Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > June 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23445 June 23, 1966 REMEDIOS NUGUID v. FELIX NUGUID, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23445. June 23, 1966.]

REMEDIOS NUGUID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FELIX NUGUID and PAZ SALONGA NUGUID, Oppositors-Appellees.

Custodio O. Partade for Petitioner-Appellant.

Beltran, Beltran & Beltran for oppositors-appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PROBATE OF WILL; COURT’S AREA OF INQUIRY LIMITED TO EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF WILL; WHEN COURT MAY RULE ON INTRINSIC VALIDITY; CASE AT BAR. — In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the court’s area of inquiry is limited to an examination of, and resolution on, the extrinsic validity of the will; the due execution thereof; the testatrix’s testamentary capacity; and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed the by law. In the case at bar, however, a peculiar situation exists. The parties shunted aside the question of whether or not the will should be allowed probate. They questioned the intrinsic validity of the will. Normally, this comes only after the court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. But if the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained. In the event of probate or if the court rejects the will, probability exists that the case will come up once again before this Court on the same issue of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the will. The result would be waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety. These practical considerations induce this Court to meet head-on the issue of the nullity of the provisions of the will in question, there being a justiciable controversy awaiting solution.

2. SUCCESSION; PRETERITION; OMISSION OF NAMES OF FORCED HEIRS. — The deceased left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. But she left forced heirs in the direct ascending time — her parents. Her will does not explicitly disinherit them but simply omits their names altogether. Said will rather than he labelled ineffective disinheritance is clearly one in which the said forced heirs suffer from preterition.

3. ID.; ID.; PRETERITION DISTINGUISHED FROM DISINHERITANCE. — Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because the are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited." (Neri, Et. Al. v. Akutin, at al., 72 Phil., p. 325.) Disinheritance; in turn, "is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of heir share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law." (Justice J.B.L. Reyes and R.C. Puno, "An Outline of Philippine Civil Law," 1956 ed., Vol. III, p. 8, citing cases.) Disinheritance is always "voluntary" ; preterition upon the other hand, is presumed to be "involuntary." (Sanchez Roman, Estudios de Derecho Civil, 2nd edition, Volume 20, p. 1131.)

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; EFFECTS FLOWING FROM PRETERITION AND DISINHERITANCE. — The effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of disinheritance. Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code "shall annul the institution of heir. "This annulment is in toto, unless in the will there are, in addition, testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. In ineffective disinheritance under Article 918 of the same Code, such disinheritance shall also "annul the institution of heirs," but only "insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited," which last phrase was omitted in the case of preterition. (III Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1961. Edition, p. 172.) Better stated yet, in disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived.

6. ID.; ID.; WHEN LEGACIES AND DEVISES MERIT CONSIDERATION. — Legacies and devises merit consideration only when they are so expressly given as such in a will. Nothing in Article 854 of the Civil Code suggests that the mere institution of a universal heir in a will — void because of preterition — would give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance. As to him, the will is inexistent. There must he, in addition to such institution, a testamentary disposition granting him bequests or legacies apart and separate from the nullified institution of heir.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; INSTITUTION OF HEIRS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED LEGACY. — Petitioner insists that the compulsory heirs ineffectively disinherited are entitled to receive their legitimes, but that the institution of heir "is not invalidated," although the inheritance of the heir so instituted is reduced to the extent of said legitimes. This theory, if adopted, will result in a complete abrogation of Articles 814 and 851 of the Civil Code. If every case of institution of heirs may be made to fall into the concept of legacies and betterments reducing the bequest accordingly, then the provisions of Articles 814 and 851 regarding total or partial nullity of the institution, would be absolutely meaningless and will never have any application at all. And the remaining provisions contained in said articles concerning the reduction of inofficious legacies or betterments would be a surplusage because they would be absorbed by Article 817 of the same code.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


Rosario Nuguid, a resident of Quezon City, died on December 30, 1962, single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, and 6 brothers and sisters namely: Alfredo, Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes and Alberto, all surnamed Nuguid.

On May 18, 1963, petitioner Remedios Nuguid filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid on November 17, 1951, some 11 years before her demise. Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued to her.

On June 25, 1963, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, concededly the legitimate father and mother of the deceased Rosario Nuguid, entered their opposition to the probate of her will. Ground therefor, inter alia, is that by the institution of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as universal heir of the deceased, oppositors — who are compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct ascending line — were illegally preterited and that in consequence the institution is void.

On August 29, 1963, before a hearing was had on the petition for probate and objection thereto, oppositors moved to dismiss on the ground of absolute preterition.

On September 6, 1963, petitioner registered her opposition to the motion to dismiss.

The court’s order of November 8, 1963, held that "the will in question is a complete nullity and will perforce create intestacy of the estate of the deceased Rosario Nuguid" and dismissed the petition without costs.

A motion to reconsider having been thwarted below, petitioner came to this Court on appeal.

1. Right at the outset, a procedural aspect has engaged our attention. The case is for the probate of a will. The court’s area of inquiry is limited — to an examination of, and resolution on, the extrinsic validity of the will. The due execution thereof, the testatrix’s testamentary capacity, and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities by law prescribed, are the questions solely to be represented, and to be acted upon, by the court. Said court — at this stage of the proceedings — is not called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will, the legality of any devise or legacy therein. 1

A peculiar situation is here thrust upon us. The parties shunted aside the question of whether or not the will should he allowed probate. For them, the meat of the case is the intrinsic validity of the will. Normally, this comes only after the court has declared that the will been duly authenticated. 2 But petitioner and oppositors, in the court below and here on appeal, travelled on the issue of law, to wit: Is the will intrinsically a nullity?

We pause to reflect. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained. On the contrary, this litigation will be protracted. And for aught that appears in the record, in the event of probate or if the court rejects the will, probability exists that the case will come once again before us on the same issue of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the will. Result: waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief that we might as well meet head-on the issue of the nullity of the provisions of the will in question. 3 After all, there exists a justiciable controversy crying for solution.

2. Petitioner’s sole assignment of error challenges the correctness of the conclusion below that the will is a complete nullity. This exacts from us a study of the disputed will and the applicable statute.

Reproduced hereunder is the will:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Nov. 17, 1951.

I, ROSARIO NUGUID, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, having amassed a certain amount of property, do hereby give, devise, and bequeath all of the property which I may have when I die to my beloved sister Remedios Nuguid, age 34, residing with me at 38-B Iriga, Q.C. In witness whereof, I have signed my name this seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.

(Sgd.) Illegible

T/ ROSARIO NUGUID"

The statute we are called upon to apply is Article 854 of the Civil Code which, in part, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. shall annul the institution of heir; the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Except for inconsequential variation in terms, the foregoing is a reproduction of Article 814 of the Civil Code of Spain of 1889, which is similarly herein copied, thus —

"Art. 814. The preterition of one or all of the forced heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall void the institution of heir; but the legacies and betterments 4 shall be valid, in so far as they are not inofficious. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

A comprehensive understanding of the term preterition employed in the law becomes a necessity. On this point Manresa comments:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"La pretericion consiste en omitir al heredero en el testamento. O no se le nombra siquiera, o aun nombrandole como padre, hijo, etc., no se leinstituye heredero ni se le deshereda expresamente, ni se le asigna parte alguna de los bienes, resultando privado de un modo tacito de su derecho a legitima.

Para que exista pretericion, con arreglo al articulo 814, basta que en el testamento omita el testador a uno cualquiera de aquelloa a quienes por su muerte corresponda la herencia forzosa.

Se necesita, pues, a) Que la omision se refiera a un heredero forzoso.) b) Que la omision sea completa; que el heredero forzoso nada reciba en el testamento. 5

It may now appear trite but nonetheless helpful in giving us a clear perspective of the problem before us, to have on hand a clear-cut definition of the word annul:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To ‘annul’ means to abrogate, to make void;. . .In re Morrow’s Estate, 54 A. 342, 343, 204 Pa. 484." 6

"The word ‘annul’ as used in the statute requiring court to annul alimony provisions of divorce decree upon wife’s remarriage means to reduce to nothing; to annihilate; obliterate; blot out; to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to abolish. N.J.S.A. 2:50 — 38 (now N.J.S.2A:34-25). Madden v. Madden, 40 A.2d 611, 614, 136 N.J. Eq. 132." 7

"ANNUL. To reduce to nothing; annihilate; obliterate; to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to abolish; to do away with. Ex parte Mitchell, 123 W. Va. 283, S.E. 2d. 771, 774." 8

And now, back to the facts and the law. The deceased Rosario Nuguid left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. But she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line — her parents, now oppositors Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid. And, the will completely omits both of them: They thus received nothing by the testament; tacitly, they were deprived of their legitime; neither were they expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition. Such preterition in the words of Manresa "anulara siempre la institución de heredero, dando caracter absoluto a este ordenamiento," referring to the mandate of Article 814, now 854 of the Civil Code. 9 The one- sentence will here institutes petitioner as the sole, universal heir — nothing more. No specific legacies or bequests are therein provided for. It is in this posture that we say that the nullity is complete. Perforce, Rosario Nuguid died intestate. Says Manresa:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"En cuanto a la institucion de heredero, se anula. Lo que se anula deja de existir, en todo o en parte? No se añade limitacion alguna, como en el articulo 851, en el que se expresa que se anulara la institucion de heredero en cuanto perjudique a la legitima del desheredado. Debe, pues, entenderse que la anulacion es completa o total, y que este articulo como especial en el caso que le motiva, rige con preferencia al 817." 10

The same view is expressed by Sanches Roman: —

"La consequencia de la anulacion o nulidad de la institucion de heredero por pretericion de uno, varios o todos los forzosos en linea recta, es la apertura de la sucesion intestada, total o parcial. Sera total, cuando el testador que comete la pretericion, hubiere dispuesto de todos los bienes por titulo universal de herencia en favor de los herederos instituidos, cuya institucion se anula, porque asi lo exige la generalidad del precepto legal del art. 814, al determinar, como efecto de la pretericion el de que ‘anulara la institucion de heredero’. . ." 11

Really, as we analyze the word annul employed in the statute, there is no escaping the conclusion that the universal institution of petitioner to the entire inheritance results in totally abrogating the will. Because, the nullification of such institution of universal heir — without any other testamentary disposition in the will — amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written. Carefully worded and in clear terms, Article 854 offers no leeway for inferential interpretation. Giving it an expansive meaning will tear up by the roots the fabric of the statute. On this point, Sanchez Roman cites the "Memoria annual del Tribunal Supremo, correspondiente a 1908," which in our opinion expresses the rule of interpretation, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . El art. 814, que preceptua en tales casos de pretericion la nulidad de la institucion de heredero no consiente interpretacion alguno favorable a lo persona instituida en el sentido antes expuesto, aun cuando parezca, y en algun caso pudiera ser, mas o menos equitativa, porque una nulidad no significa en Derecho sino la suposicion de que el hecho o el acto no se ha realizado debiendo; por lo tanto, procederse sobre tal base o supuesto, y consiguientemente, en un testamento donde falte la institucion, es obligado llamar a los herederos forzosos en todo caso, como habria que llamar a los de otra clase, cuando el testador no hubiese distribuido todos sus bienes en legados, siendo tanto mas obligada esta consecuencia legal cuanto que, en materia de testamentos, sabido es, segun tiene declarado la jurisprudencia, con repeticion, que no basta que seo conocida la voluntad de quien testa si esta voluntad no aparece en la forma y en las condiciones que la ley ha exigido para que sea valido y eficaz, por lo que constituiria una interpretacion arbitraria, dentro del derecho positivo, reputar como legatario a un heredero cuya institucion fuese anulada con pretexto de que esto se acomodaba mejor a la voluntad del testador, pues aun cuando asi fuese, sera esto razon para modificar la ley, pero que no outoriza a una interpretacion contraria a sus terminos y a los principios que informan la testamentifaccion, pues no porque parezca mejor una cosa en el terreno del Derecho constituyente, hay razon para convertir este juicio en regla de interpretación, desvirtuando y anulando por este procedimiento lo que el legislador quiere establecer." 12

3. We should not be led astray by the statement in Article 854 that, annulment notwithstanding, "the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious." Legacies and devises merit consideration only when they are so expressly given as such in a will. Nothing in Article 854 suggests that the mere institution of a universal heir in a will — void because of preterition — would give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance. As to him, the will is inexistent. There must be, in addition to such institution, a testamentary disposition granting him bequests or legacies apart and separate from the nullified institution of heir. Sanchez Roman, speaking of the two component parts of Article 814, now 854, states that preterition annuls the institution of the heir "totalmente por la preterición" ; but added (in reference to legacies and bequests), "pero subsistiendo, . . . todas aquellas otras disposiciones que no se refieren a la institución de heredero . . ." 13 As Manresa puts it, annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance including la porción libre (que) no hubiese dispuesto en virtud de legado, mejora o donación." 14

As aforesaid, there is no other provision in the will before us except the institution of petitioner as universal heir. That institution, by itself, is null and void. And, intestate succession ensues.

4. Petitioner’s mainstay is that the present is "a case of ineffective disinheritance rather than one of preterition." 15 From this, petitioner draws the conclusion that Article 854 "does not apply to the case at bar." This argument fails to appreciate the distinction between preterition and disinheritance.

Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited." 16 Disinheritance, in turn, "is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law." 17 In Manresa’s own words: "La privación expresa de la legitima constituye le desheredación. La privación tacita de la misma se denomina preterición. 18 Sanchez Roman emphasizes the distinction by stating that disinheritance "es siempre voluntaria" ; preterition, upon the other hand, is presumed to be "involuntaria." 19 Express as disinheritance should be, the same must be supported by a legal cause specified in the will itself. 20

The will here does not explicitly disinherit the testatrix’s parents, the forced heirs. It simply omits their names altogether. Said will rather than be labeled ineffective disinheritance is clearly one in which the said forced heirs suffer from preterition.

On top of this the fact that the effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of disinheritance. Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code, we repeat, "shall annul the institution of heir." This annulment is in toto, unless in the will there are, in addition, testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. In ineffective disinheritance under Article 918 of the same Code, such disinheritance shall also "annul the institution of heirs," but only "insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited," which last phrase was omitted in the case of preterition. 21 Better stated yet, in disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived. Manresa’s expressive language, in commenting on the rights of the preterited heirs in the case of preterition on the one hand and legal disinheritance on the other, runs thus: "Preteridos, adquieren el derecho a todo; deshereda dos, solo les corresponde un tercio o dos tercios, 22 seg´┐Żn el caso." 23

5. Petitioner insists that the compulsory heirs ineffectively disinherited are entitled to receive their legitimes, but that the institution of heir "is not invalidated," although the inheritance of the heir so instituted is reduced to the extent of said legitimes. 24

This is best answered by a reference to the opinion of Mr. Justice Moran in the Neri case heretofore cited, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"But the theory is advanced that the bequest made by universal title in favor of the children by the second marriage should be treated as legado and mejora and, accordingly, it must not be entirely annulled but merely reduced. This theory, if adopted, will result in a complete abrogation of articles 814 and 851 of the Civil Code. If every case of institution of heirs may be made to fall into the concept of legacies and betterments reducing the bequest accordingly, then the provisions of articles 814 and 851 regarding total or partial nullity of the institution, would be absolutely meaningless and will]l never have application at all. And the remaining provisions contained in said articles concerning the reduction of inofficious legacies or betterments would be a surplusage because they would be absorbed by article 817. Thus, instead of construing, we would be destroying integral provisions of the Civil Code.

The destructive effect of the theory thus advanced is due mainly to a failure to distinguish institution of heirs from legacies and betterments, and a general from a special provision. With reference to Article 814, which is the only provision material to the disposition of this case, it must be observed that the institution of heirs is therein dealt with a thing separate and distinct from legacies or betterment. And they are separate and distinct not only because they are distinctly and separately treated in said article but because they are in themselves different. Institution of heirs is a bequest by universal title of property that is undetermined. Legacy refers to specific property bequeathed by a particular or special title. . . But again an institution of heirs cannot be taken as a legacy,"25cralaw:red

The disputed order, we observe, declares the will in question "a complete nullity." Article 854 of the Civil Code in turn merely nullifies "the institution of heir." Considering, however, that the will before us solely provides for the institution of petitioner as universal heir, and nothing more, the result is the same. The entire will is null.

Upon the view we take of this case, the order of November 8, 1963 under review is hereby affirmed. No costs allowed. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, J. P. Bengzon and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Castañeda v. Alemany, 3 Phil. 426, 428; Pimentel v. Palanca, etc., Et Al., 5 Phil.436, 440-441; Limjuco v. Ganara, 11 Phil. 393; 394-395; Montañana v. Suesa, 14 Phil. 676, 679; Riera v. Palmaroli, Et Al., 40 Phil. 105, 116; In re Estate of Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156, 174; Palacios v. Palacios, 58 Off. Gaz., No. 2, 220, 221; Teotico v. del Val; etc., L-18753 March 26, 1965.

2. Section 13, Rule of the Rules of Court.

3. Section 2, Rule 1, Rules of Court. Case, Et. Al. v. Jugo, Et Al., 77 Phil. 517, 522.

4. Betterments are eliminated in the present Civil Code. II Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, p. 1077.

5. VI Manresa, Comentarios al Código Civil Español, 7th Edition, (1951) p. 424.

6. Words & Phrases, Vol. 4th 3A, Permanent Ed., p. 3.

7. Id., p. 4.

8. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed., p. 117.

9. Manresa, id., p. 426.

10. Manresa, Id., pp. 431-432.

11. VI Sanchez Roman, Estudios de Derecho Civil, 2nd Edition, Volume 2, pp. 1140.

12. Sanchez Roman, id., p, 1138. This is also cited in the Neri case, 74 Phil. pp. 192-193.

Justice J.B.L. Reyes and Judge R.C. Puno, in their work entitled "An Outline of Philippine Civil Law," 1956 ed., Vol. III, p. 8; citing Herreros v. Gil, L-3362, March 1, 1951, likewise opined that "the right to make a will is statutory not a natural right, and must be subordinate to law and public policy."cralaw virtua1aw library

13. Sanchez Roman id., p. 1141.

14. Manresa, Id., p. 434.

15. Petitioner’s brief, p. 15.

16. Neri, Et Al., v. Akutin, Et Al., supra, 72 Phil., at p. 325.

17. Justice J.B.L. Reyes and Judge R.C. Puno id., p. 106.

18. Manresa, Id., p. 424. Justice Reyes and Judge Puno, ibid., 107, speaking of the requisites of a valid disinheritance, confirm the theory that disinheritance "must be express (not implied) (Art. 918); otherwise there is preterition."cralaw virtua1aw library

19. Sanchez Roman, Id., p. 1131.

20. Arts. 915, 916, Civil Code; II Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, pp. 750-752.

21. III Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1961, Edition, p. 172.

22. Now, one-half, Articles 888 and 889, Civil Code.

23. Manresa, Id., p. 430.

24. Petitioner’s brief, p. 13.

25. Neri, Et. Al. v. Akutin, Et Al., 74 Phil. pp. 191-192. Articles 817 and 851, Civil Code of Spain of 1889, referred to in the opinion above, are now Arts. 907 and 918 of the present Civil Code.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





June-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23964 June 1, 1966 GREGORIO V. GAERLAN, JR. v. LUIS C. CATUBIG

  • G.R. No. L-19697 June 3, 1966 CESAR TUMULAK, ET AL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15795 June 20, 1966 IN RE: ANG DIT KUE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18207 June 20, 1966 IN RE: JOVENCIO CHI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19638 June 20, 1966 FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Y. MANDANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20705 June 20, 1966 LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. RAFAEL P. GUERRERO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20789 June 20, 1966 CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. LUIS B. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16987 June 21, 1966 IN RE: AMADO ONG APACIBLE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20798 June 21, 1966 OSCAR JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-21993 June 21, 1966 ANGELA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22437 June 21, 1966 IN RE: FRANCISCO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25419 June 21, 1966 ANDRES CULANAG v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-17670 June 23, 1966 IN RE: CHING CHONG ANG TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19268 June 23, 1966 IN RE: ONG CHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21122 June 23, 1966 CELESTINO E. ESUERTE, ET AL. v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21173 June 23, 1966 MELECIO B. QUETULIO, ET AL. v. ILDEFONSO GANITANO

  • G.R. No. L-23445 June 23, 1966 REMEDIOS NUGUID v. FELIX NUGUID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23509 June 23, 1966 NATY BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. SILVINA CARIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17124 June 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI C. FAMILIAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21781 June 30, 1966 DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22352 June 30, 1966 IN RE: ENGRACIO CHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17666 June 30, 1966 ISIDORO MONDRAGON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17970 June 30, 1966 MARIA MAHILUM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18209 June 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENANCIO SULLANO

  • G.R. No. L-18257 June 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO G. FAJARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18537 June 30, 1966 DOMINGO FLORES, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19091 June 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO CORONEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19651 June 30, 1966 ALLIED FREE WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. MANUEL ESTIPONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20183 June 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO I. BERDIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20350 June 30, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. NEMESIO ACANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20605 June 30, 1966 IN RE: TANPA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20739 June 30, 1966 CRISTINA CHINGAN v. GABRIEL LA GUARDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20754 and L-20759 June 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMEN SARIO

  • G.R. No. L-21077 June 30, 196

    IN RE: ADELAIDO DE GUZMAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21348 June 30, 1966 RED V COCONUT PRODUCTS, LTD. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21574 June 30, 1966 SIMON DE LA CRUZ v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21959 June 30, 1966 IN RE: GENARO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22610 June 30, 1966 PRIMITIVO P. QUIEM v. JESUS SERIÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23305 June 30, 1966 BENEDICTO C. LAGMAN v. CITY OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-17411 June 30, 1966 LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24365 June 30, 1966 IN RE: ADOLFO C. AZNAR v. MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DUNCAN

  • G.R. No. L-17411 June 30, 1966 LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.