Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > June 1940 Decisions > G.R. No. 46840 June 17, 1940 - VICTORIANO HERNANDEZ v. MACARIA KATIGBAK VIUDA DE SALAS

069 Phil 744:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 46840. June 17, 1940.]

VICTORIANO HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MACARIA KATIGBAK VIUDA DE SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Barrera & Reyes for Appellant.

Wolfson, Barrion & Baradi for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTION SALE OF REGISTERED PROPERTY; VALIDITY. — It is a well-settled rule that, when the property sold on execution is registered under the Torrens system, registration i8 the operativa act that gives validity to the transfer, or creates a lien on the land, and a purchaser, on execution sale, is not required to go behind the registry to determine the conditions of the property. Such purchaser acquires such right, title and interest as appear on the certificate of title issued on the property, subject to no liens, encumbrances or burdens that are not noted thereon (Anderson & Co v. Garcia, 35 Off. Gaz., 2847; Reynes v. Barrera, G. R. No. 46724.)

2. ID.; RIGHT AND INTEREST ACQUIRED BY PURCHASER; DOCTRINE IN LANCI v. YANGCO (52 Phil., 563), ABANDONED. — The doctrine in Lanci v. Yangco (52 Phil., 563), which purports to give effect to all liens and encumbrances existing prior to the execution sale of a property registered under the Torrens system, even if such liens and encumbrances are not noted in the certificate of title, has been abandoned by this Court. (See Philippine National Bank v. Camus, G. R. No. 46870, June 27, 1940.) The new doctrine is that, in an execution sale of a land registered under the Torrens system, the purchaser acquires such right and interest as appear on the certificate of title, unaffected by any prior lien or encumbrance not noted therein. (Anderson & Co. v. Garcia, supra; sec. 39, Act No. 996, as amended by Act No. 2011.) The purchaser is thus "not required to explore farther than what the Torrens title, upon its face, indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. If the rule were otherwise, the efficacy and conclusivenes on the certificate of title which the Torrens system seeks to insure, would entirely be futile and nugatory." (Reynes v. Barrera, supra.)

3. ID.; ID.; EXCEPTION TO RULE. — The only exception to this rule is where the purchaser had knowledge, prior to or at the time of the levy, of such previous lien or encumbrance. In such case, his knowledge is equivalent to registration and taints his purchase with bad faith. (Gustilo v. Maravilla, 48 Phil., 442; La Urbana v. Bernardo, 62 Phil., 790; 23 C. J., sec. 812; Parsons Hardware Co. v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 46141.) But if knowledge of any lien or encumbrance upon the property is acquired after the levy, the purchaser cannot be said to have acted in bad faith in making the purchase and, there- fore, such lien or encumbrance cannot affect his title.

4. ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the present case, the third party claim was filed about one month after the levy was recorded. The validity of the levy is thus unaffected by any subsequent knowledge which the judgment creditor might have derived from the third party claim. The fact that this third party claim was presented one day before the execution sale, is immaterial. If the levy is valid, as it was, the execution sale made ill pursuance thereof is also valid, just as a mortgage lien validly constituted may validly be foreclosed regardless of any equities that may have arisen after its constitution.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


Appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

The facts as agreed upon by the parties and material to the disposition of the case, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Vicente Singson Encarnacion was, at first alone, and later with others, the registered owner of lots Nos. 27, 28 and 29 of the "Hacienda Maysilo", located at Tuliahan, municipality of Caloocan, Rizal, with an aggregate area of 234 hectares, and covered by Torrens certificates of title Nos. 8540 and 8548 of the register of deeds of Rizal. Nicolas Rivera repurchased, in pursuance of his registered right to that effect, 40 hectares of these three lots, and later sold to Mariano P. Leuterio an unsegregated portion of about 18 hectares thereof. The latter, in turn, sold a total area of 16,900 square meters to Rafael Villanueva by deeds which had never been registered. These deeds are dated September 21, 1920, September 24, 1920, August 31, 1922 and September 1, 1922, respectively. Later Rafael Villanueva sold to the herein Plaintiff. Victoriano Hernandez, all his rights in the said total area of 16,900 square meters.

In civil case No. 2861 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, instituted by Perfecto J. Salas Rodriguez, against Mariano P. Leuterio, a writ of execution was issued against the defendant, and, in pursuance thereof, the provincial sheriff of Rizal levied upon the properties of said defendant, among them, a parcel of land containing an area of 177,657.4 square meters. This is the same property that the defendant bought from Nicolas Rivera. The levy was duly recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds and noted on transfer certificate of title No. 8540 covering lot No. 28. Rafael Villanueva filed with the sheriff a third-party claim, but as the judgment creditor gave an indemnity bond, the sheriff proceeded with the execution and sold the property at a public auction at which the judgment creditor himself was the highest bidder. On March 30, 1926, said officer executed the corresponding deed in favor of the purchaser.

Prior to the execution of the officer’s deed, or on March 1, 1926, the 40 hectares bought by Nicolas Rivera from Singson Encarnacion were segregated, and on March 5, 1926, two transfer certificates of title were issued in favor of Nicolas Rivera, one with No. 10533, for 79,014 square meters, designated as lot No. 28-A, and the other with No. 10535, for 62,661 square meters and 174,130 square meters, designated as lots Nos. 27-A and 29-A, respectively. The execution lien of Perfecto J. Salas Rodriguez as well as the auction sale held on March 30, 1926, which were annotated on transfer certificate of title No. 8540, were transferred to and annotated on the new transfer certificate of title No. 10533 covering lot No. 27-A. And there having been no redemption, a final deed of sale was executed on March 30, 1927 by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser, Perfecto J. Salas Rodriguez, and transfer certificate of title No. 12242 was issued the following day in the latter’s name. Perfecto J. Salas died, and by virtue of a partition approved by the probate court, lot No 28-A was adjudicated to his widow, Macaria Katigbak Vda. de Salas, now defendant, in whose favor transfer certificate of title No. 22157 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal on August 9, 1932.

On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered judgment, ordering the defendant to segregate from lot No. 28-A, covered by her transfer certificate of title No. 22157, a portion equivalent to 16,900 square meters, and to execute, in due form, the corresponding deed in favor of the herein plaintiff. The judgment is predicated on the decisions rendered by this Court in cases G. R. Nos. 33950 and 33969 which in turn are founded on the ruling laid down in Lanci v. Yangco, 52 Phil., 563.

The question is: who has a better right — the purchaser at the execution sale, Perfecto J. Salas Rodriguez, predecessor in interest of the defendant, or the purchaser in the private sale, Rafael Villanueva, predecessor in interest of the plaintiff?

The two purchasers derived their title from Mariano P. Leuterio, who in turn acquired his from Nicolas Rivera. The purchase made by Villanueva took place prior to the execution sale, but was never registered. The property .s registered under the Torrens system, there being a certificate of title issued in favor of Nicolas Rivera bearing No. 10533 on lot No. 28-A. No certificate of title was ever issued in favor of Mariano P. Leuterio, but the levy and the execution sale of the property were noted on the transfer certificate of title of Nicolas Rivera without the latter’s objection, and in the notation it appeared that the property had been sold by Nicolas Rivera to Mariano P. Leuterio. It was, therefore, Mariano P. Leuterio alone who, in Rivera’s certificate of title, appeared as the sole owner of the property at the time of the levy and execution sale.

It is a well-settled rule that, when the property sold on execution is registered under the Torrens system, registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer, or creates a lien on the land, and a purchaser, on execution sale, is not required to go behind the registry to determine the conditions of the property. Such purchaser acquires such right, title and interest as appear on the certificate of title issued on the property, subject to no liens, encumbrances or burdens that are not noted thereon. (Anderson & Co. v. Garcia, 35 Of. Gaz., 2847; Reynes v. Barrera, G. R. No. 46724.) It follows that, on the property in question, defendant has a better right than the plaintiff.

Judgment is reversed, with costs against Plaintiff-Appellee.

Avancena, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

RESOLUTION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

MORAN, J.:


The doctrine in Lanci v. Yangco (52 Phil., 563), which purports to give effect to all liens and encumbrances existing prior to the execution sale of a property registered under the Torrens system, even if such liens and encumbrances are not noted in the certificate of title, has been abandoned by this court. (See Philippine National Bank v. Camus, G. R. No. 46870, June 27, 1940.) The new doctrine, from which we have no reason to depart, is that, in an execution sale of a land registered under the Torrens system, the purchaser acquires such right and interest as appear on the certificate of title, unaffected by any prior lien or encumbrance not noted therein. (Anderson & Co. v. Garcia, 35 Of. Gaz., 2847, sec. 39, Act No. 496, as amended by Act 2011.) The purchaser is thus "not required to explore farther than what the Torrens title, upon its face, indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently de- feat his right thereto. If the rule were otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title which the Torrens system seeks to insure, would entirely be futile and nugatory." (Reynes v. Barrera, G.R. No. 46724, September 30, 1939.)

The only exception to this rule is where the purchaser had acknowledge, prior to or at the time of the levy, of such previous lien or encumbrance. In such case, his knowledge is equivalent to registration and taints his purchase with bad faith. (Gustilo v. Maravilla, 48 Phil. 442; La Urbana v. Bernardo, 62 Phil., 790; 23 C. J., sec. 812; Parsons Hardware Co. v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 46141.) But if knowledge of any lien or encumbrance upon the property is acquired after the levy, the purchaser cannot be said to have acted in bad faith in making the purchase and, therefore, such lien or encumbrance cannot affect his title.

In the present case, the third-party claim was filed about one month after the levy was recorded. The validity of the levy is thus unaffected by any subsequent knowledge which the judgment creditor might have derived from the third-party claim. The fact that this third-party claim was presented one day before the execution sale, is immaterial. If the levy is valid, as it was, the execution sale made in pursuance thereof is also valid, just as a mortgage lien validly constituted may validly be foreclosed regardless of any equities that may have arisen after its constitution. In Vargas v. Tancioco, supra:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . el terreno en cuestion estaba cubierto por el Certificado de Titulo que llevaba el No. 17088 de la Oficina del Registrador de Titulos de Negros Occidental y que fue expedido a nombre de Sua Tico el dia 26 de juilio de 1923. En dicho certificado no constaba ningun gravamen excepto el embargo que se habia trabado sobre elterreno a que alude, como un acto o paso preliminar para vender el referido terreno, en publica subasta, en cumplimiento de un mandamiento judicial expedido con las formalidades de la ley.." . .

"De paso debe decirse que el Tribunal de Apelaciones hallo tambien probado el hecho de que un dia antes de ponerse en publica subasta el terreno de que se viene hablando, el recurrente presento al Sheriff Provincial de Negros Occidental un escrito de terceria para reclamarlo como de su exclusiva propiedad; pero, habiendo prestado la recurrida Nieves Tancioco la fianza correspondiente, el Sheriff hubo de estar adelante con la venta anunciada vendiendo el terreno en cuestion, con el resultado que ya se sabe."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon these facts, this court held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"La contencion del recurrente de que la recurrida no era compradora de buena fe, porque al comprar en publica subasta el terreno cuestionado ya sabia que el mismo no era de Sua Tico, por haberselo vendido a el, como asi lo habia expresado en su escrito de terceria presentado un dia antes de la venta, no tiene importancia, y porque esta implicitamente aclarada y resuelta en los parrafos anteriores. Cuando dicha recurrida obtuvo el embargo y este se efectuo y se anoto en el Registro, ella no tenia la mas remota idea de que el mismo terreno embargado habia sido vendido meses antes por Sua Tico. La razon es obvia, porque la pretendida venta no fue anotada jamas en el Registro como lo fue el referido embargo."cralaw virtua1aw library

Expressions of dissatisfaction made by the appellee’s attorney in his motion for reconsideration are uncalled for, and except for this observation, they deserve no attention from this court. Motion for reconsideration is denied.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, 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






June-1940 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46515 June 14, 1940 - VISAYAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL

    069 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. 46784 June 14, 1940 - AMBROSIO ALTABANO, ET AL. v. MASBATE CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL.

    069 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. 46949 June 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JESUS T. PALUPE

    069 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 46952 June 14, 1940 - ALEJO BASCO v. MACARIO PUZON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. 46954 June 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MIGUEL AMBAL

    069 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. 47035 June 14, 1940 - FELICIANA SANTOS v. JOSE O. VERA

    069 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 47077 June 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ZOILO TOLENTINO

    069 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 46768 June 14, 1940 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. GLORIA MONTINOLA

    069 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 44973 June 17, 1940 - DOROTEO KABAYAO v. FAUSTINO DE VERA

    069 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 46701 June 17, 1940 - MAURICIO CRUZ v. JOSEFINA SANDOVAL

    069 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. 46776 June 17, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 46840 June 17, 1940 - VICTORIANO HERNANDEZ v. MACARIA KATIGBAK VIUDA DE SALAS

    069 Phil 744

  • G.R. Nos. 46884-46886 June 17, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BALDOMERO JULIPA

    069 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. 47020 June 17, 1940 - J UAN O. TOMANENG v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    070 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47071 June 17, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO LEGASPI, ET AL.

    070 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 47133 June 17, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX P. COSTOSA

    070 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 47138 June 17, 1940 - MANILA CHAUFFEURS LEAGUE v. BACHRACH MOTOR Co.

    070 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 47169 June 17, 1940 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE PARAÑAQUE

    070 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 47228 June 17, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASTOR DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

    070 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 47243 June 17, 1940 - CIPRIANO ABANIL, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT OF BACOLOD

    070 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 49996 June 17, 1940 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. CONSUELO WEBER

    070 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 46667 June 20, 1940 - KERR & COMPANY v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS

    070 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. 46685 June 20, 1940 - ROSENDO V. ONGLENGCO v. ROMAN OZAETA, ET AL

    070 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 46698 June 20, 1940 - JOSE H. GUEVARA Y OTROS v. EL JUZCADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE LACUNA

    070 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 46744 June 20, 1940 - ZACARIAS CORELLA v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS

    070 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 46850 June 20, 1940 - UY SIU PIN, ET AL v. CASIMIRA CANTOLLAS, ET AL.

    070 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 46983 June 20, 1940 - CIRIACA TORRES Y ASMA Y OTROS v. CEFERINA LLAMAS DE DEL ROSARIO

    070 Phil 59

  • Asto. Adm. No. 743 June 21, 1940 - VIDAL AGUIRRE y RAMON Z. AGUIRRE v. TOMAS L. RAMOS

    070 Phil 63

  • Adm. Case No. 923 June 21, 1940 - In re Atty. ROQUE SANTIAGO

    070 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 46347 June 21, 1940 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    070 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. 46548 June 21, 1940 - ARMESTO RAMOSO v. JOSE OBLIGADO, ET AL.

    070 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. 46995 June 21, 1940 - HERMOGENES N. MARTIR v. ANGELA MARTIR

    070 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. 47036 June 21, 1940 - YU WAN v. JOSE LEE YEEK

    070 Phil 94

  • Adm. Case No. 853 June 22, 1940 - MARCELINO MACOCO v. ESTEBAN B. DIAZ

    070 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 46705 June 22, 1940 - JUSTINA y LORENZA SANTOS v. MERCEDES P. VIUDA DE RUFINO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 46719 June 22, 1940 - C. N. HODGES v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    070 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 46900 June 22, 1940 - G. LITTON v. BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    070 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 47012 June 22, 1940 - LORENZO ALEJANDRINO v. BENIGNO AQUINO Y OTRO

    070 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 47025 June 22, 1940 - EL COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS v. CHING YAP

    070 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 47047 June 22, 1940 - EL GOBIERNO MUNICIPAL DE SAN PEDRO v. LA JUNTA PROVINCIAL DE LAGUNA

    070 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 47125 June 22, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GERARDO EVANGELISTA Y MARAMOT

    070 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 46824 June 24, 1940 - JULIAN GALA, ET AL v. RUFINO RODRIGUEZ Y OTROS

    070 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 46889 June 25, 1940 - ANDRES CASTRO v. A. R. YANDOC, ET AL

    070 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 47021 June 25, 1940 - YEE SUE KOY, ET AL. v. MARIANO G. ALMEDA, ET AL

    070 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 47030 June 25, 1940 - LUZON BROKERAGE Co., INC. v. COMISION DE SERVlCIOS PUBLICOS y V. FRAGANTE

    070 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 47049 June 26, 1940 - CLEMENTE FERNANDEZ v. ENGRACIA SEBIDO, ET AL

    070 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 47118 June 25, 1940 - SALE DE PORKAN v. ALFREDO YATCO, ET AL.

    070 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 47145 June 25, 1940 - JUNZO OHKAWA, ET AL. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS y V. FRAGANTE

    070 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 47185 June 25, 1940 - WEST COAST LlFE INSURANCE CO. v. SEVERO HERNANDO, ET AL

    070 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 47214 June 26, 1940 - ANGEL SUNTAY y EDNA R. SUNTAY v. EMILIANO T. TIRONA

    070 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 46473 June 26, 1940 - EMETERIO BARCELON v. H. P. L. JOLLYE

    070 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 46656 June 26, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE MAGPALE

    070 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 46706 June 26, 1940 - JOSE M. CARIÑO v. P. FERNANDO MA. ABAYA

    070 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 46839 June 26, 1940 - EL COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS v. DOROTEO GUNGUN Y OTROS

    070 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 46924 June 26, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO MACANDILI, ET AL

    070 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. 47006 June 26, 1940 - PEDRO DE LEON v. ALEJO MABANAG

    070 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 47055 June 26, 1940 - FELISA S. MARCELO v. DANIEL V. ESTACIO

    070 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 47065 June 26, 1940 - PANGASINAN TRANS. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    070 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 47089 June 26, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MALAZARTE

    070 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 47099 June 26, 1940 - TEODORO BAGUISI v. EULALIO ADRIANO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 237

  • Adm. Case No. 632 June 27, 1940 - IN RE: Atty. MELCHOR E. RUSTE

    070 Phil 243

  • Adm. Case No. 747 June 27, 1940 - GERARDO GO BELTRAN v. INOCENTES FERNANDEZ

    070 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 46389 June 27, 1940 - RAMON DEL ROSARIO v. VIRGINIA DEL ROSARIO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 46592 June 27, 1940 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. INC.

    070 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 46634 June 27, 1940 - CATALINA DE LA CRUZ v. EMIGDIO BUENAVENTURA

    070 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 46640 June 27, 1940 - SEGISMUNDO ALZONA v. HUGO ORILLENEDA

    070 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 46642 June 27, 1940 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. FORTUNATO G. LAPID

    070 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 46647 June 27, 1940 - EL BANCO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. FELICIDAD KIAMCO

    070 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 46655 June 27, 1940 - GABRIELA SAN DIEGO v. BERNABE CARDONA, ET AL

    070 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 46722 June 27, 1940 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. ALFREDO L. YATCO

    070 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 46782 June 27, 1940 - JOSE GALLOFIN v. YUTI ORDOÑEZ, ET AL

    070 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 46870 June 27, 1940 - BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. MANUEL CAMUS Y OTROS

    070 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 47080 June 27, 1940 - VALENTA ZABALLERO ET AL. v. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    070 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. 47106 June 27, 1940 - AURELIO PALILEO v. ROSARIO COSME MENDOZA

    070 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 47107 June 27, 1940 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. PHIL. MATCH FACTORY, ET AL

    070 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 47115 June 27, 1940 - HIP0LITA DOLINA CHAPMAN, ET AL v. ONG TO

    070 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 47143 June 27, 1940 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. MATIAS A. FERNANDO

    070 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 47154 June 27, 1940 - SALVACION ESPINOSA v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    070 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 47170 June 27, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    070 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 47211 June 27, 1940 - ROSENDO MARCOS Y OTROS v. EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE BULACAN

    070 Phil 317

  • G.R. Nos. 46629 y 46639 June 28, 1940 - MANILA GAS CORPORATION v. VICENTE DE VERA

    070 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 46720 June 28, 1940 - WELLS FARGO BANK & UNION TRUST CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    070 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 46775 June 28, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JULIAN SORIANO

    070 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 46892 June 28, 1940 - ANTAMOK GOLDFIELDS MINING CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    070 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 47051 June 28, 1940 - MUN. COUNCIL OF PARAÑAQUE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL

    070 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 47174 June 28, 1940 - ELIODORA LIPANA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE

    070 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 45072 June 29, 1940 - JUAN RUIZ v. JOSE TOPACIO

    070 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 45351 June 29, 1940 - CU UNJIENG E HIJOS v. MABALACAT SUGAR CO., ET AL

    070 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 46648 June 29, 1940 - LUIS GUERRERO Y ADELA HENRY DE GUERRERO v. DONATO C. YUZON

    070 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 46847 June 29, 1940 - MAXIMINA MARCELINO v. ROSARIO ANTONIO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 46902 June 29, 1940 - AARON NADELA, ET AL v. RICARDO CABRAS

    070 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47079 June 29, 1940 - MACONDRAY & CO., ET AL v. PEDRO COLETO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 47168 June 29, 1940 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. ANASTACIO EXCONDE

    070 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 47184 June 29, 1940 - VICENTE ROMEY v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL

    070 Phil 408