3805 March 6, 1909 - ALBINO SARMIENTO v. IGNACIO VILLAMOR

    013 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 4202 March 9, 1909 - MAMERTO GILLESANIA, ET AL. v. NICOLAS MENASALVAS, ET AL.

    013 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 4714 March 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO BURIAS, ET AL.

    013 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. 5099 March 9, 1909 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. GRANT TRENT

    013 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 5144 March 9, 1909 - BEHN, MEYER & CO., LTD. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 4119 March 11, 1909 - EUGENIA PAGALARAN v. VALENTIN BALLATAN, ET AL.

    013 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 5000 March 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR SANTO NIÑO

    013 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 5007 March 11, 1909 - SONG FO & CO. v. TIU CA SONG

    013 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 5013 March 11, 1909 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIA

    013 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 5200 March 11, 1909 - VICENTE BANDOY v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

    013 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 3894 March 12, 1909 - JUAN IBAÑEZ DE ALCOA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    013 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 4555 March 12, 1909 - SEVERO HERNANDO v. SEVERO SAMBRANO

    013 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 4962 March 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE AGBAYANI

    013 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 5030 March 12, 1909 - JUAN M. MANZANO v. JOSE TAN SUNCO

    013 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 4802 March 13, 1909 - ANDRES PUIG, ET AL. v. ANTONIO MERCADO

    013 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 4776 March 18, 1909 - MANUEL ORMACHEA TIN-CONGCO v. SANTIAGO TRILLANA

    013 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 5002 March 18, 1909 - MARTIN BELEN, ET AL. v. ALEJO BELEN

    013 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 3678 March 19, 1909 - CELESTINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. JUANA MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    013 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 4898 March 19, 1909 - SALVADOR GUERRERO v. LEOPOLDO TERAN

    013 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 4114 March 20, 1909 - JUAN BRUSAS v. EUTIQUIO INFANTE

    013 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 4861 March 20, 1909 - F. W. PRISING v. MILTON E. SPRINGER

    013 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 2935 March 23, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE I. FRANK

    013 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 3643 March 23, 1909 - AMBROSIA POSTIGO v. DOLORES BORJAL

    013 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 3683 March 23, 1909 - MARIANO PERFECTO v. MUNICIPALITY OF GUINOBATAN

    013 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 4275 March 23, 1909 - PAULA CONDE v. ROMAN ABAYA

    013 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 4610 March 23, 1909 - AGUSTIN GA. GAVIERES v. FLORA BROTO

    013 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 4891 March 23, 1909 - SOFIA DEVESA v. CRISPIN ARBES

    013 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 5045 March 23, 1909 - GUILLERMO BOWLER v. PASTRO ALCAZAR

    013 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 4796 March 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO PEREZ, ET AL.

    013 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 4912 March 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIA GUY-SAYCO

    013 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 5008 March 25, 1909 - IN RE: MANUELA AMANCIO TOMAS, ET AL. v. JORGE PARDO

    013 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 3413 March 27, 1909 - POMPOSA BONJOC, ET AL. v. CANDELARIO CUISON

    013 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. 3876 March 27, 1909 - RUFINA YATCO v. JESUALDO GANA

    013 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 4053 March 27, 1909 - IN RE: SERAFIN CANO URQUISA

    013 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 4575 March 27, 1909 - TEODORICA ENDENCIA CUSAR v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    013 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 4783 March 27, 1909 - LUCIO J. BUZON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    013 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 4799 March 27, 1909 - AGRIPINO SEGOVIA v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ALBAY, ET AL.

    013 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 4825 March 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO SANCHEZ

    013 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 4882 March 27, 1909 - RUPERTO MONTINOLA v. LUCRECIO HOFILENA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 4937 March 27, 1909 - CRISPULO SIDECO v. FRANCISCO PASCUA

    013 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 4946 March 27, 1909 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARIA DEL CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    013 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 4966 March 27, 1909 - LUCIO BUZON v. MAXIMO LICAUCAO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 5074 March 27, 1909 - VICENTA FRANCO v. C. W. O’BRIEN

    013 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 4192 March 29, 1909 - DAVID SALVACION v. EUSTAQUIO SALVACION

    013 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 4559 March 29, 1909 - TOMAS S. GUISON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    013 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 4952 March 29, 1909 - TOMAS OLINO v. MARIANO MEDINA

    013 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 4329 March 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO MAGCOMOT, ET AL.

    013 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 4226 March 31, 1909 - LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. CANDIDA OBED, ET AL.

    013 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4380 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO ANABAN, ET AL.

    013 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 4462 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 4705 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONINA LAMPANO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4885 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VIDAL ROLDAN

    013 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 4894 March 31, 1909 - GEO WHALEN v. PASIG IRON WORKS

    013 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 4911 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    013 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 5029 April 1, 1909 - JOSE MCMICKING v. EL BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO

    013 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 4957 April 2, 1909 - MIGUEL PASCUAL v. MACARIO ANGELES, ET AL.

    013 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 4992 April 2, 1909 - AGUSTIN GA. GAVIERES v. ADMINISTRATORS OF LUIS PENA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 5012 April 2, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF U.S. IN THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PERDO CARMEN, ET AL.

    013 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. 4129 April 12, 1909 - ESTEBAN BERSABAL v. ANTONIO BERNAL

    013 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 4130 April 12, 1909 - REFINO BANES, ET AL. v. JACINTO CORDERO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 4454 April 12, 1909 - EX PARTE JUAN ONDEVILLA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 4501 April 12, 1909 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ROMANA GANSON

    013 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 4922 April 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO REYES CARRILLO

    013 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 4502 April 13, 1909 - LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ROMANA GANZON

    013 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 3075 April 14, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. PROVINCE OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    013 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 4394 April 19, 1909 - FRANCISCO T. FIGUERAS v. ROCHA & CO.

    013 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 4704 April 26, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN GIL

    013 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 4999 May 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO VARGAS

    013 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 4895 June 15, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. W. O. BINGHAM, ET AL.

    013 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 4773 July 13, 1909 - MANILA BUILDING and LOAN ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    013 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 4960 July 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO HERRERA

    013 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 4290 July 21, 1909 - ROBERT V. DELL v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    013 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 4881 July 24, 1909 - JOSE LIM v. DOMINGO LIM

    013 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 1917 July 26, 1909 - CATALINIBALDERAMA v. LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    013 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 5190 July 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CONSUELO

    013 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 5109 July 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BARBICHO

    013 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 2905 August 3, 1909 - LA VIUDA DE SOLER v. AURELIO RUSCA.

    013 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 3228 August 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. WENCESLAO MERCADO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 4163 August 4, 1909 - ED BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. 2894 August 5, 1909 - JOSE LASERNA TUPAZ v. RAFAEL LOZADA

    013 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 5114 August 5, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME ARREGLADO

    013 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 2085 August 10, 1909 - TIBURCIO SAENZ v. FIGUERAS HERMANOS

    013 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 5154 August 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SUPILA

    013 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 3666 August 17, 1909 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

    013 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. 5184 August 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PLATON IBAÑEZ

    013 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 343 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL RIOTA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4378 August 18, 1909 - CHAN KEEP, ET AL. v. LEON CHAN GIOCO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 4507 August 18, 1909 - MACARIA MANUEL, ET AL. v. FRIDOLIN WIGETT, ET AL.

    014 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 4859 August 18, 1909 - MANUEL JIMENO, ET AL. v. LOPE GACILAGO

    014 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 5071 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO CAS

    014 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 5111 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE REYES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 5220 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL PINDONG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 5235 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN CELESTINO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5110 August 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FABIANA LEGASPI, ET AL.

    014 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 4045 August 23, 1909 - ILDEFONSO DORONILA v. GRACIANO GONZAGA

    014 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 4674 August 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO PANALIGAN

    014 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 3377 August 24, 1909 - BONIFACIO PIMENTEL v. EUGENIO GUTIERREZ

    014 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4918 August 26, 1909 - FELICIANA DARIANO v. JOSE FERNANDEZ FIDALGO

    014 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 3989 August 28, 1909 - LI HANG SHEONG v. VENANCIO C. DIAZ

    014 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 4426 August 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FILOTEO

    014 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 5292 August 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MANALINDE

    014 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 5153 September 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME MIJARES

    014 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 5171 September 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LAO LOCK HING

    014 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. 5126 September 2, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO APOSTOL

    014 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 3862 September 6, 1909 - JUAN G. BOSQUE v. YU CHIPCO

    014 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 4437 September 9, 1909 - TOMAS OSMEÑA v. CENONA RAMA

    014 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 4471 September 9, 1909 - DAMASA SEGUI v. CANDIDO SEGUI

    014 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 5273 September 9, 1909 - FRANCISCA JOSE v. WENCESLAUA DAMIAN

    014 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 5067 September 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CORNELIO MANALO

    016 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 5618 September 14, 1909 - IN RE: H. G. SMITH

    014 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 4177 September 15, 1909 - AGATON ARANETA v. BRAULIO MONTELIBANO

    014 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 4235 September 15, 1909 - SANTIAGO TIN FIAN v. PABLO TAN

    014 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 4963 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO CHICO

    014 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 5156 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN MISOLA

    014 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 5165 September 15, 1909 - GERVASIO UNSON v. SEGUNDO ABRERA

    014 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 5185 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO MENESES

    014 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 5150 September 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MARCIANO LOPEZ

    014 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 4236 September 18, 1909 - SANTIAGO TIU FIAN v. HILARIO YAP

    014 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 4445 September 18, 1909 - CATALINA BUGNAO v. FRANCISCO UBAG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 4609 September 18, 1909 - QUE YONG KENG v. RAFAEL TAN QUICO

    014 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. 4694 September 18, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. MUN. OF ROSARIO

    014 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 4887 September 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 4973 September 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE CATIPON, ET AL.

    014 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 5003 September 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX DE JESUS

    014 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. 5262 September 18, 1909 - FRANCISCO ROSA HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. MELECIO PADUA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 4263 September 22, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEFANIA MENDOZA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. 4837 September 22, 1909 - FRANCISCO IMPERIAL v. JOSE ALEJANDRE

    014 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 4234 September 23, 1909 - RUPERTA ORAIS v. JACINTA ESCAÑO

    014 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 4759 September 23, 1909 - SEBASTIAN CABILLAS v. ALFONSO APDUHAN, ET AL.

    014 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 4971 September 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AUGUSTUS HICKS

    014 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 5194 September 23, 1909 - CHINESE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. PUA TE CHING, ET AL.

    014 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 5108 September 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES MORALES

    014 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4526 October 4, 1909 - TOMAS FORTUNA v. RUFINO VILORIA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 4602 October 4, 1909 - JUAN CO v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    014 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 5332 October 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORO BAGUIO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 4663 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO CABOLA ET AL.

    016 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 4846 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MAQUIRAYA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 4970 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO ARTICHO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 5138 October 9, 1909 - JOSE MCMICKING v. DOMINGO TREMOYA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 5423 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO POQUIS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 4009 October 11, 1909 - NICOLASA ARINGO v. URBANA ARENA

    014 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 4339 October 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO TREYES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 3865 October 16, 1909 - GREGORIO FERNANDEZ v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT CO.

    014 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 4362 October 19, 1909 - INSULAR GOV’T. v. DOROTEO NICO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. 4606 October 19, 1909 - JUAN RODRIGUEZ v. FINDLAY & CO.

    014 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. 5297 October 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MARTINA BACAS

    014 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 4935 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JAMES L. BROBST

    014 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 4998 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE C. SEDANO

    014 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 5069 October 25, 1909 - TAN CHUCO v. YORKSHIRE FIRE AND LIFE INSURANCE CO.

    014 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 5083 October 25, 1909 - TOMAS SUNICO v. JOSE VILLAPANDO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 5167 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN MENESES

    014 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 5227 October 25, 1909 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 4102 October 26, 1909 - JOSE CARDELL v. RAMON MAÑERU, ET AL.

    014 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 5072 October 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO AUSTERO

    014 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. 5424 October 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PRUDENCIO SOTO

    014 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4974 October 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 5098 October 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO MONASTERIAL, ET AL.

    014 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4934 October 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. A. C. V. ROSA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 5100 November 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO BEDOYA

    014 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 5386 November 8, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ARSENIO PALACIO

    016 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 4975 November 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO NARVAS

    014 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 5373 November 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CLAUDIO DE SILVA

    014 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 4947 November 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO RAYMUNDO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 5181 November 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ANACLETO ABAD

    014 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 4932 November 16, 1909 - WARNER, BARNES & CO. v. RAMON F. SANTOS

    014 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 5348 November 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJO PAGUIRIGAN

    014 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 5503 November 16, 1909 - CATALINA MONTEMAYOR v. MATEO CUNANAN

    014 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 4752 November 17, 1909 - FLORENTINO CORDERO v. PEDRO CABIGTING

    014 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 5036 November 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LUCIANO MALEZA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 5240 November 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LINO EGUIA LIM BUANCO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 5432 November 20, 1909 - TOMAS INOCENCIO v. MIGUEL GATPANDAN, ET AL.

    014 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 4996 November 26, 1909 - VICTORIANO SIGUENZA v. MUN. OF HINIGARAN

    014 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 5009 November 26, 1909 - TOMAS SUNICO v. MANUEL RAMIREZ

    014 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 4976 November 27, 1909 - A. J. EVELAND v. EASTERN MINING CO.

    014 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 4709 November 29, 1909 - CHAN SUANCO v. DOROTEO ALONSO

    014 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 5115 November 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL SAMANIEGO, ET AL.

    016 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 5208 December 1, 1909 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. JOSE TAN SUNCO ET AL.

    016 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 5044 December 1, 1909 - EDWIN CASE v. HEIRS OF TUASON Y SANTIBAÑEZ

    014 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 5075 December 1, 1909 - MAURICIO RAMIREZ v. SIMEON BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 4815 December 2, 1909 - LA YEBANA CO. v. FRANCISCO CHUA SECO & CO.

    014 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. 5096 December 2, 1909 - RAMON MORTERA v. INOCENTE MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 5244 December 2, 1909 - EULOGIO TRIA v. RAMON ORTIZ

    014 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 5306 December 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO JARABAS

    014 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 5307 December 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE GONZAGA CHANGCO

    014 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 5210 December 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIA DE CHAVES

    014 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 5385 December 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. 5275 December 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO BAUTISTA

    014 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 4871 December 10, 1909 - LEONCIO IMPERIAL v. ALFONSA TOLEDO

    014 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 5313 December 10, 1909 - JUANA ESPIRITU v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    014 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 5217 December 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL LOPEZ

    014 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 5344 December 14, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIANA DEUDA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 5202 December 16, 1909 - YAP UNKI v. CHUA JAMCO

    014 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 5295 December 16, 1909 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. MACKE & CHANDLER, ET AL.

    014 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 5393 December 16, 1909 - PEDRO TIRANGBUAYA, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    014 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 5200 December 17, 1909 - VICENTE BANDOY, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LA LAGUNA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 5397 December 17, 1909 - FABIANA C. ARRIOLA v. CAROLINA GOMEZ DE LA SERNA

    014 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 4667 December 18, 1909 - GEO. M. LACK, ET AL. v. PANTALEONA ALONSO Y SAN LUIS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 5256 December 21, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTASIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 5329 December 21, 1909 - SABINA CRUZ HERRERA DE LUKBAN v. JOSE McMICKING

    014 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 5318 December 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL BUMANGLAG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 5534 December 23, 1909 - HERBERT S. WALKER, ET AL. v. JOSE MCMICKING

    014 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 4724 December 24, 1909 - GREGORIA MONTAÑANO v. SILVESTRE SUESA

    014 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 5760 December 24, 1909 - MARTIN OCAMPO, ET AL. v. J. C. JENKINS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 4280 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO BUSTOS

    013 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 4206 February 1, 1909 - VICENTE M. SANDOVAL v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 4717 February 1, 1909 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. TOMAS LEDESMA

    012 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 4737 February 1, 1909 - ATANASIO PANDAQUILA v. MIGUEL GAZA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 4785 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 4839 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SY QUIAT

    012 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 4852 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE CALIMAG

    012 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 4373 February 2, 1909 - SAMUEL BISCHOFF v. JUAN D. POMAR, ET AL.

    012 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 4589 February 3, 1909 - GERONIMO DE GUZMAN v. JOAQUINA ORTIZ

    012 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 4838 February 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LIM CO

    012 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 4013 February 4, 1909 - JUSTO GUIDO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN DE BORJA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 4904 February 5, 1909 - ROSALIA MARTINEZ v. ANGEL TAN

    012 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 4723 February 8, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TAYCO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 4566 February 9, 1909 - YUENG SHENG EXCHANGE AND TRADING COMPANY v. G. URRUTIA & CO., ET AL.

    012 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 4910 February 10, 1909 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION VACANI v. ENRIQUE LLOPIS

    012 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. 4415 February 13, 1909 - PAULINO DOLIENDO, ET AL. v. SANTOS DEPIÑO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 4758 February 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. T. E. SANTOS

    013 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4794 February 16, 1909 - WARNER v. ROMAN AND CIRILO JAUCIAN

    013 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 4392 February 17, 1909 - PATRICIO UBEDA v. AGAPITO ZIALCITA

    013 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 4790 February 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION

    013 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 4216 February 19, 1909 - KUENZLE & STEREIFF v. A. S. WATSON & CO., ET AL.

    013 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 4943 February 19, 1909 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. ANGEL LUNA

    013 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 4939 February 20, 1909 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY COMPANY v. ESTEBAN SOLON

    013 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5028 February 20, 1909 - JUANA VALENCIA v. CARMEN DE ROXAS

    013 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 5085 February 20, 1909 - IN RE: JUAN TOLEDO

    013 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 4386 February 24, 1909 - CHANG YONG TEK v. GENEROSA SANTOS

    013 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 4868 February 24, 1909 - JUAN SISON v. FAUSTINO RAMOS

    013 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 4878 February 27, 1909 - IN RE: JOAQUINA MIJARES DE FARIÑAS v. VICENTE LAVIN

    013 Phil 63