Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

027 Phil 336:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 7670. March 28, 1914. ]

CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF MANILA, Defendant-Appellee.

Haussermann, Cohn & Fisher for Appellant.

City Attorney Nesmith for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; TAXES; ASSESSMENT OF REALTY AND IMPROVEMENT; REBATE. — It being the established practice in the city of Manila under section 46 of Act No. 183 to assess the real estate and the improvements thereon separately, and such having been the practice at the time Act No. 975 of the Philippine Commission was passed, a taxpayer is entitled to the rebate provided for in said Act, in conjunction with Act No. 581, where either the real estate or the improvements was assessed more than 50 per cent higher in 1901 and 1902 than it was in 1903, although the sum of the assessment on both real estate and the improvements in 1901 and 1902 was not more than 50 per cent higher than the sum of the two assessments as made in 1903.

2. ID.; ID.; REMEDY FOR WRONGFUL COLLECTION. — Where the city of Manila, without legal right, has demanded of a taxpayer the payment of an alleged tax, and threatens to enforce the payment of the alleged tax by the seizure and sale of the property upon which the tax is alleged to have been assessed, the taxpayer may pay the tax under protest and sue for the recovery thereof.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — It is reasonable that a man who denies the legality of a tax should have a clear and certain remedy. The rule being established that, apart from special circumstances, he cannot interfere by injunction with the state’s collection of its revenues, an action at law to recover back what he has paid is the alternative left; and where, as is common, the state has a summary remedy, such as distress, and the party indicates by protest that he is yielding to what he cannot prevent, courts have been a little too slow recognize the implied duress under which the payment is made.

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — Where a citizen by refusing to pay an illegal tax is put at a serious disadvantages in the assertion of his legal rights with respect to such tax, justice requires that he should be at liberty to avoid that disadvantages by paying the tax and bringing suit on his side. He is entitled to assert his supposed rights on reasonably equal terms.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


Doña Carmen Ayala de Roxas, the plaintiff in this case, was in 1901, 1902, and 1903, and has since been, the owner of certain property on the Escolta numbered 98-104, which was and is known and designated on the books and tax-roll of the city of Manila as lot 3, block 35, district of Binondo. This property was assessed for taxation by the officials of the city of Manila for the year 1902 as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Land P205,407.00

Improvements 30,000.00

_____________

Total 235,407.00

The taxes levied during these two years pursuant to the assessment were duly paid by the plaintiff.

On the 8th of January, 1903, the Philippine Commission passed an Act, No. 581, for the purpose, expressed in the title, of creating a board of tax revision to revise the assessments of real estate and improvements in the city of Manila. The board therein created, in the performance of the duty laid upon it by said Act, reassessed the plaintiff’s property on April 4, 1903, fixing the value thereof at P120,534 for the land and P50,000 for the improvements, in all P170,534.

In February, 1903, plaintiff commenced the reconstruction of the improvements on said land at a cost of P25,000, and on April 4, 1903, when the commission appointed in pursuance of Act No. 581 made the reassessment of plaintiff’s property, the latter was then in the act of reconstructing, altering and making additions to the improvements on said land.

On November 3, 1903, Act No. 975 was passed authorizing and requiring the Municipal Board "in all cases in which land assessed for taxation in the city of Manila for the years 1901 and 1902 was assessed at more than fifty per centum above the assessment" for 1903, as fixed by the board of tax revision, to reduce the assessments for 1901 and 1902 to the amount fixed in the assessment for 1903.

This Act then went on to provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2. In all cases in which the money has been paid upon the excessive assessment as described in section one, either for one or two years, the city tax assessor and collector shall allow the amount of such excess payment to be applied upon the taxes due for nineteen hundred and three, or some subsequent year."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is alleged in the amended complaint, admitted by the defendant, and found as a fact by the court that on December 10, 1903, the plaintiff made inquiry as the amount of the 1903 taxes upon the premises in question; that she was informed by the city assessor and collector that the tax for that year was P2,558.02, but that she was entitled to a refund under Act No. 975 of P2,121.80 arising from the excessive assessments of 1901 and 1902, which assessments had been revised and reduced as aforesaid by the tax revision commission appointed under Act No. 581. The plaintiff thereupon paid the difference between P2,558.02 and P2,121.80, or P436.22, taking a receipt in full for the sum of P2,558.02, the taxes for 1903.

The refund under the statute was made by the city assessor and collector in pursuance of a resolution of the Municipal Board of the city of Manila passed on December 8, 1903, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Whereas the city assessor and collector has submitted a statement showing all cases in which land assessed for taxation in the city of Manila for the years 1901 and 1902, was assessed at more than 50 per cent above the assessment for the year 1903, as revises by the board of tax revision; and

"Whereas, by Act No. 975, the Municipal Board is authorized and required to reduce the assessment for the years 1901 and 1902 to the amount fixed by the board of tax revision for the same land in 1903: Be it, therefore, on motion,

"Resolved, that by virtue of Act No. 975, the city assessor and collector is hereby authorized and directed to make such reduction in the assessment, and, in all cases in which the money has been paid upon such excessive assessment, to allow the amount of such excess payments to be applied on the taxes due for the year 1903, or some subsequent year."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the statement mentioned in said resolution appears the entry of the property in question as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Assessed

value in

U. S. cur- Revised Excess

Owner Lot. Block. rency for value assess Excess

1901 and 1903 ment payment

1902

Carmen Ayala 3 35 $102,703 $60,237 $42,466 $1,060.90

January 6, 1911, the Collector of Internal Revenue issued to the chief of the real estate division written instructions as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Referring to the attached papers regarding the decision of the Supreme Court in cases involving the interpretation of Act No. 975, I desire to have this matter again tested in the courts by collecting from a large taxpayers the amounts refunded to them in 1903 under the interpretation of Act No. 975 by the city assessor and collector, which, according to the Supreme Court, was an erroneous interpretation. You will therefore arrange to enter on the 1903 tax rolls back taxes for the year 1903 against the properties shown on the attached list in amounts equal to the refunds granted by the city assessor and collector under Act No. 975. Notices regarding these entries should be forwarded to each of the taxpayers as per the attached form as soon as possible and at such time so as to enable the putting of such properties on the list for the next tax sale if payments of these back taxes are not made."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to these instructions the following letter was sent to and received by the plaintiff:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Subject: — Decision of the Supreme Court, re Act No. 975.

"JANUARY 11,1911.

"Mrs. CARMEN AYALA,

"No. 154 Malacañang, Manila.

"MADAM: You are informed that the Supreme Court of these Islands has, in two decisions, one in the case of Felipe Zamora against the city of Manila, and the other in the case of Jose P. Paterno against the city of Manila, held that the word ’land’ as used in section 1 of Act No. 975 of Philippine Commission includes both the land and the buildings thereon. As construed by the city assessor and collector the word ’land,’ as used in the above-mentioned Act, did not include the improvements upon the land, and therefore the credit of P2,121.80 allowed by the city assessor and collector on the tax lists for the year 1903 as a partial payment of the tax on your property located at Nos. 98-104 Escolta, known as lot 3, block 35, district of Binondo, was erroneously applied according to the construction of the said Act by the Supreme Court in the case above stated, since the total value of the property in question, as per assessment in 1902, was not per cent more than the fixed by the board of tax revision, although the value of the land was 50 per cent more for 1901 and 1902 than that fixed by the board of tax revision.

"By direction of the Municipal of Board of Manila, approved by His Excellency, the Governor-General, the amount above stated which has been applied as a partial payment of your real estate tax for 1903 has been entered on the tax lists for 1903 and is a lien upon the said property, which can only be removed by the payment of the proper amount.

"By authority contained in a resolution adopted by the Municipal Board on December 10, 1910, the payment of the said sum, which is a delinquent tax for 1903, will be accepted without penalty if made within twenty days from the date this communication is received by you.

"Very respectfully,

(Sgd.) "ELLIS CROMWELL,

"Collector of Internal Revenue,

"Ex Officio City Assessor and Collector."cralaw virtua1aw library

To clear her property of this alleged encumbrance and to prevent the collector from carrying into effect his threat to sell the property at public sale, plaintiff, under protest, paid to the city assessor and collector the P2,121.80 demanded, which sum is now in special deposit in the Insular Treasury awaiting the outcome of this action.

This action was begun by the plaintiff to recover the said amount paid as aforesaid. The learned trial court dismissed the complaint on the merits and this appeal is taken from that judgment.

The defendant states its position in this controversy as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the figures set forth above, relating to plaintiff’s property, it appears that the land alone was assessed during 1901 and 1902 at more than 50 per cent, in fact 70 per cent, above the valuation fixed for 1903, but that the land and improvements together were assessed during 1901 and 1902 at less than 50 per cent, in fact, only 38 per cent, above the valuation fixed for 1903. Consequently, if the word ’land’ as used in Act No. 975 were to be construed as ’land only’ then plaintiff was entitled to a refund of a certain amount of excess paid, but if by ’land’ the legislature contemplated ’land and improvements’ or ’real estate in general’ then the plaintiff was not entitled to any refund. The city assessor and collector erroneously adopted the former construction as the correct one and estimated that the proper amount of refund of the excess payment by the plaintiff for the years 1901 and 1902, as provided in Act No. 975, would be the sum of P2,121.80. . . .

"Subsequent to this payment, however, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Felipe Zamora v. City of Manila (7 Phil. Rep., 584) that the word ’land’ as used in Act No. 975 should not be construed in a limited sense but that it was intended by the legislature to include not only the land as such but also the improvements thereon. The city assessor and collector, by direction of the municipal board approved by the Governor-General, then addressed a letter to the plaintiff explaining the mistake of the collector made in 1903, and stating that this amount of P2,121,.80 had been entered upon the tax lists for 1903, and that it was a lien upon her property only to be removed by payment of the proper amount, which if paid within a certain time would be received without penalty. This the plaintiff then paid to the city assessor under protest and now brings this action for the recovery back of the P2,121.80 so paid."cralaw virtua1aw library

From what has been said, it is clear that the basic contention of the city is that the city assessor and collector erroneously, and , therefore, unlawfully, refunded to the plaintiff herein, when she paid her tax in 1903, the sum of P2,121.80, and that, having so wrongly and unlawfully refunded the said amount, the city is entitled to recover from the plaintiff that sum by the process, as the city council called it, of putting it on the tax lists of 1903. The reason for claiming the sum was unlawfully and erroneously refunded is that the word ’land’ as used in Act No. 975, was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Zamora v. City of Manila (7 Phil. Rep., 584). to include the word "improvements," and that this Act requiring also, prior to the right to refund in any given case. that the assessments for the years 1901 and 1902 should be more than 50 per cent higher than was the assessments of the same property in 1903, the basis on which the right rests does not exist, for, while the land itself was assessed in 1901 and 1902 about 70 per cent higher than it was in 1903, the improvements upon the land were assessed almost twice as high in 1903 as in 1901 and 1902, and while a rebate might be allowed upon the assessment on the land if it had not been held by the Supreme Court to include improvements, no rebate can, in fact, be allowed, because the assessments of the land and improvements, under the decision referred to, must be taken, that is, added, together; and that being the case, the assessments of both land and improvements for the year 1901 and 1902 were not, when added together, 50 per cent higher than the total of the two was in 1903. As necessary result, says the city, the refund was improper.

This contention may be answered in two ways. In the first place, section 46 of Act No. 183 provides that "it shall be the duty of every owner of real estate in the city of Manila to prepare or cause to be prepared a statement of the amount of land and the improvements thereon which he owns." This statement must be filed with the city assessor and collector and from it, primarily, he makes up the list of the taxable real estate in the city. Under the system established by this Act and by the practice which was adopted and has been consistently followed under it, the improvements are assessed separately from the land even though both may be owned by the same person. This was the way the assessment was made in 1901, 1902, and 1903, ad it is the manner in which assessments have been made since that time. This was the condition of assessments when the remedial Act referred to was passed and presents the situation which the commission had before it. This being so, it might with propriety be contended that an owner of land might have been entitled to the refund provided for in Act No. 975 with respect to the land itself although he would not have been with respect to the improvements. The fact that the Supreme Court held, in case referred to, that under the statute, land included improvements, does not necessarily mean that the contention of the city is correct that the assessment for both land and improvements as made in 1901 and 1902 should have been added together and the sum of the two compared with the total assessments for land and improvements as made in 1903 before it could be determined whether the taxpayer was entitled to a refund. In the case referred to the plaintiff, as guardian for his minor children, brought suit against the city of Manila to recover the excess taxes paid to the city under the assessments of 1901 and 1902. The assessments for that year were, land P7,700, and house P8,000. In 1903 the assessment was, land P4,476, and house P5,000. The plaintiff claimed a right to the refund on both the land and the house but the department of assessments and collections of the city allowed it on the land only, denying the benefits of the Act with regard to the improvements upon the theory that the Act referred to land only. This court held in that case that, inasmuch as the statute was remedial, the plaintiff was entitled, under the liberal construction given to that kind of statute, to a refund not only as to the taxes on the land but also as to those on the improvements. In that case the assessments were treated separately, that one relating to the land and the other to the improvements, each one standing upon its own footing, the plaintiff evidently being permitted to claim her right as to each apart from the other.

In the second place, it may be said, in answer to the city’s contention that there was no reassessment made in 1903 of the improvements assessed in 1901 and 1902, and that therefore, there was no basis from which it could be determined whether the improvements were assessed higher in 1901 and 1902 than they were in 1903 or vice versa. When the assessment was made by the commission in 1903 the taxpayer was engaged in making very extensive improvements upon the premises, to a large extent rebuilding the building already thereon. It is undisputed that she was adding at least P25,000 worth of repairs to the premises at that time. It is very probable that, in making the assessment, the commission took into consideration these improvements and added their value to the improvements as they were assessed in 1901 and 1902. This appears to be so not only from the fact that it was at that time impracticable to assess the improvements as they existed in 1901 and 1902, but also from the fact that the assessed valuation of the improvements in 1903 was almost double what it was in 1901 and 1902. The latter fact is significant for the reason that the assessments in 1901 and 1902 were almost universally excessive — so much so in fact that it led the Legislature in 1903, as we have see, to pass a special Act for a reassessment of city properly and the refunding of money paid as taxes under the excessive assessments of those years. This being the case, it would be but fair to assume that, if the improvements as assessed in 1901 and 1902 had been assessed in 1903, the value thereof would have been largely reduced. As a matter of fact, however, due undoubtedly to the extensive improvements that were then being made the assessment of the improvements in 1903 was almost double that in 1901 and 1902.

We believe it, therefore, a necessary conclusion that the city erred in adding the assessment of the improvements as made in 1903 to the land assessment of that year in order to determine whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to the refund in question. As we have already intimated, the improvements as assessed in 1901 and 1902 no longer existed when the assessment of 1903 was made, and that, in reality and the improvement was made in 1903 of the improvements assessed in 1901 and 1902. As a necessary result, we have no basis from which we may compare the assessment of the improvements of 1903 with those of 1901 and 1902. If the plaintiff can gain nothing from this fact, she certainly should lose nothing from it. The land assessed in 1901 and 1902 was the same land assessed in 1903 and upon that land alone she was entitled to the refund of P2,121.80, which was made to her when she paid her taxes in 1903. If the improvements had been assessed in 1903 the same as they were in 1901 and 1902 would have been more than 50 percent higher than the total as assessed in 1903. It was only the addition in 1903 of about P20,000 to the assessed valuation of the improvements made in 1901 and 1902 that, even under the theory of the city, removed the plaintiff’s claim from the provision of the statute, the total assessments in 1901 and 1902, under that theory, not being 50 per cent more than the total assessment in 1903. It is clear, therefore, that plaintiff was entitled to the refund with respect to her 1903 taxes, that the refund was duly authorized by a resolution of the municipal board, and that she received it as a credit upon her taxes pursuant to that resolution.

It is our opinion, therefore, that the taxes for 1903 were duly paid and the lien thereof fully discharged, and that the demand made by the defendant upon plaintiff that she again pay the taxes for that year was without authority of law an unenforceable. Such demand placed upon the plaintiff no duty except that of selecting a legal method of contesting the validity of defendant’s claims. She selected the method of paying the sum demanded, under protest, and beginning an action to recover it, following the procedure prescribed in ordinary tax cases. In doing that she was entirely justified, it appearing that the city claimed that the taxes for 1903 had not been paid, and that, if they were a lien upon the plaintiff’s property, and that, if they were not paid, proceedings would be taken to seize and sell said lands by virtue thereof; and, particularly in view of that provision of the tax law which requires that, before the validity of a tax can be attacked or a decision obtained therein in the courts, the tax must be paid under protest and an action begun for its recovery. It is reasonable that a man who denies that legality of a tax should have a clear and certain remedy. The rule being established that, apart from special circumstances, he cannot interfere by injunction with the state’s collection of its revenues, an action at law to recover back what he has paid is the alternative left. Of course, we are speaking of those cases where the state is put to an action where the citizen refuses to pay. In these latter he can interpose his objections by way of defense, but when, as is common, the state has a more summary remedy, such as distress, and the party indicates by protest that he is yielding to what he cannot prevent, courts have been a little too slow to recognize the implied duress under which the payment is made. But even if the state is driven to an action, if at the same time the citizen is put at a serious disadvantage in the assertion of his legal rights by defense in the suit, justice may require that he should be at liberty to avoid those disadvantages by paying promptly and bringing suit on his side. He is entitled to assert his supposed rights on reasonably equal terms. (Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. O’Connor, 223 U. S., 280.)

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Court of First Instance whence it came with instruction to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P2,121.80 with interest thereon from the 26th day of January, 1911. No costs in this instance.

Arellano, C.J., Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 7657 March 6, 1914 - AMBROSIO TIEMPO v. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES

    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 8699 March 7, 1914 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 7352 March 15, 1914 - CATALINO HILLARO v. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL

    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914

    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8937 March 21, 1914 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING. CO. v. PEDRO N. MOJICA

    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323



  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978


  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 8375 March 30, 1914 - INTERISLAND EXPRESS CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447