Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > August 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-82735 August 18, 1988 - CRISOSTOMO MEDINA v. COURT OF APPEALS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-82735. August 18, 1988.]

SPOUSES CRISOSTOMO MEDINA and AURORA MEDINA, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MASANTOL RURAL BANK, INC., THE SPOUSES REMIGIO LOBO and AIDA LOBO, Respondents.

Herminio M. Surla, for Petitioners.

Venancio M. Viray for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS; CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY A RURAL BANK; PURPOSE. — Section 222 of the Central Bank’s Revised Rules and Regulations, as amended by CB Circular No. 502, dated February 2, 1976, prescribes five (5) conditions or guidelines for the sale of property acquired by a rural bank through foreclosure proceedings. They are: (1) that it must be sold through a public auction; (2) that there should be prior publication of notice of the sale; (3) that there should be posting of said notices in designated places; and (4) the 30 days’ notice be given to the former owner and to the Central Bank’s Department of Rural Banks. The laudable purpose of the rule is to give the former owner of the foreclosed property a second chance to reacquire it, to enable the Bank to receive the best price the property will command in an open market, and, possibly, also to eliminate the manipulation of the sale for the private benefit of some officers of the bank. The formulation of the rule lies well within the Monetary Board’s power of supervision over the operation of rural banks (Sec. 10, Rural Bank’s Act), hence, it is a valid regulation.

2. CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; FAILURE TO ANNOTATE ADVERSE CLAIM; PURCHASERS ACQUIRE PROPERTY FREE FROM ANY ENCUMBRANCE; SALE NOT INVALIDATED. — The petitioners failed to annotate on the Bank’s title an adverse claim or memorandum of their right under Section 222 of CB Circular No. 502 dated February 2, 1976, as former owners of the property, to notice of any intended disposition thereof by the Bank so that those who are about to deal with the property may be cautioned that the same is subject to their claim (Ty Sin Tsi v. Lee Dy Piao, L-11371, May 28, 1958). As no such memorandum or claim was annotated on the Bank’s title, the buyers Remigio and Aida Lobo acquired the property free from any, except statutory, claims (Sec. 44, P.D. No. 1529). They are purchasers in good faith and for value. The Bank’s non-compliance with the Revised Rules and Regulations of the Central Bank does not invalidate the sale of the land to them nor affect the indefeasibility of the title which they acquired thereunder.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


The lone issue posed in this case is whether, despite the expiration of the statutory redemption period, the petitioners-mortgagors may still redeem their foreclosed property from the respondent Rural Bank of Masantol, Inc. (Bank for brevity), or from the subsequent vendees, respondents Remigio and Aida Lobo, on the theory that the sale of the property to them by the Bank was void for lack of notice to the former owners, as provided in the Revised Rules and Regulations issued by the Central Bank. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the petitioners’ complaint for redemption or repurchase of their property, hence this appeal by certiorari.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

On October 10, 1974, Aurora Medina mortgaged her untitled lot of 412.70 square meters of the Rural Bank of Masantol to secure a loan of P5,000 (Exh. "1" and submarkings). As she failed to pay the loan when due, the Bank foreclosed its real estate mortgage on the property (Exhs. "2", "2-A")

The property was sold on October 6, 1978 for P8,120.74 to the Bank as the lone bidder at the foreclosure sale. The sheriff’s Certificate of Sale which was issued on October 7, 1978 expressly provided that "the redemption period will expire after the lapse of one (1) year from the date of its registration in the Registry of Deeds, San Fernando, Pampanga" (Exh. "5"). It was registered eight (8) months later, on June 5, 1979, in the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga (Exh. "5-A").

At this point, the evidence of the parties vary.

Petitioner Aurora Medina alleged that on August 11, 1979, or within the one year redemption period, she offered to redeem the property and the bank manager computed her obligation "in the sum of P9,007.64 as of August 11, 1979" (Exh. "B"), but the bank president refused to allow the redemption "due to his ill-feeling" toward her (par. 10, Complaint).

On the other hand, the Bank denied that Medina made a tender of the redemption money. Precisely, according to the bank manager, because she failed to exercise her right of redemption on or before June 5, 1980 (Exh. "6-B"), he executed on August 19, 1980 an affidavit of consolidated of ownership. The tax declaration of the property was transferred in the name of the Bank (Exh. "7").chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

More than a year later, or on August 28, 1981, the Bank sold the property for P20,000.00 to the spouses Remigio and Aida Lobo (Exh. "11"). The tax declaration was transferred in the name of the vendees (Exh. "11-A") and the realty taxes for 1981 were paid by them (Exh. "10-C").

On September 10, 1981, the petitioners filed an action for "Annulment of Consolidation of Ownership, Redemption, and Damages" in the Regional Trial Court of Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch LIV. The complaint was dismissed by the trial court. On Appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of dismissal.

Mrs. Medina alleged that she offered to redeem her property on August 11, 1979, but the trial court observed that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . there was no request in writing or a written offer to redeem the property and there was no approval of the offer to redeem or any extension by the defendant Rural Bank. On the contrary, defendant Rural Bank denied that such an offer to redeem made by the plaintiff was for the computation of the amount which was to be paid as of August 11, 1979 if the property shall be redeemed by the plaintiff." (pp. 158-160, Record.)

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals believed the Bank’s allegation that Mrs. Medina came to the Bank on August 11, 1979, not to redeem her property but only to ask for a computation of the amount she would have to pay if she should redeem it. We may not review that factual finding of the Court of Appeals. Indeed, if Mrs. Medina were then ready with the redemption money (P9,007,64 as computed by Ignacio) she should have tendered it, or she should have filed an action for its consignation when the Bank president refused to accept it.chanrobles law library : red

Petitioners’ other contention, that the redemption period was "extended" by the Bank, has no leg to stand on except Mrs. Medina’s uncorroborated and self-serving statement that she was assured by the Bank manager, Fortunato Ignacio, that she and her husband "can surely redeem the property" but that they had to wait for the President and the Cashier of the respondent Bank," who have an ax to grind against her, to cool down." Ignacio allegedly advised them to" just wait" for his call as he would summon them when they could redeem the property (Petition, p. 12, Rollo). Those allegations were, however, denied by Ignacio, and it is only Mrs. Medina’s word against his. The Statute of Frauds requires a written memorandum of such as agreement, if any, in order that it may be enforceable against the Bank, involving as it does immovable property (Art. 1403 (2) (e), New Civil Code).

Petitioners’ also contend that, as former owners of the property, they were entitled to notice of the Bank’s intention to dispose of it, and that such sale should have been made at a public auction so that they could have taken part in the bidding. They anchor this argument on Section 222 of the Central Bank’s Revised Rules and Regulations, as amended by CB Circular No. 502, dated February 2, 1976, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 222. Assets Acquired in Settlement of Loans. The amount of the claim against the borrower (which shall include the balance of loan in litigation, litigation expenses and interest due up to the date of foreclosure) shall be charged to this account when the property is acquired by the bank at auction sale, whether through judicial foreclosure or extrajudicial sale. The transfer in the bank’s books shall be made when the award is given to the bank.

x       x       x


"If the acquired property is sold thereafter, any amount in excess of the redemption price is treated as income (Other Earnings); if below cost, as expenses (Other Operating Expenses).

"All assets acquired in settlement of loans and should be sold to the highest bidder in an auction sale after the necessary publication of sale is undertaken. It shall be sufficient publication in such cases if notices of the sale are posted in at least three (3) of the most conspicuous public places in the municipality/city where the property to be sold is situated, in the municipality/city where the rural bank is located, and in adjoining localities. The auction sale shall be held in the office of the rural bank not earlier than a period of thirty (30) days after the posting of notices in the aforementioned places. The department of the Central Bank charged with supervising and examining rural banks and the former owner/mortgagor of the property shall likewise be notified of the projected sale at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of sale. However, with prior approval of the said department of the Central Bank, the rural bank may sell the property foreclosed to the former owner/mortgagor by negotiated sale at its fair market value."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above rule prescribes four (4) conditions or guidelines for the sale of property acquired by a rural bank through foreclosure proceedings. They are: (1) that it must be sold through a public auction; (2) that there should be prior publication of notice of the sale; (3) that there should be posting of said notices in designated places; and (4) the 30 days’ notice be given to the former owner and to the Central Bank’s Department of Rural Banks. The laudable purpose of the rule is to give the former owner of the foreclosed property a second chance to reacquire it, to enable the Bank to receive the best price the property will command in an open market, and, possibly, also to eliminate the manipulation of the sale for the private benefit of some officers of the bank. The formulation of the rule lies well within the Monetary Board’s power of supervision over the operation of rural banks (Sec. 10, Rural Bank’s Act), hence, it is a valid regulation.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Bank’s counsel, Fortunato Ignacio, admitted that no prior notice of the sale to the Lobo spouses was given to the petitioners. Was that omission fatal to the sale?

The subject of the sale being registered land, the answer is found in the Property Registration Law. The petitioners failed to annotate on the Bank’s title an adverse claim or memorandum of their right under Section 222 of CB Circular No. 502 dated February 2, 1976, as former owners of the property, to notice of any intended disposition thereof by the Bank so that those who are about to deal with the property may be cautioned that the same is subject to their claim (Ty Sin Tsi v. Lee Dy Piao, L-11371, May 28, 1958). As no such memorandum or claim was annotated on the Bank’s title, the buyers Remigio and Aida Lobo acquired the property free from any, except statutory, claims (Sec. 44, P.D. No. 1529). They are purchasers in good faith and for value. The Bank’s non-compliance with the Revised Rules and Regulations of the Central Bank does not invalidate the sale of the land to them nor affect the indefeasibility of the title which they acquired thereunder.chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., on leave.




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






August-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24957 August 3, 1988 - PAULINO V. NERA v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. 74489 August 3, 1988 - SHIN I INDUSTRIAL (PHIL.) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77818 August 3, 1988 - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-79576 August 3, 1988 - CELSO M. LARGA v. SANTIAGO RANADA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-23771 August 4, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LINGAYEN GULF ELECTRIC POWER CO.

  • G.R. No. L-31056 August 4, 1988 - LUCILA O. MANZANAL v. MAURO A. AUSEJO

  • G.R. No. L-50871 August 4, 1988 - CARLOS VELASCO v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. No. L-51736 August 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROLANDO ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 71464 August 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO ESTREBELLA

  • G.R. Nos. L-44410-11 August 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ANTONIO IRENEA

  • G.R. No. L-63552 August 5, 1988 - FRANCISCO TAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-41085 August 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS VIRAY

  • G.R. No. L-49699 August 8, 1988 - PERLA COMPANIA de SEGUROS, INC. v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • G.R. No. L-50386 August 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JOSE SAN BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. L-77691 August 8, 1988 - PATERNO R. CANLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-77707 August 8, 1988 - PEDRO W. GUERZON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34526 August 9, 1988 - HIJO PLANTATION, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. No. L-36770 August 9, 1988 - EMILIO DAMASCO v. TERESA DAMASCO

  • G.R. No. L-46654 August 9, 1988 - LUPO S. CABAJAL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-71173 August 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. REYNALDO DESUYO

  • G.R. No. L-73464 August 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 74910 August 10, 1988 - ANDRES SORIANO III, ET AL. v. MANUEL YUZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29280 August 11, 1988 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. SYVEL’S INC.

  • G.R. No. L-40069 August 11, 1988 - HEIRS OF PEDRO GACUTAN v. MELQUIADES S. SUCALDITO

  • G.R. No. L-64848 August 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ELEGINO

  • G.R. No. L-70462 August 11, 1988 - PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-75852 August 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO DEL PILAR

  • G.R. No. L-78592 August 11, 1988 - MUNICIPALITY OF MALOLOS v. LIBANGANG MALOLOS, INC.

  • A.M. No. P-86-33 August 15, 1988 - FILIPINA YAP SY v. CARMELITO D. CATAJAN

  • G.R. No. L-29445 August 15, 1988 - BRIGIDA BARDE v. SOCORRO POSIQUIT

  • G.R. No. L-32217 August 15, 1988 - MERCEDES SY v. DOMINADOR C. MlNA

  • G.R. No. L-33851 August 15, 1988 - MARCOPPER MINING CORP. v. JESUS V. ABELEDA

  • G.R. No. L-41383 August 15, 1988 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. ROMEO F. EDU

  • G.R. No. L-43726 August 15, 1988 - CHURCH OF CHRIST v. SPOUSES VALLESPIN

  • G.R. No. L-45349 August 15, 1988 - NEWTON JISON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-45351 August 15, 1988 - LOURDES DELGADO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-48269 August 15, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZAL IDNAY

  • G.R. No. L-51570 August 15, 1988 - PHIL. VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE v. BRIGIDA V. SEGUNDO

  • G.R. No. L-57473 August 15, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 77737-38 August 15, 1988 - CHRISTINA MARIE DEMPSEY v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH LXXV

  • G.R. No. L-77765 August 15, 1988 - SEBASTIAN COSCULLUELA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-80648 August 15, 1988 - PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MANILA v. CARMELO C. NORIEL

  • G.R. No. L-40314 August 17, 1988 - LILLIAN UYTENGSU LIU v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-50054 August 17, 1988 - ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-60287 August 17, 1988 - JOSE BERENGUER, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-75293 August 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUINITO HACBANG

  • G.R. Nos. L-32444-46 August 18, 1988 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS

  • G.R. Nos. L-33058-9 August 18, 1988 - EDGARINO L. ESPINA v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF SOUTHERN LEYTE

  • G.R. No. L-33493 August 18, 1988 - KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD v. GREGORIO FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. L-46244 August 18, 1988 - LIRAG, MAÑALAC, SARANGAYA, AND TANCO SECURITIES CORP. v. RICARDO D. GALANO

  • G.R. Nos. L-55103-04 August 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. L-56612 August 18, 1988 - ELISEO B. YUSAY v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. 71711 August 18, 1988 - PNOC-EXPLORATION CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-73836 August 18, 1988 - ANTOLIN T. NAGUIAT v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-75997 August 18, 1988 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE DE BARILI v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-81446 August 18, 1988 - BONIFACIA SY PO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-81785 August 18, 1988 - PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. v. CARMELO NORIEL

  • G.R. No. L-82735 August 18, 1988 - CRISOSTOMO MEDINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27829 August 19, 1988 - PHIL. VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-28776 August 19, 1988 - SIMEON DEL ROSARIO v. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILS. LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-33910 August 19, 1988 - SILVA PIPE WORKERS UNION-NATU v. FILIPINO PIPE & FOUNDRY CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-46281-83 August 19, 1988 - COCONUT COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOC., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-47475 August 19, 1988 - MANOTOK REALTY, INC. v. JOSE H. TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-49407 August 19, 1988 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52019 August 19, 1988 - ILOILO BOTTLERS, INC. v. CITY OF ILOILO

  • G.R. No. L-54323 August 19, 1988 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE L. S. VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. L-62781 August 19, 1988 - PAN-ASIATIC TRAVEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-66826 August 19, 1988 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. L-71986-87 August 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGIE ANDIZA

  • G.R. No. L-74513 August 19, 1988 - HERMINIO TORIBIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. L-76649-51 August 19, 1988 - 20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34341 August 22, 1988 - PRISCILLA SUSAN PO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-80609 August 23, 1988 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-31379 August 29, 1988 - COMPANIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-33573 August 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO TAPENO

  • G.R. No. L-34122 August 29, 1988 - FRUCTUOSO GARCIA v. ABELARDO APORTADERA

  • G.R. No. L-45745 August 29, 1988 - IRENEO ABELLERA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-47817 August 29, 1988 - JOVITA SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48724 August 29, 1988 - CELESTINO PAHILANGA v. ARTEMON D. LUNA

  • G.R. No. L-52732 August 29, 1988 - F.F. CRUZ and CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-66478 August 29, 1988 - SANCHO R. JACINTO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-75195 August 29, 1988 - DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CO. v. CRISTETO D. DINOPOL

  • G.R. No. L-30056 August 30, 1988 - MARCELO AGCAOILI v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-30381 August 30, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32798 August 30, 1988 - SILVINO ENVERZO BERNAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34229 August 30, 1988 - ALBERTO MENDOZA v. V. ENRIQUEZ FURNITURE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35126 August 30, 1988 - JACINTO FLORES, ET AL. v. FILIPINO HAND EMBROIDERY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35618 August 30, 1988 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-36035 August 30, 1988 - NELITA FONSECA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49118 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LETICIA V. CAPITIN

  • G.R. No. L-55132 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MEN ABAD

  • G.R. No. L-62699 August 30, 1988 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO P. SOLANO

  • G.R. No. L-65647 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO FLORES

  • G.R. No. L-66520 August 30, 1988 - EDUARDO C. TAÑEDO v. JUANITO A. BERNAD

  • G.R. No. 71552 August 30, 1988 - REMEDIOS ORTALIZ-LAMAYO v. FELIZARDO G. BATERBONIA

  • G.R. No. 73503 August 30, 1988 - BENJAMIN BELISARIO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73839 August 30, 1988 - MARY JOHNSTON HOSPITAL, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75886 August 30, 1988 - CONCEPCION ROQUE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76483 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR AVERO

  • G.R. No. 76728 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 78656 August 30, 1988 - TRANS WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80814 August 30, 1988 - CORNELIO GODOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81188 August 30, 1988 - TAGUM DOCTORS ENTERPRISES v. GREGORIO APSAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29881 August 31, 1988 - ENRICO PALOMAR v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31931 August 31, 1988 - FORTUNATO DE LEON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-32392 August 31, 1988 - AUREA AGUILAR, ET AL. v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44143 August 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO NAZARIO

  • G.R. No. L-46575 August 31, 1988 - JOSE LIMJOCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-49686 August 31, 1988 - FELlX GOCHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION v. VICENTE CAÑADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 73131-32 August 31, 1988 - FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73602 August 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT L. CALICDAN

  • G.R. No. 75775 August 31, 1988 - DOMINGO SUMBILLO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76579-82 August 31, 1988 - BENEDICTO RODRIGUEZ, v. DIR. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76724-6 August 31, 1988 - UNITRAN/BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC., ET AL. v. JOSE OLVIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77369 August 31, 1988 - HYOPSUNG MARITIME CO., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80902 August 31, 1988 - BENGUET CORPORATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81490 August 31, 1988 - HAGONOY WATER DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.