Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > March 1909 Decisions > [G. R. No. 4929. March 5, 1909.] JUAN BUENCAMINO, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellees, vs. NICASIA VICEO, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants. :


[G. R. No.  4929.  March 5, 1909.]

JUAN BUENCAMINO, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellees, vs. NICASIA VICEO, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.




This is an appeal from the Court of Land Registration. Nicasia Viceo and Anselmo Sabat, hereinafter called the Defendants, opposed the granting of the petition. Their claims were rejected by the court below and they have appealed.

1.            The claim of Anselmo Sabat was based upon the theory that his father Anastasio Sabat was the owner of the land described in the petition, and that the transactions between himself and the mother of the Petitioners constituted a mortgage which has never been foreclosed, and, consequently, that the Petitioners are not the owners in fee of the property.

Anastacio Sabat became the owner of the land described in the petition by virtue of a patent issued to him by the Spanish Government on the 13th day of April, 1894, which patent was recorded in the registry of property on the 1st day of May, 1894, and again on the 15th day of June, 1896.

On the 28th day of April, 1898, he sold and conveyed the land to Dona Manuela Talla David, the mother of the Petitioners, for 3,500 pesos. The deed of conveyance contained an agreement that the vendor might repurchase the same within three years from the date thereof. The land described in the patent consisted of two parcels, the second lying to the west of the first and adjoining it in its southerly portion. There is no evidence in the case that Anastacio Sabat ever repurchased the property during his lifetime, he having died in 1902, nor any evidence that the Defendant, Anselmo Sabat, one of his children, or any of his other heirs, have ever repurchased the property or made any offer to do so. That the contract of the 28th of April, 1898, was a sale with the right to repurchase, is apparent from the terms thereof. The claim made by the Appellant, Sabat, that the sale was never perfected because the land was never delivered to the purchaser, is sufficiently answered by reference to article 1462 of the Civil Code. The contract in question being evidenced by a notarial document, its execution was a sufficient delivery of the property, passing for the present the question of the actual delivery of the possession thereof by the vendor to the vendee.

It is claimed, however, by this Appellant, that the contract evidenced by this notarial document was afterwards changed by the parties, and to prove this claim there was received in evidence a document signed by Anastasio Sabat and now in the possession of the Petitioners, which document is as follows: chanrobles virtualawlibrary

“At San Miguel de Mayumo, Province of Bulacan, this 30th day of June, 1901, I, Anastasio Sabat, married, a native of the pueblo of Gapan (Nueva Ecija), in the presence of these two witnesses, Don Vicente Morales and Don Apolonio Maniquis, declare that I mortgage my three parcels of rice land in the barrio of San Roque, of the pueblo of Gapan, to guarantee the payment of my debt amounting to P4,500 in favor of Dona Manuela T. David y de Leon; I have received the said amount in legal silver coin, and on account of the same debt I deliver also to the said Dona Manuela the ten folios of the title deed of two parcels of the above lands; but the title deed relating to the third one cannot be delivered to her because it is attached to the deed of Dona Anatalia Pangilinan, which is at present in the possession of Don Valentin Viola; so that I have delivered to the said Dona Manuela only a receipt therefor, which receipt was given to me by Don Valentin; and with regard to the above-cited lands, I hereby deliver to my above creditor the full possession, administration and intervention as well as of all trees planted thereon, and she shall be recognized as the true owner until I have paid the full amount mentioned on the other side of this (document).

“And I ratify the above forever, and in witness thereof I have signed the same , as well as the two other witnesses above mentioned. ”

It will be observed that this private instrument mentions three tracts of land, while the notarial document of 1898 mentions only two tracts. The third tract of land mentioned in the private document is not involved in this case and the Petitioners do not here claim to be the owners of it. The theory of the Appellant, Sabat, is that this agreement constitutes a mortgage and annuls the previous purchase made by Dona Manuela in 1898. That document of 1898 conveyed the ownership of the property to the mother of the Petitioners. No repurchase having been made within three years from this date, the purchaser was, on the 30th day of June, 1901, the absolute owner of the property. It cannot be presumed that, being the absolute owner of the property, she gave up that ownership and accepted the position of a mere mortgagee. It is to be considered, on the contrary, as held by the court below, that the purpose of this document was to give Dona Manuela an additional tract of land as security for her debt which had increased from 3,500 pesos in 1898, to 4,500 pesos in 1901, and the most that can be claimed is that this instrument was intended not to change the nature of the contract previously made between the parties, which was that of a sale with a right to repurchase, to an entirely different kind of contract, namely a mortgage, but rather to continue the relation previously existing between them as to the two tracts of land included in the deed of 1898, and to make that contract extensive to the third tract of land. This view would give to the contract of 1901 the nature of a sale with the right to repurchase. That it is such a contract is evidenced by the statement in the latter part of it to the effect that Dona Manuela is to be considered as the true owner as long as the amount due was not returned. A somewhat similar document was held to evidence a sale with the right to repurchase in the case of Albert vs. Punsalan (9 Phil. Rep., 294). See also Espiritu vs. Luis (5 Phil. Rep., 482).

Considering it as a sale with the right to repurchase, no time being mentioned therein for the exercise of the right to repurchase, it lasted only for four years, which had expired prior to the commencement of this proceeding. (Art. 1508, Civil Code; Alano vs. Babasa, 10 Phil. Rep., 511; Garcia vs. Diamson, 8 Phil. Rep., 414. )  cralaw

This view of the nature of the relations between the parties is borne out by the evidence in regard to the possession of the land. Although the Defendant Sabat testified that he had been in possession of the property until 1905, the evidence of the Petitioners satisfies us that they and their mother had been in possession since 1901, and probably since 1898. Gelasio Buencamino testified that he went to see Anastasio Sabat in 1901 to tell him that the time to repurchase had expired and that Sabat then told him that the purchaser should continue in possession because he, Sabat, had no money with which to repurchase the property.

The judgment of the court below in reference to the claim of this Appellant must be affirmed.

2.            The Appellant Nicasia Viceo claims title to only a part of the property described in the petition. She bases her claim upon a private document signed by Anastasio Sabat on the 1st of October, 1893, which contains the following statements: chanrobles virtualawlibrary

“I hereby declare that I own a rice field in the sitio of Tagulod, San Roque, within the limits of the pueblo of Gapang, of 11 cavanes of seed, which land I bought from Lakan-ilaw, De los Reyes, and Sankal, bounded on the east and south by lands also belonging to me, on the west by the lands of Don Damaso Lakan-ilaw, and on the north by the lands of Marcelo Yuson, as shown in the document consisting of 12 folios and made a part of the present instrument on this date; I have agreed to sell the said land with  pacto de retro to Dona Nicasia Viceo, of San Rafael, for the sum of 1,000 pesos which I have duly received in legal currency from her, and in consideration thereof I have transferred to the said Nicasia Viceo the possession and enjoyment of that property; I have, however, requested her, and we so agreed, that I would work and cultivate said land for the sum of 200 pesos which I will pay her annually as rent beginning this day, and I hereby promise, and we have so agreed, that I should not redeem the said land except after the expiration of four years, which is the period above stipulated; notwithstanding this proviso, in case that, during the existence of the lease, I fail to pay the 200 pesos agreed upon, she shall have the right to oust me from the land the first year of such default without any further claim on my part, and I also promise to deliver to Dona Nicasia the title deed of the lands in Tagulod, as soon as I can get it from the Government. In testimony whereof I signed this instrument in the presence of the witnesses Don Ramon Ilusorio and Don Pedro Guinegundo. ”

This, being a private document, never was recorded in the registry of property. The court below held that the land described in this document was not included in the land described in the petition and this finding of fact must, in our opinion, be sustained. Emiliano Tecson, a witness for this Appellant, and Gelasio Buencamino, the guardian of the Petitioners, agreed that the land now occupied by Tecson as the tenant of Nicasia, and the land claimed by her are situated in the second parcel described in the patent issued by the Government to Anastasio Sabat, and toward the west. It would therefore be bounded on the east and west by the land of the Petitioners, but the document of 1893 names as the boundary upon the west the land of Damaso Lakan-ilaw, and the answer presented by this Defendant in this proceeding names as the adjoining proprietor on the west Andres Lakan-ilaw. It is impossible to fit this description to the land by Dona Nicasia, for if the boundary on the west is not the land of the Petitioners, it certainly would be the land at the extreme west of the land of the Petitioners, which is land not owned by any of the family of Lakan-ilaw, but on the contrary owned by other persons. Moreover, it is entirely improbable that Anastasio Sabat owning a tract of land 19 hectares in extent would have sold 14 hectares out of the middle of the tract, leaving two narrow portions one to the east and the other to the west.

The evidence in regard to the possession also satisfies us that the land described in the Appellant’s document of 1893 is no part of the land described in the petition. It is true that Emiliano Tecson testified that he had been in possession of the land for fourteen years, but the testimony in favor of the Petitioners, which strongly preponderates, is to the effect that he had been in possession only since the year 1906, and that the Petitioners and their mother had been in possession at least since 1901 and probably since 1898.

The judgment of the court below as to this parcel must also be affirmed.

The result of the whole case is that the judgment of the court below in its entirety is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellants.

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

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

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. 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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    013 Phil 319

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

    013 Phil 324


    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


    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


    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