Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > January 1988 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-42956-57 January 12, 1988 - A. DORONILA RESOURCES DEV., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-42956-57. January 12, 1988.]

A. DORONILA RESOURCES DEV., INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LAND REGISTRATION; ANNOTATION OF ENCUMBRANCE; REGISTRATION OF AN ADVERSE CLAIM ON THE SAME TITLE PROPER DESPITE PRIOR ANNOTATION OF LIS PENDENS. — But while a notice of lis pendens remains during the pendency of the action, although same may be cancelled under certain circumstances as where the case is prolonged unnecessary or for failure of the plaintiff to introduce evidence bearing out the allegations of the complaint (Victoriano v. Rovira, 55 Phil. 1000; Municipal Council of Parañaque v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, 40 Off. Gaz., 8th Supp., 196); and it has even been held that a court, in the absence of a statute, has the inherent power to cancel a lis pendens notice in a proper case (Victoriano v. Rovira, supra), the same is not true in a registered adverse claim, for it may be cancelled only in one instance, i.e., after the claim is adjudged invalid or unmeritorious by the Court, acting either as a land registration court or one of general jurisdiction while passing upon a case before it where the subject of the litigation is the same interest or right which is being secured by the adverse claim. The possibility therefore, that parties claiming an interest in a registered property desire, for any other purpose, to have their cause ventilated in a court of general jurisdiction, may result in giving them two ways of making the registration of their claimed rights. In such instances, it would not only be unreasonable but also oppressive to hold that the subsequent institution of an ordinary civil action would work to divest the adverse claim of its validity, for as We have pointed out, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled even before the action is finally terminated for causes which may not be attributable to the claimant. And it would similarly be beyond reason to confine a claimant to the remedy afforded by Section 110 of Act 496 if there are other recourses in law which such claimant may avail of. But, if any of the registrations should be considered unnecessary or superfluous, it would be the notice of lis pendens and not the annotation of the adverse claim which is more permanent and cannot be cancelled without adequate hearing and proper disposition of the claim."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ANNOTATION IN THE TITLE THAT THE PROPERTY THEREIN DESCRIBED IS SUBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION OF A CONSULTA; STATEMENT INSUFFICIENT NOTICE AND WARNING TO THIRD PERSONS DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY. — It cannot really be said that the rights and interests of the petitioner over the land in question are amply protected by the annotation at the back of TCT 425582 issued in the name of Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc., that "the property therein described is subject o there solution of LRC Consulta No. 887." The statement that the property described is subject to the resolution of a consulta, unlike a statement of adverse claim, cannot serve as a notice and warning to third persons dealing with the property that someone is claiming an interest in the same or a better title than that of the registered owner thereof. A consulta, as is generally understood, is but the reference of a question to the Commissioner of Land Registration by a Register of Deeds when he is in doubt as to the proper step to be taken when a deed or instrument is presented to him for registration.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


Petition for review on certiorari of the decision * of the respondent Court of Appeals issued on 26 November 1975 in cases CA-G.R. Nos. SP-02509 & 02711, entitled: "A. Doronila Resources Dev. Inc., petitioner-appellant, versus Register of Deeds of Rizal, respondent-appellee," which affirmed the resolutions of the Land Registration Commission in LRC Consulta Nos. 887 and 894, denying petitioner’s application for registration of an adverse claim. The Court considered the petition as a special civil action.

The facts, as found by the respondent appellate court, are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Blue Chips Projects, Inc. a Corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, is the registered owner of a parcel of land containing an area of One Million Two Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Nine (1,256,269) sq. meters, more or less, situated in Barrio Patiis, Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal and covered by TCT Certificate of Title No. 344936 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal (See Original Record in LRC Consulta No. 887).

2. Blue Chips Projects, Inc. purchased said property from Purita Landicho the lawful registered owner under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167681 (id.);

3. On December 11, 1972, petitioner-appellant A. Doronila Resources Development Inc. availed of the remedy of lis pendens in Civil Case No. 12044 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the same having been annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 344936 in the name of Blue Chips Projects, Inc. (id.);

4. On August 8, 1973, petitioner thru its President Alfonso Doronila, filed an affidavit of adverse claim for registration on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 344936 with the Register of Deeds of Rizal on the ground that the property covered by the aforesaid title registered in the name of Blue Chips Projects Inc. is a portion of a big parcel of land which was purchased by petitioner corporation from Alfonso Doronila (Adverse Claim of petitioner-appellant — Record of LRC Consulta No. 887);

5. Respondent-appellee, the Register of Deeds of Rizal denied the registration of the affidavit of the aforementioned adverse claim on the ground ‘that a notice of lis pendens remains registered on the certificate of title involved should be a bar to the registration of an affidavit of adverse claim. Considering that the rights and interests of the petitioner are already amply protected thereby without imposing a further burden on the registered owner by the registration of an affidavit of adverse claim which would be serving the same purpose. After all, an affidavit of adverse claim does not add anything to the validity of one’s claim nor does it create a non existent right’ (Letter of denial dated August 13, 1973. Record of LRC Consulta 887);

6. Petitioner elevated the matter en consulta to the Land Registration Commission (Records, LRC Consulta No. 887);

7. On November 6, 1973, the Land Registration Commission issued its Resolution holding that the affidavit of adverse claim be denied registration (LRC Consulta No. 887);

8. On November 5, 1973, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 344936 registered in the name of Blue Chips Projects, Inc. was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 425582 was issued in favor of the purchaser Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc. with an annotation at the back thereof that the property therein described is subject to the Resolution of LRC Consulta No. 887 (Record, LRC Consulta 894);

9. Petitioner A. Doronila Resources Dev. Inc. again sought the registration of an affidavit of Adverse Claim identical to that which was the subject of LRC Consulta No. 887 on TCT No. 425582 registered in the name of Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc. (Adverse Claim, LRC Consulta 894);

10. Respondent-appellee Register of Deeds elevated the records to the Land Registration Commission for resolution under Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 1151 (Letter dated Nov. 27, 1973, Record of LRC Consulta No. 894);

11. The Land Registration Commission rendered on January 8, 1974, a resolution in L.R.C. Consulta No. 894 maintaining its opinion in L.R.C. Consulta No. 887 and ruling against registrability of the affidavit of adverse claim (Resolution LRC Consulta No. 894);

12. Not satisfied with the above resolution, petitioner appealed to this Honorable Court (Notice of Appeal, Record of LRC Consulta No. 894);

13. On March 12, 1974, appellant filed before this Honorable Court a petition for Consolidated (sic) of Case SP-02569 (LRC Consulta 887)and Case SP-02711 (LRC Consulta 894) which was granted by this Honorable Court on March 19, 1974 (p.11, Appellant’s Brief)." pp. 2-5, Brief for the Respondent-Appellee." 1

On 26 November 1975, the respondent Court of Appeals, as earlier stated, rendered a decision, affirming the resolutions of the Land Registration Commission in LRC Consulta Nos. 887 and 894. 2 The Court of Appeals said:chanrobles law library

"1. CONSIDERING: That as this Court understands position of appellant Doronila Resources, it was and is true registered owner of subject land as successor in interest of original registered owner, Meerkamp & Company under OCT 301 issued on 14 January, 1907.

But that thru certain manipulations, another title was issued to same land, namely, TCT 167681 in the name of Landicho, which in turn was conveyed unto Blue Chips, and new title issued in the name of Blue Chips, TCT 344936 in November, 1971, and finally, this last title was conveyed unto Winmar Poultry Farms and new title TCT 425582 was issued unto Winmar in November, 1973 — therefore, Doronila Resources contends that as a matter of right on its part, and a ministerial duty of Register of Deeds, its notice of ADVERSE CLAIM should he annotated in TCT 344936 and its successor, TCT 425582, — and the denial by Commissioner of Land Registration to that registration was wrong, — the denial having been based on the ground that appellant Doronila Resources had already filed Civil 12044 in CFI Rizal and had there already secured annotation of LIS PENDENS on TCT 344936; which Doronila Resources claims was no ground at all for denial, because Lis Pendens and Adverse Claims are different, and it had itself asked cancellation of its Lis Pendens as to TCT 344936 . . ." (pages 5-6, Decision)

x       x       x


". . . if therefore, instead of at once filing adverse claim, he filed suit, as in present case. — in the mind of this Court, the annotation, the further annotation, of adverse claim becomes redundant, . . ." (page 7, Decision) 3

Hence, the present recourse.

The sole issue involved is whether or not the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of a certificate of title precludes the subsequent registration on the same or successor certificate of title of an adverse claim.

The Land Registration Commission, in its resolutions in the Consultas, abovementioned, declared, and the respondent appellate court affirmed, that since the petitioner had already availed of the remedy of lis pendens, and that the rights and interests of adverse claimant are already amply protected by the registration of such notice of lis pendens, "it does not seem fair to have a title saddled by two encumbrances arising from one and the same source, and serving one and the same purpose." 4

This Court, however, has ruled differently, i.e., that the two remedies, notice of lis pendens and adverse claim, are not contradictory or repugnant to one another; nor does the existence of one automatically nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be considered unnecessary or superfluous, it would be the notice of lis pendens, and not the annotation of an adverse claim which is more permanent and cannot be cancelled without adequate hearing and proper disposition of the claim involved. The Court said:cralawnad

"But We have to give certain consideration to the implication created by the lower court’s ruling that the institution of a court action for the purpose of securing or preserving the right which is also the object of an adverse claim invalidates the latter, irrespective of whether a notice of lis pendens has been annotated or not, for such a doctrine gives the impression that the 2 remedies are contradictory or repugnant to one another, the existence of one automatically nullifying the other. We are inclined to believe otherwise, for while both registrations have their own characteristics and requisites, it cannot be denied that they are both intended to protect the interest of a claimant by posing as notices and caution to those dealing with the property that same is subject to a claim. But while a notice of lis pendens remains during the pendency of the action, although same may be cancelled under certain circumstances as where the case is prolonged unnecessary or for failure of the plaintiff to introduce evidence bearing out the allegations of the complaint (Victoriano v. Rovira, 55 Phil. 1000; Municipal Council of Parañaque v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, 40 Off. Gaz., 8th Supp., 196); and it has even been held that a court, in the absence of a statute, has the inherent power to cancel a lis pendens notice in a proper case (Victoriano v. Rovira, supra), the same is not true in a registered adverse claim, for it may be cancelled only in one instance, i.e., after the claim is adjudged invalid or unmeritorious by the Court, acting either as a land registration court or one of general jurisdiction while passing upon a case before it where the subject of the litigation is the same interest or right which is being secured by the adverse claim. The possibility therefore, that parties claiming an interest in a registered property desire, for any other purpose, to have their cause ventilated in a court of general jurisdiction, may result in giving them two ways of making the registration of their claimed rights. In such instances, it would not only be unreasonable but also oppressive to hold that the subsequent institution of an ordinary civil action would work to divest the adverse claim of its validity, for as We have pointed out, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled even before the action is finally terminated for causes which may not be attributable to the claimant. And it would similarly be beyond reason to confine a claimant to the remedy afforded by Section 110 of Act 496 if there are other recourses in law which such claimant may avail of. But, if any of the registrations should be considered unnecessary or superfluous, it would be the notice of lis pendens and not the annotation of the adverse claim which is more permanent and cannot be cancelled without adequate hearing and proper disposition of the claim." 5

Besides, it cannot really be said that the rights and interests of the petitioner over the land in question are amply protected by the annotation at the back of TCT 425582 issued in the name of Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc., that "the property therein described is subject o there solution of LRC Consulta No. 887." The statement that the property described is subject to the resolution of a consulta, unlike a statement of adverse claim, cannot serve as a notice and warning to third persons dealing with the property that someone is claiming an interest in the same or a better title than that of the registered owner thereof. A consulta, as is generally understood, is but the reference of a question to the Commissioner of Land Registration by a Register of Deeds when he is in doubt as to the proper step to be taken when a deed or instrument is presented to him for registration.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 November 1975, in CA-G.R. Nos. SP-02509 and 02711 as well as there solutions in LRC Consulta Nos. 887 and 894, issued by the Land Registration Commissioner on 6 November 1973, and 8 January 1974, respectively, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Register of Deeds of Rizal is directed to register (annotate) the affidavit of adverse claim of A. Doronila Resources Dev. Inc. at the back of TCT No. 344936 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal issued in the name of Blue Chips Projects, Inc. and of TCT No. 425582 of the same Registry issued in the name of Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc. Without Costs.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Penned by Justice Magno S. Gatmaitan with the concurrence of Justices Mama Busran and Vicente G. Ericta.

1. Rollo, pp. 20-22.

2. Id., p. 19.

3. Rollo, pp. 10-11.

4. Id., p. 28; Appellant’s Brief, p. 21.

5. Ty Sin Tei v. Lee Dy Piao, 103 Phil. 858, 868-869.




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






January-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-72964 January 7, 1988 - FILOMENO URBANO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78936 January 7, 1988 - VILLA RHECAR BUS v. FRUCTUOUSO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-70193-96 January 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO C. GALLO

  • G.R. Nos. L-42956-57 January 12, 1988 - A. DORONILA RESOURCES DEV., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43714 January 15, 1988 - FELIX GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49396 January 15, 1988 - JUAN A. GOCHANGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67970 January 15, 1988 - JOSE ABROGAR, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68303 January 15, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72400 January 15, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO D. PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75740 January 15, 1988 - CITYTRUST FINANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76233 January 15, 1988 - ZAYDA BISCOCHO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-77502 January 15, 1988 - EMILIA B. SANTIAGO v. PIONEER SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. 1974 January 15, 1988 - ZOILO E. CADELINA v. GENOVEVO Q. MANHILOT

  • G.R. No. L-56431 January 19, 1988 - NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES v. ALFREDO M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43445 January 20, 1988 - EUFEMIA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BARROGA, ET AL. v. ANGEL ALBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63575 January 20, 1988 - ROSA GICANO, ET AL. v. ROSA GEGATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71855 January 20, 1988 - RIZALITO VELUNTA v. CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74053-54 January 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NATHANIEL M. GROSPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74279 & 74801-03 January 20, 1988 - MAXIMO ROXAS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74655 January 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO R. TARUC

  • G.R. No. L-74917 January 20, 1988 - BANCO DE ORO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78131 January 20, 1988 - EDUARDO TANCINCO, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37674 January 21, 1988 - LIMPAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. CARLOS L. SUNDIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-77107-08 January 21, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO DATAHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27677-8-9 January 22, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TAGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32749 January 22, 1988 - SABAS H. HOMENA, ET AL. v. DIMAS CASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34893 January 22, 1988 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GSIS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39019 January 22, 1988 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46373 January 22, 1988 - YAP PENG CHONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46877 January 22, 1988 - LOURDES CYNTHIA MAKABALI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68969 January 22, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. USMAN A. HASSAN

  • A.M. No. 265-MJ January 22, 1988 - LEONARDO B. BABATIO v. JOSE Z. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-66614 January 25, 1988 - PRIMITIVO LEVERIZA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69591 January 25, 1988 - ALICIA DE SANTOS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-71875-76 January 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO C. LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71939 January 25, 1988 - ELIGIO T. LEYVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73461 January 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR MASANGKAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75575 January 25, 1988 - ROGELIO BUCE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80007 January 25, 1988 - CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49046 January 26, 1988 - SATURNO A. VICTORIA v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69259 January 26, 1988 - DELPHER TRADES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37783 January 28, 1988 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56960 January 28, 1988 - ELISEA G. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68741 January 28, 1988 - NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68989 January 28, 1988 - ANDREA CORDOVA VDA. DE GUTIERREZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73584 January 28, 1988 - LEONARDO FAMISAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74187 January 28, 1988 - STANFORD MICROSYSTEMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75039 January 28, 1988 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76668 January 28, 1988 - DULOS REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77970 January 28, 1988 - AMBRAQUE INT’L. PLACEMENT & SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41154 January 29, 1988 - SILVERIO VERAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44330 January 29, 1988 - JULITA T. VDA. DE SEVERO, ET AL. v. LUNINGNING FELICIANO GO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44546 January 29, 1988 - RUSTICO ADILLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46484 January 29, 1988 - LEONARDO MENDOZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47574 January 29, 1988 - FILIPINAS FABRICATORS & SALES INC., ET AL. v. CELSO L. MAGSINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48011 January 29, 1988 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LA UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50141 January 29, 1988 - BEAUTIFONT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51352 January 29, 1988 - VERDANT ACRES, INC. v. PONCIANO HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-54500 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO BATAC

  • G.R. No. L-54904 January 29, 1988 - HEIRS OF TITO RILLORTA v. ROMEO N. FIRME

  • G.R. No. L-67706 January 29, 1988 - ILIGAN CONCRETE PRODUCTS v. ANASTACIO MAGADAN

  • G.R. No. L-67813 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. TUNDAY

  • G.R. No. L-68331 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SANTILLAN

  • G.R. No. L-69564 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN G. ESCOBER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69622 January 29, 1988 - LILIA Y. GONZALES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-69757-58 January 29, 1988 - CIRCA NILA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SALVADOR J. BAYLEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70484 January 29, 1988 - ROMAN C. TUASON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALOOCAN CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71091 January 29, 1988 - HENRY GALUBA, v. ALFREDO LAURETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72096 January 29, 1988 - JOHN CLEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72126 January 29, 1988 - MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72443 January 29, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AIR INDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72981 January 29, 1988 - FRANCISCA DE LA CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73604 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROUBEN H. CORRAL

  • G.R. No. L-73605 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO REUNIR

  • G.R. No. L-73627 January 29, 1988 - TAN HANG v. ANSBERTO PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74345 January 29, 1988 - FAR CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74369 January 29, 1988 - DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75268 January 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN C. MELGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75577 January 29, 1988 - PIO L. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77735 January 29, 1988 - WILFREDO VERDEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78973 January 29, 1988 - MAMINTA M. RADIA v. REVIEW COMMITTEE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 17, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80718 January 29, 1988 - FELISA P. DE ROY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2409 January 29, 1988 - MANUEL Y. MACIAS v. BENJAMIN B. MALIG