Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > March 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4783 March 27, 1909 - LUCIO J. BUZON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

013 Phil 324:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4783. March 27, 1909. ]

LUCIO BUZON Y JAVIER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT AND THE CITY OF MANILA, opponents-appellants.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellants.

Gabriel & Borbon, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; PRIVATE PROPERTY PERIODICALLY COVERED BY TIDE WATER. — There is no law which deprives a party plaintiff of his property because of the fact that the land, not being the bed of a river or of the sea, is covered by sea water during the period of ordinary high tide, and more specially when, as in the present case, the land becomes covered by tide water owing to the acts of the defendant.

2. PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR. — When a party takes exception to the denial of a motion for a new trial and submits a bill of exceptions but makes no assignment of errors, and where a party fails to except to a judgment and prepare a bill of exceptions, the case presents no question for consideration by this court. Each appellant must prepare and submit a bill of exceptions.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


On the 7th day of November, 1906, the plaintiff presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the purpose of having the following-described real estate registered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) A parcel of land situated in _____, within the reservation of ______, bounded on the north by Calle Pavia; on the south by the land of Doña Isidora Cristobal; on the east by Calle Velasquez; and on the west by Manila Bay, 2,619.18 square meters in extent."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Central Government and the city of Manila each opposed the registration of the property in question.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the lower court rendered the following decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Lucio Buzon Y Javier claims the adjudication and registration of a building lot composed of a parcel of land 2,619.18 square meters in extent, and situated in Calle Velasquez, district of Tondo, City of Manila.

"It is alleged in the fourth paragraph of the application, that part of the land described was acquired by the petitioner through inheritance from his parents, Leon Buzon and Cirila Javier, and the remainder by purchase from the heirs of the late Atanasio Buzon, whose names are not given.

"The Insular Government and the city of Manila oppose the registration asked for, the first party alleging that in ordinary tides the land toward the west side is covered by the waters of the sea to the extent of 1,549 square meters, and as such belongs to the public domain under the control of the Insular Government; the second party alleges that the lineal measurements of the land toward Calle Velazquez are erroneous, because instead of a zigzag composed of two straight line it should be one of three straight lines, as shown in the document submitted by the opposition, L.D. 20504, averring that by the acceptance of the lines contained in the plan, there is included an extension of 15 square meters of Calle Velazquez, which belongs to the public domain. The city of Manila also joins in the opposition of the Insular Government.

"The petitioner contends that his plan is correct, and that the parcels claimed by both parties opponent are integral parts of his land comprised within the plan.

"Under a public instrument executed on December 20, 1872, before Francisco R. Avellana, then a notary public of this city, a copy of which, Exhibit B, issued by M de Iriarte, chief of the division of archives, on September 17, last year, is attached to the record, Fray Antonio Fermentino, the then procurador general of the Augustinian fathers of this city, sold two adjoining lots to the brothers Atanasio and Moises Buzon, both parcels being located in the barrio of Caleros, within the jurisdiction of the district of Tondo, the metes and bounds of which parcels are shown in said document.

"At the death of one of the purchasers, Atanasio Buzon, his two surviving daughters, Serapia Buzon by the first marriage, and Apolonia Buzon of the second marriage, together with his only three granddaughters, Severina, Maria, and Victoria Buzon, issue of his deceased son Diego Buzon, succeeded him in all his rights and actions as his only heirs. These five heirs of Atanasio Buzon sold to the petitioner their interest in the land as the only heirs of Atanasio Buzon, as appears by parol evidence shown in Exhibit E, the two last named, Maria and Victoria Buzon, being represented by their mother Brigida dela Cruz, on account of being minors. The necessity and advisability of the sale of the interest of the two minors, Maria and Victoria Buzon, was duly shown.

"At the death of the other purchaser, Moises Buzon, his widow Anselma Feliz, by whom he had but one son, also named Moises Buzon, sold the part of the property corresponding to the first named to Leon Buzon, as appears in a public instrument executed on January 27, 1879, before Alejandro Casal, then one of the notaries public of this city, a copy of which was issued on November 12 of last year by M. Iriarte, chief of the division of archives, and is attached to the record L.D. 17953. Moises Buzon, who, as appears from the oral evidence is the only heir of his father, Moises Buzon, being of legal age, agreed to the sale made by his mother, Anselma Felix.

"On the death of Leon Buzon, his only son, Lucio Buzon, succeeded him and brought a possessory action before one of the Courts of First Instance of this city, and inscribed the possession shown in the former registry of property of that portion of land adjudged to Moises Buzon.

"From the foregoing facts, fully proven by documentary and oral evidence, it is to be inferred that the two contiguous parcels acquired from the Augustinian fathers were joined together and divided between the brothers Atanasio and Moises Buzon, and, after their death, and after successive and legal transfers, the two portions in which it was divided came into the possession of the applicant, Lucio Buzon, who joined them in one parcel, which is described in the application as follows: Bounded on the east or in front by Calle Velazquez; on the west or on the back by Manila Bay; on the north or the right side on entering, by Calle Pavia; and on the south or the left side on entering, by the land of Isidroa Cristobal. The front toward Calle Velazquez is a broken or zigzag line composed of two straight lines, one of them 4150 meters, and the other 52.30 meters in length, that is, a total of 93.80 meters; the rear measures 95.20 that is, a total of 93.80 meters; the rear measures 95.20 meters, and the right and left sides 23.77 meters, respectively.

"The description contained in the public document of December 20, 1872, executed by the procurador of the Augustinian fathers in favor of Atanasio and Moises Buzon, attributes a greater extension than that assigned to each one of the sides forming the said plan. The east side of the two adjoining lots measures 165 varas, which is equivalent to 137.90 meters; the west side toward Manila Bay measures 149 varas, equivalent to 124.60 meters; the south and north sides are 32 varas in length, equivalent to 26.75 meters, and 31 varas, or 25.91 meters, respectively.

"As is seen at a glance, the present measurements of the property have suffered a reduction. It can not be averred that the plan embraces a larger portion of land than that described in the instrument of December 20, 1872.

"If we heed the parol evidence, we find that the seashore was formerly about one hundred brazas distant from the land in question; that, in the course of time, and by the removal of a considerable quantity of sand from the shore at the back of the land for the use of the street car company if filling in Calle Cervantes, the sea water in ordinary tides now covers part of the land described in the petition.

"The fact that certain land, not the bed of a river or of the sea, is covered by sea water during the period of ordinary high tide, is not a reason established by any law to cause the loss thereof, especially when, as in the present case, it becomes covered by water owing to circumstances entirely independent of the will of the owner.

"It is notorious and of public knowledge that in Tondo, where the property in question is located, the sea waters as years elapse, are gradually enroaching on the lands of private ownership adjoining the bay to such an extent that many of the owners of the lands therein situated have lost a considerable portion of them on account of their becoming covered by the sea waters even during low tides.

"The land in question is that which was acquired from the Augustinian fathers on December 20, 1892. Its superficial extension not only has not increased, but on the contrary, has been actually reduced, as appears from the comparison made of the survey evidenced by the deed, comparison made of the survey evidenced by the deed, Exhibit B, and that which appears on the plan.

"There is no legal reason, or any other ground, to justify the pretension of the Insular Government and of the city of Manila to consider that portion of land which becomes covered by water on the days and hours of usual tide, as public domain, it being, as it actually is, susceptible of being used for building purposes.

"Owing to the topographical situation of the city of Manila, some lands are higher than others, according to the districts wherein they are located. They can be recognized at a glance. Even within a single district, the same thing happens, according to the location of the lands and the resources of their owners. Hence the constant and almost daily labor of certain employees of the city in the filling of many streets, in order to raise the level thereof and render them inaccessible during high tide to the sea water surrounding the city. However, there are still many streets which become, if not totally, at least partially inundated during the night tides of this month, and during the day tides of May, June and July, for example. As eloquent proof of the above statements, certain streets of the districts of Trozo, Tondo, and Sampaloc, within the knowledge of the writer, can be cited. If this happens in the streets which are constantly being repaired and attended to by the city with the large resources at its command, it is needless to say what would happen to the low lands, many of which are below the street level, and whose owners are without the means to raise them.

"The owners of lands situated in Tondo and adjoining Manila Bay are unfortunate enough by having to suffer the disastrous effects of the action of the sea, caused by the southeast monsoons, and by being exposed to the total loss of their lands on account of the phenomenon observed along the Tondo shore, where the sea, instead of depositing land formed by the action of the water, as happens in other places, gradually wears away that already existing and which adjoins the bay.

"If the theory of the Insular Government and the city of Manila were to be accepted, unsupported as it is by any law, it would be an additional misfortune for property owners, who would become deprived of their lands.

"The circumstance of the land in question belonging to a private person who aims to conserve it at his own expense, and takes the risk of its total disappearance, far from being a prejudice, is an advantage so far as the improvement of the city is concerned, and benefits the opposing entities themselves, inasmuch as the owner, if he persists in his desire to conserve the land, will employ the necessary means to prevent the flooding thereof and will raise the level and build retaining walls along the side facing Manila Bay, as has been done in various places in the districts of Ermita and Malate.

"In other countries, as America, Japan, and the neighboring colony of Hongkong, the policy of the various governments is to reclaim lands from the inexhaustible store of the sea, for the purpose of extending their territory and the meet the requirements of a population daily increasing in numbers. But a radically different policy is adopted in the oppositions filed by the Insular Government and the city of Manila, a policy which tends to infringe on the sacred rights of private ownership, and in nothing benefits the interests of the Government itself or of the inhabitants of the country.

"The city of Manila has presented no proof to show the equity of its claim. Its opposition, as well as that of the Insular Government, lacks foundation, and is overruled.

"It having been duly proven by the evidence that the petitioner has acquired the ownership of the property described in the petition by virtue of the possession he enjoys, computing his possession, with that of his predecessors, from December 22, 1892, the date of the document Exhibit B (an extraordinary prescription of 30 years), it is hereby decreed that, after general declaration of default, the property be adjudged to and registered in the name of Lucio Buzon y Javier.

"After this decision becomes final, let the decree be issued, and let the register of deeds of the city of Manila cancel the entry of registration of possession standing in the name of Lucio Buzon y Javier, in regard to a portion of the land described in the petition, at folio 174, volume 17, of Tondo section and 65 of the archive, lot NO. 1256, first inscription."cralaw virtua1aw library

To this decision the city of Manila duly excepted and presented a motion for a new trial, and duly excepted to the denial of said motion for a new trial. The city of Manila brought to this court its bill of exceptions, but has made no assignments of error here. Therefore in the appeal of the city of Manila no question is presented here for decision.

The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, affirmed as to the city of Manila.

The Insular Government made no exception to the judgment of the lower court and is no question here to be considered with reference to the rights of the Insular Government in the premises.

This court has frequently decided that each appellant must present a bill of exceptions.

For the reason therefore that the appellants have presented no questions here to be decided by this court, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Arellano, C.J., 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





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