Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > April 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11406 April 26, 1961 - MARIANO J. SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11406. April 26, 1961.]

MARIANO J. SANTOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN, Respondent-Appellee.

Napoleon M. Gamo for Petitioner-Appellant.

Meliton v. Chicote for Respondent-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; AGRICULTURAL TENANCY; EXPENSES FOR MAKING LANDHOLDING FIT FOR CULTIVATION, NATURE OF. — The expenses incurred by a tenant for the levelling of the land and the construction of dikes or in making the landholding fit for cultivation or farming are not what in law may be considered as necessary expenses; at most they could be considered as useful, because the necessary expenses are those made for the preservation of the property or thing upon which they have been expended.

2. ID.; ID.; USEFUL EXPENSES; TO WHOM REFUNDABLE; TENANT NOT A POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH IN RELATION TO LANDLORD; RIGHT OF TENANT TO REMOVE IMPROVEMENTS; WHEN MAYBE EXERCISED. — Useful expenses are to be refunded only to a possessor in good faith, and a tenant whose possession is necessarily of a precarious character cannot be considered as a possessor in good faith in relation to his landlord. The tenant’s only right with respect to such improvements is to take them away if it can be done without injury or damage to the property or thing rented or lease (Alburo v. Villanueva, 7 Phil., 277, 280-281).

3. ID.; ID.; DAMAGES; TENANT ILLEGALLY DISPOSSESSED OF LANDHOLDING TO INDEMNITY EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS SHARE IN THE HARVEST. — A tenant illegally dispossessed is entitled by way of indemnity to the equivalent of what would have been his share in the harvest if he had not been illegally dispossessed. (Sec. 90, Act 4054, as amended).

4. APPEAL AND ERROR; ORIGINAL DECISION INCOMPLETE; PERIOD OF APPEAL COUNTED FROM RECEIPT OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION. — Where the original decision is incomplete because it has not resolved one of the issues involved, and further proceedings was ordered and a supplemental decision had to be rendered thereafter, the period of appeal should be computed from the date petitioner received notice of the supplemental decision.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Appeal from the (a) decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations dated June 12, 1956, from its (b) supplemental decision dated September 17 of the same year and from (c) its order dated October 16, 1956.

On April 5, 1956 petitioner filed a petition in the Court of Agrarian Relations for the ejectment of his tenant, the respondent Alejandro de Guzman, from his landholding located at Angono, Rizal, because the same was included in a homesite subdivision duly approved by the National Planning Commission. On April 10 of the same year, respondent filed his answer, later superseded by an amended answer dated April 27 of the same year, wherein he denied that he had refused to surrender the land he was tenanting, and alleged that petitioner was requiring him to sign a document waiving his claim for indemnity. As counterclaim, he alleged the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In or about the year 1943, after respondent was transferred from his former lot to the one now in question, the same was underdeveloped, and that respondent was compelled to construct new rice paddies (pilapil) for which he spent the sum of one hundred fifty (P150.00) pesos more or less;"

2. At the time respondent was placed in the lot now in question there were six (6) big mud puddles on the land which were caused by carabaos, and which respondent caused to be filled at his own expense in the sum of two hundred pesos (P200.00), more or less;

"3. In or about the year 1944, petitioner caused the subdivision of the portion of the lot being tilled by the respondent without notice end without paying or reimbursing the expenses incurred by the latter in developing the land so subdivided by the petitioner;

"4. In or about the year 1951, respondent caused to be levelled and converted into rice field another part of his lot with an area of one (1) hectare, more or less, for the levelling of which respondent spent five hundred pesos (P500.00); that in 1954, petitioner bulldozed and constructed on the portion so converted and developed a road running parallel and along the middle of the same all without notice and consent of the respondent;

"5. From the time of the construction of said road, respondent has been prevented from tilling that portion not occupied by the road as he was unjustly prevented by petitioner from doing so."cralaw virtua1aw library

At the trial the parties submitted the following stipulation of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the area of the entire landholding presently in the possession of tenant-respondent, Alejandro de Guzman, is 2 1/2 hectares more or less;

"2. That the portion being taken for subdivision purposes by the owner-petitioner, Don Mariano J. Santos, is 4,000 to 5,000 square meters more or less;

"3. That the portion which is not the subject of this petition and which is not being taken by the owner petitioner for subdivision purposes is two (2) hectares, more or less;"

After the parties had presented their evidence the court rendered the decision of June 12, 1956, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petitioner is hereby authorized to convert that portion of respondent’s holding affected by the subdivision plan approved by the National Planning Commission into residential site and respondent is hereby ordered to vacate that portion of his holding and surrender possession of the same to the petitioner, after this decision has become final and executory. However, should the petitioner fail to convert that portion of respondent’s holding into residential lots within one year from the finality of this decision, the respondent shall have the right to demand possession of the land and damages incurred by him because of his dispossession.

"Petitioner is hereby ordered to pay the respondent the amount of two hundred seventy six pesos (P276.00) as indemnity for the improvements introduced by the latter in his holding located near the town cemetery of Angono, Rizal.

"Let this case be set for further hearing for the reception of evidence on the average normal harvest of the respondent’s former holding located near the Angono cemetery and the sharing ratio observed.

"Petitioner’s and respondent’s other claims are dismissed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to the second to the last paragraph of the decision above-quoted, further proceedings were had in the case and thereafter the court rendered the supplemental decision of September 17, 1956, awarding additional damages to the Respondent.

The petition before us is not concerned with the main issue — whether the tenant of an agricultural land may be ejected from part of his landholding if the owner thereof needs the same for a homesite subdivision duly approved by the National Planning Commission. It involves only the damages awarded by the Court of Agrarian Relations to the tenant whose ejectment was authorized by the decision of June 12, 1956.

The damages awarded in the aforesaid decision were the sums of money allegedly spent by the respondent for the leveling of a portion of the land cultivated by him and the construction of dikes and paddies. The lower court found that petitioner’s land near the town cemetery, cultivated by respondent, was stony and therefore gave poor harvest; that petitioner’s overseer had ordered respondent to put all said land under cultivation, for which reason the latter hired three farmhands to level the land and constructed dikes; that the three farmhands worked for 18 days for the first year, 15 days for the second and 13 for the third, each receiving a wage of P2.00 per day, the total expenses amounting to P276.00. As the lower court was of the opinion that the improvements thus made were necessary and imperative to make the landholding fit for cultivation and farming, it held that respondent should be indemnified at least for the wages of the hired hands, by virtue of the provisions of Arts. 446 and 546 of the New Civil Code.

The expenses incurred by respondent are not what in law may be considered as necessary expenses; at most they could be considered as useful expenses. Necessary expenses are those made for the preservation of the property or thing upon which they have been expended. Obviously, the expenses incurred by respondent for the leveling of the land and the construction of dikes therein do not fall within this category.

Upon the other hand, useful expenses are to be refunded only to a possessor in good faith. It is already settled law in this jurisdiction that a tenant — whose possession is necessarily of a precarious character — cannot be considered as a possessor in good faith in relation to his landlord. The right of a tenant in relation to improvements of the nature of those made by respondent on petitioner’s land is not to recover the cost thereof but only to take away such improvements were it possible to do so without injury or damage to the property or thing rented or leased. (Alburo v. Villanueva, 7 Phil., 277, 280-281)

With respect to the damages awarded in the supplemental decision, it appears that the lower court expressly found that in the year 1953, without any order from the court, petitioner stopped respondent from working or cultivating a portion of his land near the town cemetery, and constructed a road running thru the same for the purpose of a subdivision which was later on abandoned. This entitles respondent to indemnity.

According to Section 90 of Act 4054, as amended, which was the law in force in the years 1953 and 1954, in case a tenant is illegally dispossessed, he shall be entitled by way of indemnity to the equivalent of what would have been his share in the harvest if he had not been illegally dispossessed. On the other hand, under Section 2, Republic Act 1199, which came into effect on August 30, 1954, the measure of indemnity is the extent of the landholder’s participation in the harvest. But as the land from which respondent was unlawfully ejected in 1953 was not put under cultivation thereafter, there was, at the time of the rendition of the decision, no appropriate means of determining the indemnity due to Respondent. For this reason, the lower court held that such indemnity may be fairly assessed or fixed on the basis of "the estimated average share of the respondent and petitioner in the harvest in the holding from which he was ejected, for the three years preceding his ejectment", as shown by the following stipulation submitted by the parties:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The hearing, pursuant to such directive in the decision, was conducted on July 18, 1956. At this hearing the parties admitted that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In 1953, respondent was not able to work his holding near the cemetery. He was about to start to work on the same but he was not able to do so.

"2. The crops planted on the land were harvested in the same calendar year in which the crops were planted.

"3. The net harvests of the land in question, the sharing ratio and the landholder’s share were:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Years Harvest Landholder’s Sharing Ratio In favor of

Share

1947 20-08-0 5-02-0 75:25 Tenant

1948 19-00-0 3-20-0 80:20 Tenant

1949 12-16-4 2-12-0 75-25 Tenant

1950 6-22-0 1-5-0 75-25 Tenant

1951 2-15-0 0-15-1 75:25 Tenant

1952 3 1/2 0-20-5 75:25 Tenant

We find this ruling to be fair in view of the circumstances of the case.

In relation to the order of the lower court dated October 16, 1956 to the effect that its decision of June 12 of the same year had become already final when petitioner filed a motion to have the same reconsidered, it appears that said decision was incomplete because it provided that the case be set for further hearing for the reception of evidence on the average normal harvest of respondent’s former holding located near the Angono cemetery. According to the record, after said additional proceedings were had, the court rendered its supplemental decision of September 17, 1956. The record does not disclose the exact date when petitioner received notice of this supplemental decision, but on September 29 of the same year, that is, 12 days from the date of the supplemental decision, he filed a motion for its reconsideration. Assuming, therefore, that petitioner received notice of said supplemental decision on the very date it was rendered — September 17, 1956 —it is clear that only 12 days had elapsed when he filed his motion for reconsideration. It appears further that the lower court denied said motion in its order of October 16, 1956, notice of which was served on petitioner on October 18 of the same year. The following day he paid the docket fees required for the filing of the petition for review with this Court and filed a petition for extension of time to file said petition for review, which was granted, On October 29 petitioner filed another petition for extension, which was also granted, and within the extended period he filed the corresponding petition for review on October 30, 1956.

Upon the above facts, we believe that the decision of June 12, 1956 had not become final because the period of appeal should be computed from the date petitioner received notice of the supplemental decision of September 17, 1956. There was but one case before the lower court. Its first decision (of June 12, 1956) was, as already stated, incomplete, the same not having resolved one of the issues involved in the litigation. For this reason the trial had to be reopened and a supplemental decision had to be rendered. To compel petitioner to appeal, first from the decision of June 12, 1956, and again appeal separately from the supplemental decision of September 17 of the same year would have resulted in multiplicity of appeals in a single suit.

WHEREFORE, modified as above indicated, the decision of June 12, 1956 is affirmed in all other respects; the supplemental decision of September 17, 1956 is also affirmed, but the order of October 16, 1956 is reversed. Without costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, Actg. C.J. and Concepcion, J., took no part.




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-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 439 April 12, 1961 - LEDESMA DE JESUS-PARAS v. QUINCIANO VAILOCES

  • G.R. No. L-14158 April 12, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14324 April 12, 1961 - IN RE: WILLIAM LI YAO v. NARCISA B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15705 April 15, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DY CHAY

  • G.R. No. L-15861 April 15, 1961 - LIM GIOK v. BATAAN CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13325 April 20, 1961 - SANTIAGO GANCAYCO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15102 April 20, 1961 - ALFREDO GARCHITORENA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15950 April 20, 1961 - GERVACIO DAUZ v. FELIPE ELEOSIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16235 April 20, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS MAGDALUYO

  • G.R. No. L-16473 April 20, 1961 - FELISA QUIJANO v. JACINTO TAMETA

  • G.R. No. L-16739 April 20, 1961 - VICENTE PENUELA, ET AL. v. ERNESTO HORNADA

  • G.R. No. L-16777 April 20, 1961 - QUINTIN CHAN v. JUAN B. ESPE

  • G.R. No. L-14711 April 22, 1961 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE & MANILA RAILROAD CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-10367 April 25, 1961 - MARY MCD. BACHRACH v. PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12602 April 25, 1961 - LUIS PINEDA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12918 April 25, 1961 - SANTIAGO BALMONTE v. JULIAN MARCELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15123 April 25, 1961 - GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC. v. SATURNINO C. PINOON

  • G.R. No. L-15957 April 25, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-16051 April 25, 1961 - FERNANDO GOCHOCO, ET AL. v. CHANG HIOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16733 April 25, 1961 - MANUELA MENDOZA ET AL. v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. No. L-17046 April 25, 1961 - JUAN ADUAN, ET AL. v. PANTALEON ALBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11406 April 26, 1961 - MARIANO J. SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-12822 April 26, 1961 - LIM BUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12836 April 26, 1961 - MANILA TRADING AND SUPPLY CO. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13143 April 26, 1961 - DEMETRIO CARPENA, ET AL. v. LUCIANO MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14756 April 26, 1961 - EMILIANO BALADJAY v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15381 and 82 April 26, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA MAYDIN

  • G.R. No. L-15410 April 26, 1961 - MANUEL M. ANTONIO v. MAURO SAMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15415 April 26, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO ABACITE, ET AL. .

  • G.R. No. L-15700 April 26, 1961 - CRESENCIA VDA. DE BAKIT v. VERONICO ASPERIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15872 April 26, 1961 - CITY OF MANILA v. ANTONIA EBAY

  • G.R. No. L-16234 April 26, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANITO FETALVERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16596 April 26, 1961 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY OF DAGUPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16659 April 26, 1961 - ALFREDO REYES v. JOSE PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-16878 April 26, 1961 - JUAN SANCHEZ v. OSCAR DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-16963 April 26, 1961 - ROXAS Y CIA v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12236 April 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO BERSALONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14793 April 28, 1961 - PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH v. JUANA MATEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15065 April 28, 1961 - CESAR D. MILITAR v. VENTURA TORCILLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15139 April 28, 1961 - FELIX DE CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. EMITERIO M. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15877 April 28, 1961 - JOVENAL R. FERNANDEZ v. TAN TIONG TICK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15952 April 28, 1961 - SYBIL SAMSON, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16355-56 April 28, 1961 - IGNACIO GONZALES v. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16560 April 28, 1961 - TOMAS BENAZA, ET AL. v. ZOILO BONILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10763 April 29, 1961 - DELFIN YAMBAO v. ANGELINA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11084 April 29, 1961 - ALEJANDRO QUEMUEL, ET AL. v. ANGEL S. OLAES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11499 April 29, 1961 - IN RE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GO BON LEE

  • G.R. No. L-11639 April 29, 1961 - DANIEL DE LEON v. JOAQUIN HENSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11765 April 29, 1961 - DAMASO DESCUTIDO, ET AL. v. JACINTO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12888 April 29, 1961 - R. F. NAVARRO v. SUGAR PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13252 April 29, 1961 - CONSUELO TAN VDA. DE ZALDARRIAGA v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13515 April 29, 1961 - PAZ BACABAC v. VICENTE F. DELFIN, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13976 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO Z. OBALDO

  • G.R. No. L-13994 April 29, 1961 - VALERIO P. TRIA v. WENCESLAO A. LIRAG

  • G.R. No. L-14146 April 29, 1961 - NG LIAM KENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14220 April 29, 1961 - DOMINGO E. LEONOR v. FRANCISCO SYCIP

  • G.R. No. L-14421 April 29, 1961 - GUAGUA ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANT COMPANY, INC. v. COLLE CTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14603 April 29, 1961 - RICARDO LACERNA, ET AL. v. AGATONA PAURILLO VDA. DE CORCINO

  • G.R. No. L-14712 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO CORTES

  • G.R. No. L-14783 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL P. AMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14871 April 29, 1961 - FLORENCIA M. GUANCO v. SEGUNDO MONTEBLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14969 April 29, 1961 - LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION v. CEFERINO ASCUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15014 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-15171 April 29, 1961 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15225 April 29, 1961 - C. G. NAZARIO & SONS, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15347 April 29, 1961 - GENERAL BUS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GREGORIO CUNANAN

  • G.R. No. L-15386 April 29, 1961 - JOSE L. UY v. PACITA UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15394 April 29, 1961 - CESARIO DE LEON, ET AL. v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15445 April 29, 1961 - IN RE: FLORANTE C. TIMBOL v. JOSE C. CANO

  • G.R. Nos. L-15490-93 April 29, 1961 - CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORPORATION v. JAIME T. BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. L-15506 April 29, 1961 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15515 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER M. PERETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15564 April 29, 1961 - PASCUAL STA. ANA v. EULALIO MENLA

  • G.R. No. L-15739 April 29, 1961 - EMILIANO LACSON, SR. v. JACINTO DELGADO

  • G.R. No. L-15768 April 29, 1961 - TALIM QUARRY COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. GAVINO BARTOLA BERNARDO ABELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15775 April 29, 1961 - TAN YU CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15960 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REGINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15973 April 29, 1961 - PERPETUA GARGOLLO v. ALFREDO DUERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16071 April 29, 1961 - RUFINO O. ABUDA v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-16137 April 29, 1961 - VIRGINIA AMOR, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16138 April 29, 1961 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE CO, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16221 April 29, 1961 - RODOLFO GERONIMO v. MUNICIPALlTY OF CABA, LA UNION

  • G.R. No. L-16422 April 29, 1961 - JUSTINA C. SANTOS, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16448 April 29, 1961 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY v. HONESTO G. NICANDRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16509 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16535 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANTALEON ELPEDES

  • G.R. No. L-17015 April 29, 1961 - GEORGE H. EVANS, ETC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17114 April 29, 1961 - JULIA M. NEIBERT v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-17202 April 29, 1961 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. COTO LABOR UNION (NLU), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17377 April 29, 1961 - FRANCISCO LAGUNILLA v. JUAN O. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18359 April 29, 1961 - CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.