Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

101 Phil 376:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-9208-16. April 30, 1957.]

MARIA VELARDE, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Antonio Enrile Inton and Camilo V. Peña for Appellants.

Lauro S. Estaban, Pedro D. Maldia and Roberto G. Martin for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. VENUE; MOTION TO DISMISS; IMPROPER VENUE AND PENDENCY OF ANOTHER ACTION. — Where it appears in the motion to dismiss that when the complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, there was pending in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija special proceeding involving the same properties and that the plaintiffs alleged that they were the only intestate heirs of the decedent and said properties are admittedly located in the aforesaid province where the parties are residents, the action filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila must therefore fail not only for lack of proper venue but for the pendency of another action.

2. CONTRACTS; PERSONS NOT PARTIES TO CONTRACT; NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO CHALLENGE ITS VALIDITY. — Where the plaintiffs are not parties to the deed of sale and are not principally or subsidiarily bound thereby, they have no legal capacity to challenge its validity.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


The plaintiffs Maria Velarde and Luis Velarde instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila nine separate complaints against several defendants, alleging that the plaintiffs are the niece and nephew respectively of Rosalia Velarde of Jaen, Nueva Ecija, who died in the City of Cabanatuan on January 6, 1950, leaving no descendants or ascendants, brothers or sisters, or surviving spouse, and leaving the plaintiffs as her only intestate heirs, being the nearest relatives at the time of the death of Rosalia Velarde, and that the said plaintiffs have succeeded to the full and exclusive ownership of all her estate, that the deceased Rosalia Velarde was the registered owner of several parcels of land, with improvements thereon, situated in the municipality of Jaen, Nueva Ecija, and more particularly described in each of the separate complaints; that Rosalia Velarde, without her knowledge and through fraud, deceit and misrepresentation of the defendants, and while she was physically and mentally incapacitated and without consideration having been received by her, was made to sign the several documents in English referred to in the complaints, and entitled Deeds of Absolute Sale; that the defendants, taking advantage of the various Deeds of Sale, registered the same in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija and thereby secured corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title in their names. The different complaints pray that the various deeds of sale allegedly executed by Rosalia Velarde be declared null and void; that the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija be ordered to cancel the various Transfer Certificates of Title in the names of the defendants and to revive the Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of the deceased Rosalia Velarde; that the defendants be ordered to render an accounting of the fruits and income of the various properties from February 26, 1950 and to deliver the same to the receiver appointed by the court; that the defendants be ordered to pay the sum of P10,000 as attorney’s fees.

On December 17, 1951, the defendants Mariano de Guzman, Et Al., through Atty. Lauro S. Esteban, filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss based on the grounds that venue was improperly laid; that there are other actions pending between the same parties and for the same cause; that the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue. On February 26, 1952, the defendants Felipa Paez, Et Al., through Atty. Mariano Q. Tinio, also filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss. On March 15, 1952, the Court of First Instance of Manila, through Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan, denied the special appearance and motion to dismiss filed by the defendants Felipa Paez, Et. Al. in four cases. The motion to dismiss filed by Mariano de Guzman, Et. Al. was heard before Judge Tiburcio Tancinco, first on January 12, 1952 and subsequently on May 3, 1952, when the matter was submitted for resolution after the plaintiffs had filed an opposition on January 11, 1952 and a supplemental opposition on March 22, 1952. On March 24, 1952, the defendants Felipa Paez, Et. Al. filed their corresponding answer in Civil Cases Nos. 15144, 15147, 15150 and 15152, through Attorney Pedro D. Maldia. On August 21, 1952, Judge Tiburcio Tancinco resolved the special appearance and motion to dismiss filed by the defendants Mariano de Guzman, Et Al., and issued an order dismissing all the nine cases filed by the plaintiffs. On September 22, 1952, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside this order, to which the defendants Mariano de Guzman, Et. Al. and the defendants Felipa Paez, Et. Al. filed their respective oppositions. On October 15, 1954, the plaintiffs filed a motion to have their motion to set aside the order of Judge Tancinco of August 21, 1952 resolved, to which the defendants Mariano de Guzman, Et. Al. and the defendants Felipa Paez, Et. Al. filed their corresponding oppositions. The plaintiff Maria Velarde having died, attorney for the plaintiffs filed on November 3, 1954 a motion praying that the deceased Maria Velarde be substituted by Lucia Velarde Espinosa and Luz Velarde Espinosa, to which the defendants Mariano de Guzman, Et. Al. filed an opposition. On November 13, 1954, the court granted the motion for substitution of parties, and on February 14, 1955, the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the order of August 21, 1952 was denied by the Court, through Judge Vicente Santiago. The plaintiffs have appealed.

In the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants Mariano de Guzman, Et Al., it is alleged that when the various complaints were filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, there were pending in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija Special Proceeding No. 476 for the probate of the will of Rosalia Velarde, involving the same properties referred to in plaintiffs’ various complaints, and Intestate Proceeding No. 497, also involving said properties. In the brief for the defendants Mariano de Guzman, Et Al., it is admitted that, although Intestate Proceeding No. 497 had been withdrawn, Special Proceeding No. 476 is still pending. It is not denied that both in Special Proceeding 476 and in Intestate Proceeding No. 497, the plaintiffs had filed an opposition and intervention. As the plaintiffs in their various complaints filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila alleged that they were the only intestate heirs of the deceased Rosalia Velarde and thereby succeeded to the latter’s estate to the exclusion of all others, there was absolutely no sense or necessity in filing in the Court of First Instance of Manila the separate actions for the annulment or rescission of the alleged deeds of sale executed by the deceased Rosalia Velarde covering the properties mentioned in the separate complaints, much less for the appointment of a receiver of said properties; especially because said properties are admittedly located in the province of Nueva Ecija and the parties are residents of the same province; and the matter as to who are the heirs of the deceased Maria Velarde can and should be determined either in the probate or intestate proceeding. Even assuming that the different actions instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila are in personam, as contended by the appellants, there is evidence adduced during the hearing of the defendants’ motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs Maria Velarde and Luis Velarde are residents of Nueva Ecija. The actions instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila must therefore fail not only for lack of proper venue but for the pendency of another action.

Equally decisive against the plaintiffs is the fact that they are not alleged to be forced heirs of the deceased Rosalia Velarde who therefore could dispose of her estate without further limitations than those established by law. The plaintiffs are not parties to the alleged deeds of sale and are not principally or subsidiarily bound thereby; hence they have no legal capacity to challenge their validity. This pronouncement finds support in the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As to the appellant’s second and last contention, under the law action to annul a contract entered into with all the requisites mentioned in Article 1261 whenever they are tainted with the vice which invalidate them in accordance with law may be brought, not only by any person principally bound or who made them, but also by his heir to whom the right and obligation arising from the contract are transmitted. Hence if no such rights, actions or obligations have been transmitted to the heir, the latter can not bring an action to annul the contract in representation of the contracting party who made it. In Wolfson v. Estate of Martinez, 20 Phil., 340, this Supreme Court quoted with approval the judgment of the Supreme Court of Spain of April 12, 1901, in which it was held that he who is not a party to a contract or an assignee thereunder, or does not represent those who took part therein, has under Articles 1257 and 1302 of the Civil Code no legal capacity to challenge the validity of such contract.’ And in Irlanda v. Pitargue, 22 Phil., 386, we held that the ‘the testamentary or legal heir continues in law as the juridical personality of his predecessor in interest, who transmit to him from the moment of his death such of his rights, actions and obligations as are not extinguished thereby.

"The question to be resolved is, therefore, whether the deceased Perpetua Concepcion has transmitted to the plaintiff any right arising from the contract under consideration in order that he can bring an action to annul the sale voluntarily made by her to the defendant with a false consideration.

"We are of the opinion and so hold, that the late Perpetua Concepcion has not transmitted to the plaintiffs any right arising from the contract of conveyance or sale of her lands to the defendant, and therefore the plaintiff can not file an action to annul such contract as representative of the deceased.

"According to the complaint the deceased, in connivance with the defendant and with intent to defraud the plaintiff, (That is, in order not to leave the properties above mentioned upon her death to the plaintiff), sold and conveyed them to the latter, for a false and fictitious consideration. It is, therefore, obvious, that the conveyance or sale of said properties to the defendant was voluntarily made by the deceased to said defendant. As the deceased had no forced heir, she was free to dispose of all her properties as absolute owner thereof, without further limitation than those established by law, and the right to dispose of a thing involves the right to give or convey it to another without any consideration. The only limitation established by law on her right to convey said properties to the defendant without any consideration is, that she could not dispose of or transfer her property to another in fraud of her creditors. And this Court, in Solis v. Chua Pua Hermanos, 50 Phil., 636, through Mr. Justice Street, held that ‘a voluntary conveyance, without any consideration whatever, is prima facie good as between the parties, and such an instrument can not be declared fraudulent as against creditors in the absence of proof, that there was at the time of the execution of the conveyance a creditor who could be defrauded by the conveyance, 27 C. J. 470.’

"Even a forced heir of the deceased Perpetua Concepcion would have no right to institute as representative of the decedent, an action of nullity of a contract made by the decedent to defraud his creditors, because such a contract being considered illicit under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, Perpetua Concepcion herself had no right of action to annul it and recover the properties she had conveyed to the defendant. But the forced heir would in such case bring an action to rescind the contract under Article 129(3) of the Civil Code. Manresa, in his comments on Articles 1306 and 1305 of the Civil Code (4th Edition, Volume 3, pp. 717, 718), says: ‘As to heirs, is interesting the judgment of May 6, 1902, of the Supreme Court of Spain which denied a forced heir the right to institute an action to annul contracts considered as illicit for having been entered into by his predecessor in interest for the purpose of depriving the forced heir of his legitime. The judgment purported to hold that the proper actions would have been an action to rescind in conformity with what we indicated in commenting on Article 1291’, and declared that ‘even forced heirs who accept an inheritance under the benefit of inventory are within the rule 2 of Article 1306, that denies to the guilty party the right to recover anything he may have given, or to enforce the performance of any undertaking in his favor, when the other party has nothing to do with the illicit consideration; a doctrine laid down in the judgment of July 4, 1896.’

"The reason why a forced heir has the right to institute an action or recission in that the right to the legitime is similar to a credit of a creditor. As the same Spanish author correctly states in commenting on Article 1291 of the Civil Code: ‘The rights of a forced heir to the legitime are undoubtedly similar to a credit of a creditor in so far as the right to the legitime may be defeated by fraudulent contracts and are superior to the will of those bound to respect them. In its judgment of October 28, 1897, the Supreme Court of Spain held that the forced heirs instituted as such by their father in the latter’s testament have the undeniable right to institute an action to annul contracts entered into by the father to their prejudice. As it is seen the action is called of nullity, but it is rather an action of rescission taking into account the purpose for which it is instituted and the confusion of ideas that has prevailed in this matter. The doctrine we shall expound in commenting on Articles 1302 and 1306 will confirm what we have just stated’. (Manresa, Codigo Civil, 4th edition, Vol. 8, pp. 667 and 668).

"Therefore, as the plaintiff in the present case, not being a forced heir of the late Perpetua Concepcion, can not institute an action to annul under Article 1300 or to rescind under Article 129(3) of the Civil Code the contract under consideration entered into by the deceased with the defendant." (Concepcion v. Sta. Ana, 87 Phil., 787.)

Plaintiffs-appellants invoke the decision in the case of De Vera v. Galauran, 37 Off. Gaz., 1821, in support of the contention that the legal heirs may commence an ordinary action arising out of a right belonging to the deceased without the necessity of a previous and separate judicial declaration of their status as such. This is true, unless (and this was overlooked by appellants) there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of such deceased person. In the nine cases now before us, it appears that at the time of the filing of the complaints in the Court of First Instance of Manila there were pending in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija Special Proceeding No. 476 (Probate of Will) and Intestate Proceeding No. 497; and although the latter proceeding was subsequently withdrawn, Testate Proceeding No. 476 is still pending.

Appellants also contend that as Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan in his order of March 15, 1952, denied the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants Felipa Paez, Et Al., it was erroneous on the part of Judge Tiburcio Tancinco to issue the order of August 21, 1952 dismissing all the nine cases at bar. This contention is not tenable, for the denial by Judge Gatmaitan referred to the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants Felipa Paez, Et. Al. only in four cases; whereas the dismissal by Judge Tancinco was in virtue of the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants Mariano de Guzman, Et Al., and there is no pretense that the latter motion had been previously acted upon. The causes of action and question of law involved in the nine separate cases being common, the dismissal by Judge Tancinco should inure to the benefit of the defendants Felipa Paez, Et. Al.

Wherefore, the order of the lower court dated August 21, 1952, is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Felix, J., concurs in the result.




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






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452