Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9651 May 23, 1960 - POLICARPIO MENDEZ v. SENG KIAM

108 Phil 109:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-9651. May 23, 1960.]

POLICARPIO MENDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SENG KIAM and SE NGA, Defendants-Appellants.

Valerio V. Rovira for Appellants.

Laurentino Ll. Badelles for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; ORDER OF DEFAULT; WHEN PARTY SHOULD NOT BE DECLARED IN DEFAULT. — Where the defendant filed his answer within the period set by the Court in its summons, and the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the answer, and there were circumstances sufficient to excuse the defendant’s tardiness in complying with the order of the Court to furnish plaintiff’s counsel with a copy of his answer, the defendant should not be declared in default.

2. ID.; ID.; WHEN COURT SHOULD BE LIBERAL IN SETTING ASIDE ORDER OF DEFAULT. — The Court should be liberal in setting aside an order declaring a party in default if it appears by affidavits that he has a valid and meritorious defense. (Bañares v. Flordeliza, 51 Phil., 786.)

3. APPEALS; APPEAL WITHOUT BASIS IF NOTHING WAS ADJUDICATED AGAINST APPELLANT. — The judgment of the Court was merely partial and nothing therein was adjudicated in favor of the plaintiff as against one of the defendants. That defendant’s counterclaim was not dismissed, but, on the other hand, was set for hearing. Hence, this appeal has no basis.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


On 1 March 1951 the plaintiff brought an ejectment suit in the Court of First Instance of Lanao to recover from the defendants the possession of a parcel of land containing an area of 11 hectares, situated in Dalipuga, Iligan City, described in the complaint; P10,000, the value of the coconuts that the plaintiff failed to harvest in the parcel of land from 1940 to the filing of the complaint; P960, the value of the coconuts the plaintiff would fail to harvest in the parcel of land every quarter from the date of the filing of the suit until possession thereof is restored to him; and P500 for attorney’s fees. He further prays for costs and other just and equitable relief. On the same date, 1 March, the plaintiff filed a motion praying for extraterritorial service of summons by registered mail pursuant to sections 17 and 18, Rule 7, upon the defendant Seng Kiam, whose known address was Quemoy, China. On 24 March 1951, the defendant Se Nga filed a motion praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations and that the complaint states no cause of action. On 4 April 1951 the plaintiff filed a motion praying that the defendant Se Nga be adjudged in default. On 24 April 1951 the Court entered an order summoning the defendant Seng Kiam to appear before it on 4 September 1951 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning, and to answer the complaint filed against him by the plaintiff, with a warning that should he fail to do so, the plaintiff would take judgment against him by default and demand the relief prayed for in the complaint, and directing that a copy of the order be published in the Manila Times, a newspaper edited in the City of Manila, with general circulation in the province of Lanao, once a week for three consecutive weeks at the expense of the plaintiff, and that a copy of the order and of the complaint be sent by the Clerk of Court by ordinary mail addressed to the defendant Seng Kiam at Quemoy, Republic of China. On 1 September 1951 attorney Francisco A. Obach filed an answer in behalf of the absent defendant denying the claim of the plaintiff, averring that on 3 March 1932, for and in consideration of P1,000, the plaintiff conveyed and sold to the defendant Seng Kiam the parcel of land described in the complaint, as evidenced by an instrument acknowledged before Notary Public Francisco A. Obach, Notarial Document No. 27, page 88, book No. 2, series of 1932, and whatever right or interest the plaintiff had in the parcel of land was already barred by the statute of limitations, and praying that the complaint be dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. On 4 September 1951 the plaintiff filed a motion praying that the absent defendant be declared in default. The Court set the hearing of the pending motions of 4 April and 4 September 1951 for 25 September 1951 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning with notice to the attorneys of the parties. On 25 September 1951 the Court denied the plaintiff’s motions to declare the two defendants in default, deferred resolution of the defendant Se Nga’s motion to dismiss and directed the latter to file his answer.

On 1 November 1951 the plaintiff filed a motion praying that attorney Francisco A. Obach be prohibited from appearing as counsel for the absent defendant for lack of authority to do so and reiterating that the two defendants be declared in default. On 6 November 1951 counsel filed an answer to the plaintiff’s motion averring that there is no reasonable ground to believe that he has no authority to appear for the absent defendant; that the reasons given by the plaintiff are mere conjectures and suppositions not supported by affidavits; and that an attorney appearing for a client is presumed to be authorized to do so. On the same day, 6 November, the Court entered an order declaring the defendant Se Nga in default, authorizing the plaintiff to present his evidence in support of his claim, granting the plaintiff until the next day to file his motion for reconsideration of the order dated 25 September 1951, and setting the hearing of the said motion for reconsideration for 9 November 1951 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning. On 7 November 1951 the plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration of the order of 25 September 1951 on the ground that Seng Kiam’s answer was not served upon him or his counsel pursuant to the Rules. On 8 November 1951 the defendant Se Nga filed a motion praying that the order declaring him in default be set aside on the ground of mistake or excusable neglect, for neither he nor his attorney had been notified of any order of the Court on his motion to dismiss filed on 24 March 1951 and neither he nor his attorney had been served with notice to answer the complaint; and averring that he is just a trustee of his co-defendant who is the real owner of the parcel of land, his ownership dating back to 1932 and his possession from that year having been actual, open, public, peaceful and continuous, and that neither had judgment been rendered in the case against the defendant Se Nga, nor had the plaintiff introduced evidence in support of his claim, and for that reason, no real injury to the plaintiff’s right would result from the setting aside of the order of default. On 9 November 1951 the plaintiff filed an opposition thereto. On the same date, 9 November, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order of 25 September 1951, more than 40 days since then having already elapsed. On 12 December 1951 the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order of 25 September 1951 which had denied the plaintiff’s motion to declare the defendant Seng Kiam in default, but directed attorney Francisco A. Obach to furnish counsel for the plaintiff with a copy of the answer he had filed in behalf of the defendant Seng Kiam, within five days from receipt of a copy of the order; denied the plaintiff’s motion to prohibit attorney Obach from appearing for the defendant Seng Kiam; and set aside the order adjudging Se Nga in default but ordered the latter to answer the complaint within five days from receipt of notice thereof. On 28 December 1951 the defendant Se Nga filed his answer and a counterclaim of P800 for actual damages and P5,000 for injury to his business standing and commercial credit.

On 15 January 1952 the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of 12 December 1951. On 21 October 1952 the defendants filed an opposition thereto. On 21 January 1953 the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

On 26 March 1953 the plaintiff again filed a motion praying that the defendant Seng Kiam be declared in default for failure of his counsel to comply with the order of the Court dated 12 December 1951, directing him to furnish the plaintiff with a copy of the answer filed by his counsel. On 27 March 1953 the Court entered an order granting attorney Obach up to 30 March 1953 to file his written pleading with reference to the plaintiff’s motion of 26 March 1953 and setting the hearing thereof for 30 March 1953 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning. On 30 March 1953 the Court entered an order declaring Seng Kiam in default. On 7 August 1953 the plaintiff filed a motion praying that he be allowed to present his evidence. On 31 August 1953 the plaintiff presented his evidence.

On 1 September 1953 the Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff ordering the defendant Seng Kiam to deliver possession of the parcel of land described in the complaint, to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,400 annually from the date of the filing of the complaint until possession of the parcel of land be restored to the plaintiff, and P500 as attorney’s fees; and the plaintiff to refund to the defendant Seng Kiam the sum of P600 with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint, which may be deducted from the sums to be paid by the defendant Seng Kiam, without pronouncement as to costs.

On 3 November 1953 the defendant Seng Kiam filed a motion praying that the order of 30 March 1953 declaring him in default, and the judgment rendered on 1 September 1953 be set aside. On 19 November 1953 the plaintiff filed an opposition thereto. On 22 January 1954 the plaintiff filed a motion praying for execution of the judgment. On 17 February 1954 the defendants filed a motion objecting to the last mentioned motion, which they sent by registered mail and which the Court received on 19 February 1954. On 22 February 1954 the plaintiff filed an answer to the defendants’ objection to his motion for execution of the judgment. On 14 June 1954 the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for execution. On 2 July 1954 the defendants filed a motion praying for reconsideration of the order granting the plaintiff’s motion for execution. On 10 July 1954 the plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. On 12 July 1954 the plaintiff filed a motion praying for the dismissal of the case against Se Nga on the ground that in his answer filed on 28 December 1951 he admitted that he already had ceased to be the overseer (encargado) of Seng Kiam since the middle of the year 1951. On 22 July 1954 the defendant Se Nga filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss the complaint against him. On 17 November 1954 the Court denied the defendant Seng Kiam’s motion to set aside the judgment of 1 September 1953 and motion for reconsideration of the order granting the plaintiff’s motion for execution, dismissed the case against Se Nga, and set the case for hearing of Se Nga’s counterclaim. On 19 November 1954 the defendants filed their notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.

The appellants claim that the trial court committed the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The Court a quo erred in declaring Seng Kiam in default.

2. The Court a quo erred in authorizing plaintiff-appellee to present his evidence and rendering judgment against Seng Kiam.

3. The Court a quo erred in denying the motion for relief from judgment filed by the defendant-appellant.

4. The Court a quo erred in ordering the execution of judgment.

5. The Court a quo erred in dismissing the case against Se Nga.

It appears that on 1 September 1951, attorney Francisco A. Obach filed an answer in behalf of the appellant Seng Kiam. At the foot of the last page thereof, he wrote, as follows: "I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing answer had been sent to Atty. L. Ll. Badelles, at Iligan City today Sept. 1, 1951." On 25 September 1951, resolving the appellee’s motion’s filed on 4 September 1951 to adjudge the appellant Seng Kiam in default, the Court denied the motion, ruling that attorney Francisco A. Obach already had filed on time his answer. Again, on 12 December 1951, acting on the appellee’s motion filed on November 1951 for the reconsideration of the order of 25 September 1951, on the ground that the appellant Seng Kiam’s answer was not duly served upon him, the Court held that as in the answer filed by attorney Obach on 1 September 1951 the attorney certified that a copy hereof had been sent to counsel for the appellee, the answer may be considered as duly filed. It also directed attorney Obach to furnish counsel for the appellee with a copy of the answer within five days from receipt of a copy of the order. On 4 November 1952 counsel for the appellee sent counsel for the appellant Seng Kiam a letter acknowledging receipt of the latter’s letter dated 25 October 1952, where a copy of the answer filed by him on 1 September 1951 was enclosed. The Clerk of Court was furnished with a copy of this letter, and it now forms part of the record of the case. When on 21 January 1953 the Court entered an order denying the appellee’s motion for reconsideration of the order dated 12 December 1951 it made mention of the propriety and fairness of the admission and allowance of the appellant Seng Kiam’s answer.

The foregoing are sufficient to excuse the appellant Seng Kiam’s tardiness in complying with the order of the Court to furnish counsel for the appellee with a copy of his answer. More, the appellant Seng Kiam filed his answer within the period set by the Court in its summons, and the appellee already had actual knowledge of the appellant Seng Kiam’s answer.

In his petition for relief from judgment, accompanied by an affidavit of merit, filed on 3 November 1953 the appellant Seng Kiam has set up a valid and meritorious defense, to wit: that the parcel of land in question has been sold to him by the appellee as evidenced by a public instrument. The Court should be liberal in setting aside an order declaring a party in default if it appears by affidavits that he has a valid and meritorious defense. 1

Upon motion of the appellee, on 17 November 1954 the Court dismissed the complaint against the appellant Se Nga, on the ground alleged by the appellee that in his answer, he admitted that he already had ceased to be the overseer (encargado) of his co-appellant. In paragraph 5 of the complaint the appellee alleges that the appellant Se Nga "is the one actually in possession of the land," and in the prayer he asks that judgment be rendered in his favor and against the appellants in the manner stated therein. The judgment rendered by the Court was merely partial and nothing therein was adjudged in favor of the appellee as against the appellant Se Nga. The dispositive part of the judgment provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant Seng Kiam, ordering the latter to restitute immediately possession of the land in question to the plaintiff; to pay the plaintiff the sum of Two Thousand Four Hundred (P2,400.00) Pesos annually until the land is restituted to him; and to pay furthermore the plaintiff the sum of Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos as attorney’s fees. Plaintiff, however, is hereby ordered to refund to defendant Seng Kiam the original loan of Six Hundred (P600.00) Pesos with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, which amount, together with the interest thereon, may be deducted from the sum to be paid by defendant Seng Kiam to plaintiff Policarpio Mendez as herein ordered.

Without pronouncement as to costs.

The Court did not dismiss his counterclaim but set it for hearing on 17 November 1954. His appeal, therefore, has no basis.

The order dated 30 March 1953 adjudging the appellant Seng Kiam in default, the judgment dated 1 September 1953 rendered against him, the order dated 14 June 1954 granting the appellee’s motion for execution of the judgment against him, and the order dated 17 November 1954 denying his motion for reconsideration, appealed from, are set aside and the case remanded to the Court of origin for further proceedings. The order of 17 November 1954 dismissing the complaint against the appellant Se Nga, appealed from, is affirmed, with costs against the appellee.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Bañares v. Flordeliza, 51 Phil., 786.




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






May-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12007 May 16, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    108 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13831 May 16, 1960 - DIOSDADO CHAVEZ v. BUENAVENTURA GANZON

    108 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-13092 May 18, 1960 - EMILIA MENDOZA v. CAMILO BULANADI

    108 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-13208 May 18, 1960 - OREN IGO v. NATIONAL ABACA CORP.

    108 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-13783 May 18, 1960 - FRANCISCO CAPALUNGAN v. FULGENCIO MEDRANO

    108 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-15300 May 18, 1960 - MANUEL REGALADO v. PROVINCIAL CONSTABULARY COMMANDER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

    108 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-10948 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO MORTERO

    108 Phil 31

  • G.R. Nos. L-11795-96 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RECARIDO JARDENIL

    108 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-12446 May 20, 1960 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

    108 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-12546 May 20, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS P. PAREDES

    108 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-12726 May 20, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. VISITACION CONSUNTO

    108 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-13046 May 20, 1960 - EGMIDIO T. PASCUA v. PEDRO TUASON

    108 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13372 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO SABUERO

    108 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-13484 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR CAMERINO

    108 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13836 May 20, 1960 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-13846 May 20, 1960 - PANGASINAN EMPLOYEES, LABORERS AND TENANTS ASSN. v. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ

    108 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-14332 May 20, 1960 - KAPISANAN SA MRR CO. v. CREDIT UNION

    108 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-14355 May 20, 1960 - JOSE D. DACUDAO v. AGUSTIN D. DUEÑAS

    108 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-14388 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO DAYRIT

    108 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-14426 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN BAYONA

    108 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-9651 May 23, 1960 - POLICARPIO MENDEZ v. SENG KIAM

    108 Phil 109

  • G.R. Nos. L-10046-47 May 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON RODRIGUEZ

    108 Phil 118

  • G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400 May 23, 1960 - JOSE DE LA PAZ v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC.

    108 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-13806 May 23, 1960 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-13965 May 23, 1960 - CONSTANTINO LEDUNA, ET., AL. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

    108 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-14981 May 23, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

    108 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15339 May 23, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-15485 May 23, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-16445 May 23, 1960 - VICENTE ACAIN v. BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARMEN

    108 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-12624 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GANTANG KASIM

    108 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-12690 May 25, 1960 - ARCADIO M. QUIAMBAO v. ANICETO MORA

    108 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-12766 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. S. JACALA, ET., AL.

    108 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-12916 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO AQUIDADO

    108 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-13296 May 25, 1960 - SOFRONIO T. UNTALAN v. VICENTE G. GELLA

    108 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-13391 May 25, 1960 - AUREA MATIAS v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    108 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-13464 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-13651 May 25, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF JARO v. HIGINO MILITAR

    108 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-13711 May 25, 1960 - GREGORIO SALAZAR v. JUSTINIANA DE TORRES

    108 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-13819 May 25, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BLAS GUTIERREZ

    108 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-13933 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    108 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-14115 May 25, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SUPERIOR GAS AND EQUIPMENT CO.

    108 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-14134 May 25, 1960 - BISHOP OF LEGASPI v. MANUEL CALLEJA

    108 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-14214 May 25, 1960 - RICHARD VELASCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-14500 May 25, 1960 - QUIRINA PACHOCO v. AGRIPINA TUMANGDAY

    108 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-14515 May 25, 1960 - ENRIQUE ZOBEL v. GUILLERMO MERCADO

    108 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-14590 May 25, 1960 - FERNANDO DATU v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON

    108 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-14619 May 25, 1960 - MIGUEL YUVIENGCO v. PRIMITIVO GONZALES

    108 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-14722 May 25, 1960 - IGNACIO MESINA v. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA

    108 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-15132 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO B. CRUZ

    108 Phil 255

  • G.R. Nos. L-16341 & L-16470 May 25, 1960 - ADRIANO RABE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12150 May 26, 1960 - BENJAMIN CO., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12876 May 26, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL UNITED WORKERS, INC.

    108 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-13847 May 26, 1960 - DOMINADOR BORDA v. ENRIQUE TABALON

    108 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. L-14319 May 26, 1960 - EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. SUSANO R. NEGADO

    108 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-15073 May 26, 1960 - OPERATOR’S INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    108 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-15144 May 26, 1960 - ALFREDO A. AZUELO v. RAMON ARNALDO

    108 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-15777 May 26, 1960 - ANTONIO NIPAY v. JOSE M. MANGULAT

    108 Phil 297

  • G.R. Nos. L-14254 & L-14255 May 27, 1960 - STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 300

  • G.R. Nos. L-10371 & L-10409 May 30, 1960 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. DANIEL RAYALA

    108 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-11551 May 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALFONSO FAVIS

    108 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-12260 May 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT

    108 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-12627 May 30, 1960 - ALFONSO TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-12798 May 30, 1960 - VISAYAN CEBU TERMINAL CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    108 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-12907 May 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO AMBAHANG

    108 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960 - FAUSTINO IGNACIO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    108 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-12963 May 30, 1960 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. ALFONSO YUCHENGCO

    108 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-13034 May 30, 1960 - GREGORIO ARONG v. VICTOR WAJING

    108 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-13153 May 30, 1960 - GLICERIO ROMULO v. ESTEBAN DASALLA

    108 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-13223 May 30, 1960 - OSCAR MENDOZA ESPUELAS v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF BOHOL

    108 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. L-13412 May 30, 1960 - DESTILLERIA LIM TUACO & COMPANY, INC. v. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    108 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-13419 May 30, 1960 - CASIANO SALADAS v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY

    108 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-13662 May 30, 1960 - CEFERINO ESTEBAN v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    108 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. L-13793 May 30, 1960 - PACIFIC LINE, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-13845 May 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

    108 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-13910 May 30, 1960 - MANILA YELLOW TAXI-CAB, INC. v. EDMUNDO L. CASTELO

    108 Phil 394

  • G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149 May 30, 1960 - UY HA v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

    108 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-14280 May 30, 1960 - JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-14342 May 30, 1960 - CIRIACO L. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-14391 May 30, 1960 - GENARO SENEN v. MAXIMA A. DE PICHAY

    108 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14392 May 30, 1960 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PABLO CUNETA

    108 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-14459 May 30, 1960 - AGRINELDA N. MICLAT v. ELVIRA GANADEN

    108 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-14681 May 30, 1960 - ROSARIO PO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    108 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-14691 May 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO N. TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14700 May 30, 1960 - BENITO R. GUINTO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14800 May 30, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. CITY OF MANILA

    108 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-14949 May 30, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 469

  • G.R. Nos. L-14991-94 May 30, 1960 - JAIME T. BUENAFLOR v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORP.

    108 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-15044 May 30, 1960 - BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15198 May 30, 1960 - EDUARDO J. JALANDONI v. NARRA

    108 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. L-15344 May 30, 1960 - JOSE R. VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-15550 May 30, 1960 - AMADO TAGULAO v. FORTUNATA PADLAN- MUNDOK

    108 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15614 May 30, 1960 - GSISEA v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA

    108 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15696 May 30, 1960 - ELPIDIO LLARENA v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-15792 May 30, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. ANDRES REYES

    108 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. L-16837-40 May 30, 1960 - EUSTAQUIO R. CAWA v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO

    108 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-10843 May 31, 1960 - EVANGELINE WENZEL v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC.

    108 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-11555 May 31, 1960 - DELFIN CUETO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-11805 May 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC.

    108 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-12068 May 31, 1960 - EUFROCINA TAMISIN v. AMBROCIO ODEJAR

    108 Phil 560

  • G.R. Nos. L-13033 & L-13701 May 31, 1960 - LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-13295 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MARIO

    108 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13523 May 31, 1960 - ANICETO MADRID v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-13578 May 31, 1960 - MARCIANO A. ROXAS v. FLORENCIO GALINDO

    108 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. L-13858 May 31, 1960 - CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    108 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 13946 May 31, 1960 - MARSMAN AND COMPANY, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-14015 May 31, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

    108 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-14020 May 31, 1960 - MANILA LETTER CARRIER’S ASSN. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-14201 May 31, 1960 - OLEGARIO BRITO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GREGORIO MONTEJO

    108 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14749 May 31, 1960 - SILVESTRE PINGOL v. AMADO C. TIGNO

    108 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14885 May 31, 1960 - MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MARCELINO S. MANALO

    108 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-14907 May 31, 1960 - PURA M. DE LA TORRE v. VENANCIO TRINIDAD

    108 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-15074 May 31, 1960 - CARMEN FUENTES v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

    108 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-15122 May 31, 1960 - PAQUITO SALABSALO v. FRANCISCO ANGCOY

    108 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-15130 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLIMACO DEMIAR

    108 Phil 651