Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > March 1909 Decisions > [G. R. No. 4610. March 23, 1909.] AGUSTIN GA. GAVIERES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FLORA BROTO, viuda de MAURIS, Defendant-Appellee.:




EN BANC

[G. R. No.  4610.  March 23, 1909.]

AGUSTIN GA. GAVIERES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FLORA BROTO, viuda de MAURIS, Defendant-Appellee.

 

D E C I S I O N

CARSON, J.:

On January 8, 1903, Plaintiff rented from the Defendant for a period of six years a certain building located on the corner of Calles Real and Magallanes, in the city of Manila, together with the furniture and bar and restaurant fittings then in the building.

Clauses two, three, four, and nine of the rental contract are as follows: chanrobles virtualawlibrary

“Second. That they have agreed to the rental of the said building and furniture, and in order that it shall formally appear they solemnly declare: chanrobles virtualawlibrary That Dona Flora Broto rents the building above described, and the furniture and goods therein contained, to Don Agustin Garcia Gavieres, who in his turn accepts the same, according to the inventory made and signed in duplicate, one copy for each of the parties, in order that the said Gavieres may use and enjoy the same as a good tenant.

“Third. The period of this contract is six years, to be reckoned from this date, which may be extended at the will of both parties.

“Fourth. The tenant shall pay, as rental for the said building and furniture, the sum of seven hundred pesos monthly, payable in Mexican currency or its equivalent, in this city, in advance, within the first five days of the respective months.

x x x                    x x x                    x x x

“Ninth. The tenant shall pay the cost of the licenses necessary for the conduct of the bar located in the premises rented, although said licenses are and shall be the property of the landlord. ”

At the time when the contract was made the Defendant had already secured licenses to conduct a bar and restaurant in the building during the first half of the year 1903, and it was agreed between the parties that Plaintiff would conduct the business under and by virtue of those licenses.

In accordance with the terms of the contract, the Plaintiff paid the stipulated monthly rental down to and including the month of June. Sometime during that month the Defendant made application for a renewal of her licenses to conduct a bar and restaurant in the rented building, from the 1st of July until the 31st of December; and on the 23d day of June, she made demand upon the Plaintiff for the sum of $864, Mexican currency, the amount required by the municipal authorities for the renewal of her license. The Plaintiff declined to advance this amount, claiming that, under his contract with the Defendant, it was Defendant’s duty to secure these licenses and advance the amount required therefor, the amount thus advanced to be returned to her in six equal monthly installments during the license period. On the same day, June 23, 1903, the Defendant formally petitioned the Collector of Internal Revenue for the city of Manila to cancel her application for a renewal of the licenses for the latter half of the year 1903, and also to cancel the unexpired portion of the licenses then in force covering the period down to the end of the month of June. Sometime thereafter and before the 1st day of July, the municipal authorities closed the bar on the ground that the licenses had been canceled; and on the 15th day of July Plaintiff made formal delivery of possession of the property to the Defendant, protesting at the same time against the action of the Defendant in canceling the licenses for the first half of the year 1903 before they had expired, and in failing to secure new licenses for the latter half of that year.

Plaintiff now prays for P40,000 damages, alleging that as a result of Defendant’s breach of contract in canceling the licenses in force in the month of June and, failing to secure new licenses for the latter half of the year 1903, he had been compelled to surrender possession of the rented property and to lose the profits which would have accrued to him from the time when the bar and restaurant were closed to the end of the rental period. Defendant denies the alleged breach of contract and insists that the reason for her failure to take out new licenses and for the canceling of the licenses then in existence was the refusal of the Plaintiff to advance the amount required by the municipal authorities for the renewal of the licenses, so that any damages which may have ensued were properly to be attributed not to Defendant’s failure to secure the renewal of the license but to Plaintiff’s failure to pay therefor.

The trial court was of opinion that under the terms of the contract, no obligation was imposed upon the Defendant to obtain a license for the operation of the bar, because from its terms it appears that the only thing which was rented was the building together with the furniture and fittings; and held that the Plaintiff, having voluntarily surrendered the premises, is estopped from claiming damages resulting from this surrender, notwithstanding the fact that the bar and restaurant were closed by the authorities for lack of the necessary licenses.

We think, however, that the provisions of clause nine of the contract clearly imposed upon the Defendant the duty of applying for and taking out the necessary licenses for the conduct of the bar and restaurant, the only obligation imposed upon the Plaintiff in that regard being the duty of paying therefor. That this is the proper construction of the contract, and the construction placed thereon by the parties themselves, is made clear by the testimony of the Defendant herself upon cross-examination, when in answer to the question “When Don Gavieres rented from you the bar and restaurant, was the bar open? Did it have a license?” She said: chanrobles virtualawlibrary “Yes, sir, it had a license, and it was in the contract that we were the persons who should apply for the license for the bar and restaurant, but Senor Gavieres was to pay for it, and he refused to pay for it. ” She also testified that as a matter of fact she did apply for a renewal of the license for the latter half of the year 1903, in accordance with the terms of her contract, and that the reason the license was not procured was because of the failure of the Plaintiff to advance the amount therefor.

Plaintiff, as appears from the evidence of record, declined to advanced this money and insisted that it was the duty of the Defendant so to do, the amount thus advanced to be recouped from the Plaintiff in six equal installments during the term of the license; and he still insists that such were the terms of his contract with the Defendant. An examination of the terms of the written contract, however, leaves no room for doubt that under its terms, it was Plaintiff’s duty to pay such amount as was required by the municipal authorities for the license, and nowhere in that contract is it made the duty of the Defendant to advance the cost of the licenses and recover the amount thus advanced in installments, as claimed by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff, testifying in his own behalf, swore that during the period from January to June while he operated the bar and restaurant, he had as a matter of fact paid to the Defendant in monthly installments the amount of the license for the first half of the year 1903, in installments, though apparently not, as he alleges, in six equal installments. But keeping in mind the circumstances under which these payments were made, the fact that the amount of the license for the first half of the year 1903 was paid in installments is in itself by no means sufficient to establish Plaintiff’s contention that the original contract contemplated the continuance of a similar arrangement throughout the rental period, or that the contract had been modified to that effect by agreement between the parties after the execution of the contract. It appears that the license for the first half of 1903 had already been secured before the rental contract was entered into on the 8th day of January, and the fact that the Defendant agreed to accept and did accept reimbursement for the amount paid therefor in installments, by no means justified the Plaintiff’s contention that the terms of the written contract were so modified as to impose upon the Defendant the duty of advancing the amount required for the various renewals of the licenses throughout the entire rental term of six years. Defendant positively denied the existence of any agreement for a modification of the terms of the written contract, and indeed Plaintiff, when testifying in his own behalf, did not positively claim that such an agreement had been formally and expressly entered into between the parties, and relied rather upon the alleged implied modification of the contract resulting from the conduct of the Defendant in accepting reimbursement, in installments, for the amount paid for the licenses for the first half of the year 1903.

We are of opinion that Defendant, having applied for a renewal of the license for the latter half of the year 1903, and Plaintiff having formally declined to advanced the amount necessary to secure the issuance of such renewal, Defendant’s failure to secure the renewal of the license was due to Plaintiff’s fault, and Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to damages because of the failure to procure the renewal of the licenses. We think, however, that Defendant was clearly at fault in having the unexpired portion of the license for the first half of the year 1903 canceled at the same time that she withdrew her application for a renewal of the old license. The evidence of record discloses that the Plaintiff had reimbursed her for the full amount expended therefor, and she herself, while denying that she was reimbursed for the amount paid for the license, stated that when the contract was executed, she made a gift to her tenant of the license down to the 1st of July. The failure of the Plaintiff to advance the amount necessary to secure a renewal of the license in nowise justified her in having the license for the first half of the year, which she had sold or ceded to the Plaintiff, canceled, and under the terms of her contract, it war clearly her duty, the tenant having paid for the license, to secure to him, as far as in her power lay, the benefits to be derived therefrom.

We think there can be no doubt that the Plaintiff, as a result of her breach of contract in this regard, was entitled to damages for any losses which he may have sustained as a result of the closing of the bar by the municipal authorities, from the time when it was closed until the 30th of June, when the license expired; but, while it is clear from the record that the municipal authorities closed the bar sometime between the 23d day of June, when Defendant asked to have the license canceled, and the last day of that month, there is no evidence as to the precise day or hour when such action was taken, nor is there any satisfactory evidence as to the amount per diem of the losses suffered by the Plaintiff while the bar and restaurant were closed in the month of June. The only testimony as to the date when the municipal authorities closed the bar was the statement of the Plaintiff himself, who said that about the middle of June the police came and ordered him to close up the business on account of there being no license. The other evidence of record, however, leaves no room for doubt that Defendant did not apply for the cancellation of the license until the 23d of June, and it nowhere appears how long after that date or before the end of the month the bar and restaurant were actually closed. Plaintiff claimed that the monthly profits from the hotel, bar, and restaurant conducted in the rented building amounted to some seven or eight hundred pesos during the period it was under his control, but it nowhere appears how much these profits were affected by the canceling of the license for the restaurant and bar. Plaintiff having failed to establish definitely the amount of his damages, which at most would amount to no more than the probable profits of the bar for the few days in June, 1903, during which it was closed by order of the municipal authorities, no judgment can be rendered therefor in his favor.

For the reasons assigned in this opinion, the judgment of the trial court should be and is hereby affirmed, but without costs to either party in this instance or in the court below.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson 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





March-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G. R. No. 4978. March 1, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MELECIO MABILING, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4761. March 2, 1909.] GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. MARIANO FUENTEBELLA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4874. March 2, 1909.] MARIANO VELOSO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ANICETA FONTANOSA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 4899. March 2, 1909.] JUANA DIZON, in her own name and as guardian of her children Carlos and Elvira Dizon, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDMUNDO ULLMANN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4443. March 4, 1909.] CHO CHUNG LUNG, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FIGUERAS HERMANOS, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 4929. March 5, 1909.] JUAN BUENCAMINO, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellees, vs. NICASIA VICEO, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 4979. March 5, 1909.] The United States, Plaintiff, vs. VICTOR ABLANA, Defendant.

  • [G. R. No. 3545. March 6, 1909.] REGINO ARISTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MANUEL CEA et al., Defendants. — MANUEL CEA, Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 3805. March 6, 1909.] ALBINO SARMIENTO, Petitioner, vs. IGNACIO VILLAMOR, judge of First Instance, et al., Respondents.

  • [G. R. No. 4202. March 9, 1909.] MAMERTO GILLESANIA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. NICOLAS MENASALVAS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G. R. No. 4714. March 9, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, vs. EUSEBIO BURIAS, ET AL., Defendants.

  • [G. R. No. 5099. March 9, 1909.] ANGEL ORTIZ, Plaintiff, vs. Grant Trent, judge of the Eighth Judicial District, et al., Defendants.

  • [G. R. No. 5144. March 9, 1909.] Behn, Meyer & Co., Ltd., Plaintiff, vs. The Court of First Instance of Manila et al., Defendants.

  • [G. R. No. 4119. March 11, 1909.] EUGENIA PAGALARAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. VALENTIN BALLATAN et al., Defendants. — MARIA BIDAYANES, Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 5000. March 11, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VICTOR SANTO NIÑO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 5007. March 11, 1909.] SONG FO & CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. TIU CA SIONG, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 5013. March 11, 1909.] JEREMIAH J. HARTY, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIA, Province of Tarlac, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 5200. March 11, 1909.] VICENTE BANDOY AND VICENTA SALAMANCA, Plaintiffs, vs. THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE LA LAGUNA AND THE SHERIFF OF THE SAME PROVINCE, Defendants.

  • [G. R. No. 3894. March 12, 1909.] JUAN IBAÑEZ DE ALCOA, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 4555. March 12, 1909.] SEVERO HERNANDO, Plaintiff, vs. SEVERO SAMBRANO (alias SEVERO HERNANDO), Defendant.

  • [G. R. No. 4962. March 12, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTE AGBAYANI, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 5030. March 12, 1909.] JUAN MANZANO Y MENDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE TAN SUNCO AND JUAN M. ANG CHONGUAN, Defendants. — JOSE TAN SUCO, Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4802. March 13, 1909.] ANDRES PUIG, ET AL., Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO MERCADO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, ET AL., Respondent.

  • [G. R. No. 4776. March 18, 1909.] MANUEL ORMACHEA TIN-CONGCO, deceased, represented by the CHINAMAN TIU TUSAY, judicial administrator of his estate, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SANTIAGO TRILLANA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 5002. March 18, 1909.] MARTIN BELEN, ET AL., Plaintiffs and Appellant, vs. ALEJO BELEN, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 3678. March 19, 1909.] CELESTINA SANTOS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JUANA MARQUEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G. R. No. 4898. March 19, 1909.] SALVADOR GUERRERO, guardian of the minors Maria Manuela and Maria del Carmen Sanchez Muñoz, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEOPOLDO TERAN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4114. March 20, 1909.] JUAN BRUSAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUTIQUIO INFANTE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4861. March 20, 1909.] F. W. PRISING, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MILTON E. SPRINGER, executor of the estate of JOHN KERNAN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 2935. March 23, 1909.] THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GEORGE I. FRANK, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 3643. March 23, 1909.] AMBROSIA POSTIGO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. DOLORES BORJAL, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 3683. March 23, 1909.] MARIANO PERFECTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF GUINOBATAN, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 4275. March 23, 1909.] PAULA CONDE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROMAN ABAYA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4610. March 23, 1909.] AGUSTIN GA. GAVIERES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FLORA BROTO, viuda de MAURIS, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 4891. March 23, 1909.] SOFIA DEVESA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRISPIN ARBES, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 5045. March 23, 1909.] GUILLERMO BOWLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PASTRO ALCAZAR, administrator of the estate of MATEA ALVAREZ Y RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4796. March 25, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SILVERIO PEREZ, ET AL., Defendants. — SILVERIO PEREZ, Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4912. March 25, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EMILIA GUY-SAYCO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 5008. March 25, 1909.] IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MANUELA AMANCIO TOMAS, ET AL., Appellants, vs. JORGE PARDO, Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 3413. March 27, 1909.] POMPOSA BONJOC, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. CANDELARIO CUISON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 3876. March 27, 1909.] RUFINA YATCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JESUALDO GANA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 4053. March 27, 1909.] IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSE MA. CEBALLOS, deceased. SERAFIN CANO URQUISA, Petitioner-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4575. March 27, 1909.] TEODORICA ENDENCIA CUSAR, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4783. March 27, 1909.] LUCIO BUZON Y JAVIER, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT AND THE CITY OF MANILA, opponents-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 4799. March 27, 1909.] AGRIPINO SEGOVIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD of the Province of Albay et al., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G. R. No. 4825. March 27, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BERNARDO SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4882. March 27, 1909.] RUPERTO MONTINOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LUCRECIO HOFILENA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G. R. No. 4937. March 27, 1909.] CRISPULO SIDECO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO PASCUA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4946. March 27, 1909.] THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARIA DEL CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., Defendants. — Maria del Carmen Rodriguez, Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4966. March 27, 1909.] LUCIO BUZON, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO LICAUCAO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 5074. March 27, 1909.] VICENTA FRANCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. C. W. O’BRIEN, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 4192. March 29, 1909.] DAVID SALVACION, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EUSTAQUIO SALVACION, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 4559. March 29, 1909.] TOMAS GUISON Y SALCEDO, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4952. March 29, 1909.] TOMAS OLINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARIANO MEDINA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 4329. March 30, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EPIFANIO MAGCOMOT, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 4226. March 31, 1909.] LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CANDIDA OBED, Viuda de Gallegos, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 4380. March 31, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ESTANISLAO ANABAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 4462. March 31, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 4705. March 31, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTONINA LAMPANO and RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G. R. No. 4885. March 31, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VIDAL ROLDAN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G. R. No. 4894. March 31, 1909.] GEO WHALEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PASIG IRON WORKS, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G. R. No. 4911. March 31, 1909.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION, ET AL. ., Defendants-Appellants.

  • 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