Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > November 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-56025 November 25, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

204 Phil. 364:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-56025. November 25, 1982.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE ARSENIO M. GONONG and IGLESIA NI CRISTO, Respondents.

The Solicitor General for Petitioner.

Tapalla, Cruz, Peren & Associates for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


On March 17, 1980, the Iglesia ni Cristo, a corporation sole, filed with the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte an application, under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law, for registration of a parcel of land with an area of 922 square meters, acquired on July 20, 1953 from Gregorio Gamet who was allegedly in possession thereof for more than thirty (30) years. Despite opposition from the Republic of the Philippines, through the Director of Lands, the Land Registration Court granted the said application. Respondent Judge denied reconsideration. Hence, this appeal by certiorari wherein petitioner stresses applicant’s disqualification, as a private corporation, to hold lands of public domain except by lease pursuant to Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. On the other hand, the applicant argues that it does not suffer any disqualification because a corporation sole is not the owner but a mere administrator of the property titled in its name for the benefit of its members; and that the constitutional ban is inapplicable to it because the property sought to be registered is not alienable public land but private property.

On review, the Supreme Court held: (a) that the parcel of land sought to be registered is still public land, since it has not been acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, nor has the land been possessed by a Filipino citizen since time immemorial; and (b) that the Iglesia ni Cristo, as a corporation sole or a juridical person, is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain under the Constitution and because said church is not entitled to avail itself of the benefits of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law which applies only to Filipino citizens or natural persons.

Petition granted. Respondent Judge’s Decision, set aside. Private respondent’s application for registration, dismissed.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SECTION 11, ARTICLE XIV, 1973 CONSTITUTION; JURIDICAL PERSONS DISQUALIFIED TO ACQUIRE OR HOLD ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN; IGLESIA NI CRISTO AS CORPORATION SOLE FALLS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL BAN. — As held in the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Candido P. Villanueva, 114 SCRA 875 (June 29, 1982), which is on all fours with the petition under consideration,." . . the Iglesia ni Cristo, as a corporation sole or a juridical person, is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain, like the two lots in question, because of the constitutional prohibition already mentioned and because the said church is not entitled to avail itself of the benefits of Section 48(b) which applies only to Filipino citizens or natural persons. A corporation sole (an ‘unhappy freak of English law’) has no nationality (Roman Catholic Apostolic Adm. of Davao, Inc. v. Land Registration Commission, 102 Phil. 596. See Register of Deeds v. Ung Siu Si Temple, 97 Phil. 58 and Sec. 49 of the Public Land Law)." The parcel of land sought to be registered in the case at bar is public land, hence, the Iglesia ni Cristo, as a private corporation, is disqualified under the prohibition in Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution.

2. CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; SECTION 48(b) OF THE PUBLIC LAND LAW; REGISTRATION THEREUNDER PRESUPPOSES LAND IS PUBLIC; RULING IN REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JUDGE CANDIDO P. VILLANUEVA (114 SCRA 875) REITERATED IN CASE AT BAR. — A land registration proceeding under Section 48(b) "presupposes that the land is public" (Mindanao v. Director of Lands, L-19535, July 10, 1967, 20 SCRA 641, 644). As held in Oh Cho v. Director of Lands, 75 Phil, 890, "all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain, An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest." In Uy Un v. Perez, 71 Phil. 508, it was noted that the "right of an occupant of public agricultural land to obtain a confirmation of his title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law is a ‘derecho dominical incoativo’ and that before the issuance of the certificate of title the occupant is not in the juridical sense the true owner of the land since it still pertains to the State,’’ (Cited in Republic of the Phil. vs, Judge Candido P. Villanueva, 114 SCRA 875). The ruling of this Court in the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Candido P. Villanueva (supra), in so far as the nature of the property involved is concerned, is on all fours with the case at bar. The Court’s categorical pronouncement therein is that the same is public land, thus: "The contention in the comments of the Iglesia ni Cristo (its lawyer did not file any brief) that the two lots are private lands, following the rule laid down in Susi v. Razon and Director of Lands, 48 Phil. 424, is not correct. What was considered private land in the Susi case was a parcel of land possessed by a Filipino citizen since time immemorial as in Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449, 53 L. ed. 594, 41 Phil, 935 and 7 Phil. 132, The lots sought to be registered in this case do not fall within that category. They are still public lands. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SECTION 11, ARTICLE XIV OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION; PRIVATE CORPORATIONS BARRED FROM HOLDING ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN; IGLESIA NI CRISTO NOT DISQUALIFIED; CASE AT BAR. — Justice Teehankee maintains his dissent in the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Candido P. Villanueva and Iglesia ni Cristo (114 SCRA 875) that the Iglesia ni Cristo as a private corporation (a religious corporation sole which is truly a Filipino church) is not disqualified under the provisions of the 1973 Constitution to hold lands such as the 922 square-meter lot at bar where it maintains a chapel to gather its members in prayer to God. Herein, as held by established doctrine since the 1909 case of Cariño and the 1925 case of Susi to the 1980 case of Herico pursuant to the Public Land Act, as amended, that where a possessor has held the open, exclusive and unchallenged possession of alienable public land for the statutory period provided by law (30 years now under amendatory Rep. Act No. 1942 approved on June 22, 1957), the law itself mandates that the possessor "shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title" and "by legal fiction (the land) has already ceased to be of the public domain and has become private property," and accordingly, the 1973 constitutional prohibition against corporations holding lands of public domain has no applicability.

2. CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; PUBLIC LAND ACT; IGLESIA NI CRISTO’S APPLICATION FOR CONFIRMATION OF TITLE SHOULD BE GRANTED. — As to the objection that under the Public Land Act only natural persons may apply for confirmation of title, Justice Teehankee reiterates his stand that the ends of justice would be best served by considering the application for confirmation of title as amended to conform to the evidence, i.e. as filed in the names of the Iglesia ni Cristo’s predecessors who as natural persons were duly qualified to apply for such confirmation of the title that they had acquired by conclusive presumption and mandate of the Public Land Act.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS; RELIANCE ON A SUPREME COURT DECISION PENDING RESOLUTION OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SAME IS PREMATURE. — It is premature to apply the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Candido P. Villanueva and Iglesia ni Cristo decided on June 29, 1982 as a precedent since the same is up to now pending resolution of the Iglesia ni Cristo’s motion for reconsideration which raises a number of serious constitutional issues, viz, free exercise of religion, as reflected in the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice therein, inter alia, that "The right of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao to register land purchased from a Filipino citizen was recognized in The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao v. Land Registration (102 Phil. 596). As I view it, therefore, the decision of respondent Judge is equally entitled to affirmance on equal protection grounds."


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


The issue posed herein again revolves around the prohibition in Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution that "no private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area."cralaw virtua1aw library

On March 17, 1980, the Iglesia ni Kristo, represented by its Executive Minister Erano G. Manalo, a corporation sole (Iglesia, for short), filed with the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte an application, under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law, for registration of a parcel of land with an area of 922 square meters, located in Bo. Binacag, Espiritu, Ilocos Norte. The land was acquired by the Iglesia on July 20, 1953 from Gregorio Gamet 1 who was allegedly in possession for more than thirty (30) years. The lot was declared for realty tax purposes in 1954 and taxes paid thereon since then. A chapel of the Iglesia stands on the land.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Director of Lands, filed an opposition on the grounds that the Iglesia, as a private corporation, is disqualified to hold alienable public lands and that the applicant and its predecessor-in-interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto.

In a Decision dated November 21, 1980, the Land Registration Court granted the Iglesia application. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds the evidence of applicant more than enough to prove its ownership and possession of the lot applied for. Let the land, therefore, described in PSU-1-005441 containing an area of NINE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO (922) SQUARE METERS, more or less, be brought under the operation of the Land Registration Act and to have its title thereto registered and confirmed under the name of IGLESIA NI CRISTO, with its Executive Minister Erano G. Manalo as Corporation Sole, Corner Central and Don Mariano Marcos Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, as its exclusive property.

"On the other hand, the opposition of the Government not having been substantiated is hereby DISMISSED.

"Once the decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree be issued in favor of the applicant Iglesia ni Cristo." 2

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the sole ground that the applicant, as a private corporation, is disqualified to hold lands of the public domain. Respondent Judge denied reconsideration.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Hence, this appeal by Certiorari to which we gave due course.

Petitioner stresses applicant’s disqualification to hold lands of the public domain except by lease pursuant to Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution.

On the other hand, the applicant argues that it does not suffer from any disqualification because a corporation sole is not the owner but a mere administrator of the property titled in its name for the benefit of its members; and that the constitutional ban is inapplicable to it because the property sought to be registered is not alienable public land but private property.

We find for petitioner, following our Decision in Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Candido P. Villanueva, 114 SCRA 875 (June 29, 1982), penned by Mr. Justice Ramon C. Aquino, and which is squarely on all fours with the Petition under consideration. In so far as the nature of the property involved is concerned, our categorical pronouncement therein is that the same is public land:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The contention in the comments of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (its lawyer did not file any brief) that the two lots are private lands, following the rule laid down in Susi v. Razon and Director of Lands, 41, Phil. 424, is not correct. What was considered private land in the Susi case was a parcel of land possessed by a Filipino citizen since time immemorial, as in Caritlo v. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449, 53 L. ed. 594, 41 Phil. 935 and 7 Phil. 132. The lots sought to be registered in this case do not fall within that category. They are still public lands. A land registration proceeding under section 48(b) presupposes that the land is public’ (Mindanao v. Director of Lands, L-19535, July 10, 1967, 20 SCRA 641, 644).

"As held in Oh Cho v. Director of Lands, 75 Phil. 890, `all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest.’

"In Uy Un v. Perez, 71 Phil. 508, it was noted that the right of an occupant of public agricultural land to obtain a confirmation of his title under section 48(b) of the Public Land Law is a `derecho dominical incoativo’ and that before the issuance of the certificate of title the occupant is not in the juridical sense the true owner of the land since it still pertains to the State."cralaw virtua1aw library

And in respect of the disqualification of the Iglesia as a private corporation, which overrules the view of the Trial Court that it is a natural person, we explicitly held:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"As correctly contended by the Solicitor General, the Iglesia Ni Cristo, as a corporation sole or a juridical person, is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain, like the two lots in question, because of the constitutional prohibition already mentioned and because the said church is not entitled to avail itself of the benefits of section 48(b) which applies only to Filipino citizens or natural persons. A corporation sole (an `unhappy freak of English law’) has no nationality (Roman Catholic Apostolic Adm. of Davao, Inc. v. Land Registration Commission, 102 Phil. 596. See Register of Deeds v. Ung Siu Si Temple, 97 Phil. 58 and sec. 49 of the Public Land Law)."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge’s Decision, dated November 21, 1980, is hereby SET ASIDE and the application for registration of the Iglesia ni Cristo is hereby dismissed.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Plana Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I am constrained to dissent from the majority decision which applies the precedent set forth in the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Candido P. Villanueva and Iglesia ni Cristo, decided on June 29, 1982, for the same grounds and considerations stated in my separate opinion therein which I herewith reproduce by reference for brevity’s sake.

I maintain that the Iglesia ni Cristo as a private corporation (a religious corporation sole which is truly a Filipino church) is not disqualified under the provisions of the 1973 Constitution to hold lands such as the 922 square meter lot at bar where it maintains a chapel to gather its members in prayer to God. Herein, as held by established doctrine since the 1909 case of Cariño and the 1925 case of Susi to the 1980 case of Herico 1 pursuant to the Public Land Act, as amended, that where a possessor has held the open, exclusive, and unchallenged possession of alienable public land for the statutory period provided by law (30 years now under amendatory Rep. Act No. 1942 approved on June 22, 1957), the law itself mandates that the possessor "shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title" and "by legal fiction [the land] has already ceased to be of the public domain and has become private property," and accordingly, the 1973 constitutional prohibition against corporations holding lands of the public domain has no applicability.

As to the objection that under the Public Land Act only natural persons may apply for confirmation of title, I reiterate my stand that the ends of justice would be best served by considering the application for confirmation of title as amended to conform to the evidence, i.e. as filed in the names of the Iglesia ni Cristo’s predecessors who as natural persons were duly qualified to apply for such confirmation of the title that they had acquired by conclusive presumption and mandate of the Public Land Act.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Chief Justice in his separate opinion in the companion Meralco case 2 likewise expressed the same view that "By legal fiction and in the exercise of our equitable jurisdiction, I feel that the realistic solution would be to decide the matter as if the application under Section 48 (b) were filed by the (predecessors-in-interest) Piguing spouses, who I assume suffer from no such disability."cralaw virtua1aw library

I further submit that it is premature to apply the Villanueva case as a precedent since the same is up to now pending resolution of the Iglesia ni Cristo’s motion for reconsideration which raises a number of serious constitutional issues, viz. free exercise of religion, as reflected in the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice therein, inter alia that "The right of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao to register land purchased from a Filipino citizen was recognized in The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao v. Land Registration. 3 As I view it, therefore, the decision of respondent Judge is equally entitled to affirmance on equal protection grounds."cralaw virtua1aw library

I, therefore, vote for the denial of the petition and to uphold the Iglesia ni Cristo’s title over the 922 square meter lot located in Bo. Binacag, Espiritu, Ilocos Norte, where stands a chapel to minister to the religious needs of the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo in the said community. The small lot is thus held for the individual and collective religious use and benefit of the Filipino members of the Iglesia ni Cristo. Such holding certainly does not come within the letter, intent nor spirit of the cited 1973 constitutional prohibition that "No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area" — which was adopted to guard against the undue large scale control and exploitation of our public lands and natural resources by corporations, Filipino or multinational.

Endnotes:



1. p. 32, Rollo.

2. pp. 21-22, Ibid.

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. For the citations, please refer to my separate dissenting opinion mentioned hereinabove.

2. G.R. No. L-49623 (June 29, 1982).

3. 102 Phi. 596 (1957).




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






November-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-2221 November 2, 1982 - CIPRIANO ABENOJAR v. DOMINGO LOPEZ

    203 Phil. 385

  • A.M. No. 2739-CFI November 2, 1982 - TERESITA DE CASTRO v. IGNACIO CAPULONG

    203 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-27152 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS E. TORIO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 398

  • G.R. No. L-34079 November 2, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-34517 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SlMEON GANUT

    203 Phil. 421

  • G.R. No. L-39518 November 2, 1982 - AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-44039 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO A. DATUIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-47460 November 2, 1982 - AMELIA DELEGENTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 447

  • G.R. No. L-48196 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-50298 November 2, 1982 - JOSEPH Y. PUNAY v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 475

  • G.R. No. L-50358 November 2, 1982 - SHIPSIDE, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-52823 November 2, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MIDPANTAO ADIL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 492

  • G.R. No. L-53465 November 2, 1982 - ANTONIO NITURA v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-54439 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE Of THE PHIL. v. JESUS N. MONTEZ

    203 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-55645 November 2, 1982 - RICARDO CENIZA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-56909 November 2, 1982 - FLORENCIA B. SAN VALENTIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 534

  • G.R. No. L-58578 November 2, 1982 - JOSE GEROMO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 539

  • G.R. No. L-59054 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MUSTAPA ALIBASA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-34597 November 5, 1982 - ROSITO Z. BACARRO, ET AL. v. GERUNDIO B. CASTAÑO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 563

  • G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982 - IN RE: APOLONIO TABOADA v. AVELINO S. ROSAL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 572

  • G.R. No. L-61870 November 5, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO D. PERALTA

    203 Phil. 580

  • G.R. No. L-49004 November 10, 1982 - NG LIT v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 592

  • A.M. No. 702-CTJ November 15, 1982 - ELISA VDA. DE OCHOA, ET AL. v. GERINO M. TOLENTINO

    203 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-26325 November 15, 1982 - PACWELD STEEL CORPORATION v. ASIA STEEL CORPORATION

    203 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-31366 November 15, 1982 - ASIAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ISLAND STEEL, INC., ET AL.

    203 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-34834 November 15, 1982 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. LUIS D. MANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39258 November 15, 1982 - RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. AMANTE P. PURISIMA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 625

  • G.R. No. L-42540 November 15, 1982 - VICTOR NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-52325 November 15, 1982 - CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-53060 November 15, 1982 - ROSARIO T. MAMERTO, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. 55771 November 15, 1982 - TAHANAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 652

  • G.R. No. L-56479 November 15, 1982 - SOCORRO L. VDA. DE STA. ROMANA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 708

  • G.R. Nos. L-56695-98 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIBSON A. ARAULA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-61663 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO L. REGLOS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 724

  • G.R. No. L-61997 November 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ELFREN PARTISALA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 750

  • A.C. No. 641 November 19, 1982 - FRANCISCO RADOMES v. FERNANDO FABRIGARAS

    204 Phil. 1

  • A.C. No. 1675 November 19, 1982 - BELEN A. RIVERA v. ORLANDO LATONERO

    204 Phil. 4

  • A.M. No. P-1935 November 19, 1982 - BENJAMIN DAAG v. HONORIO SERRANO

    204 Phil. 9

  • G.R. No. L-30690 November 19, 1982 - BF HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 15

  • G.R. No. L-30854 November 19, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 21

  • G.R. No. L-34362 November 19, 1982 - MODESTA CALIMLIM, ET AL. v. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    204 Phil.25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-35718 November 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 38

  • G.R. No. L-37712 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SYQUIOCO

    204 Phil. 42

  • G.R. No. L-38258 November 19, 1982 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. MARCELO ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-39503 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRESIO CARDENAS

    204 Phil. 88

  • G.R. No. L-39528 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MONAGA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 98

  • G.R. No. L-44686 November 19, 1982 - MACARIO MANUEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 110

  • G.R. No. L-44817 November 19, 1982 - LEA PAZ TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 117

  • G.R. No. L-46729 November 19, 1982 - LAUSAN AYOG, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49140 November 19, 1982 - QUASHA ASPERILLA ANCHETA VALMONTE PEÑA & MARCOS v. CELESTINO P. JUAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 141

  • G.R. No. L-54158 November 19, 1982 - PAGASA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 162

  • G.R. No. L-55079 November 19, 1982 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 172

  • G.R. No. L-55539 November 19, 1982 - DIOSA DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 180

  • G.R. No. L-55624 November 19, 1982 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-56761 November 19, 1982 - MARIANO TOLEDO, ET AL. v. BERNARDO P. PARDO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 203

  • G.R. No. L-57170 November 19, 1982 - KO BU LIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-57440 November 19, 1982 - D. D. COMENDADOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARCELINO N. SAYO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 227

  • G.R. Nos. L-57477-78 November 19, 1982 - HEIRS OF WILLIAM SEVILLA, ET AL. v. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 237

  • G.R. No. L-57707 November 19, 1982 - PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 241

  • G.R. No. L-58506 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-59463 November 19, 1982 - PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA v. IMPERIAL MINING COMPANY, INC.

    204 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-59596 November 19, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-60950 November 19, 1982 - J.D. MAGPAYO CUSTOMS BROKERAGE CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 276

  • A.M. No. P-292 November 25, 1982 - ISIDRO G. ARENAS v. MANUEL RESULTAN, SR.

    204 Phil. 279

  • A.C. No. 2662-CFI November 26, 1982 - FLAVIANO A. PELMOKA v. FELIX T. DIAZ, JR.

    204 Phil. 283

  • G.R. No. L-30391 November 25, 1982 - ASSOCIATED SUGAR, INC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-35630 November 25, 1982 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. GALAURAN & PILARES CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-35757 November 25, 1982 - LUCIA LUSUNG v. SUSANA VDA. DE SANTOS

    204 Phil. 302

  • G.R. No. L-36364 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO DASCIL, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 309

  • G.R. No. L-38423 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL PIMENTEL

    204 Phil. 327

  • G.R. No. L-38449 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANZANO

    204 Phil. 339

  • G.R. No. L-50548 November 25, 1982 - CONCHING ALVARO, ET AL. v. HOSPICIO ZAPATA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 356

  • G.R. No. L-56025 November 25, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 364

  • G.R. Nos. L-56224-26 November 25, 1982 - PURISIMA GESTOSO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 372

  • G.R. Nos. L-61067-68 November 25, 1982 - MITSUI & CO., LTD. v. MANUEL G. ABELLO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 384

  • G.R. No. L-33724 November 29, 1982 - ELIGIA BATBATAN. v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAGADIAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 379