Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > September 1988 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-49762-64 September 26, 1988 - RANULFO PAMPARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-49762-64. September 26, 1988.]

RANULFO PAMPARO, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO ESPINAS, JR., and DENYSE ESPINAS, IGNACIO D. ALMODOVAR, AS EX-OFFICIO PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBAY; AND VICENTE RAMIREZ, DEPUTY PROVINCIAL SHERIFF; AND JORGE SABILE AND LOURDES DURAN-SABILE, Respondents.

Madrid Law Office for Petitioner.

Ireneo T . Sales, Jr. for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE APPELLATE COURT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS OF THE CASE; BINDING UPON THE SUPREME COURT. — The findings of facts of the respondent appellate court are well-supported by the records of the case and therefore binding on Us, considering further that such conclusion was arrived at not by mere speculations, surmises or conjectures; nor manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; nor based on a misapprehension of certain occurrence; nor are they in conflict with other facts or with the admissions of both parties nor that in arriving at such conclusions, the appellate court had committed a grave abuse of discretion or went beyond the issue of the case.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Before Us is a Petition to Review the decision 1 of respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed on appeal with modification the joint decision 2 dated June 20, 1973 of the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Albay in Civil Case Nos. 4171, 4173 and 4280.

These cases have resulted from the filing and the judgment of an earlier action, Civil Case No. 3353, a personal injury and damage suit brought by Pedro Espinas, Jr. (one of private respondents herein) in representation of his daughter, Denyse Espinas, against S.M. Revale Transit.

By virtue of a writ of attachment, issued upon plaintiff’s 3 application, levy was made on two jeepneys and one parcel of irrigated riceland declared under Tax Declaration No. 11690 in the name of Santiago Revale and was duly registered on November 2, 1967 with the Registry of Deeds of Albay.

Upon the filing of a counterbond by the defendants 4 consisting partly of cash and partly of land declared in the name of Ma. Luisa Samson, wife of Santiago Revale, under Tax Declaration No. 15363, the two jeepneys were released from attachment.

On December 7, 1967, the parties executed a compromise agreement, which was made the basis of the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ALBAY

10th Judicial District

Branch III

DENYSE ESPINAS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

— versus — CIVIL CASE NO. 3353

RODOLFO EUGENIO Y BARACINA,

ET AL., Defendants.


D E C I S I O N


"This is an action for damages. On March 20, 1967, the Court dismissed the complaint as regards the plaintiffs Nonnie Gutierrez and Ricardo Gutierrez because the defendant S.M. Revale Transit has paid them the sum of P2,000.00. The trial proceeded with respect to the remaining plaintiffs Denyse Espinas and Pedro Espinas, Jr. Today, the parties submitted a compromise agreement which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘COME NOW the parties in the above-entitled case, assisted by their respective counsels and to this Honorable Court respectfully submit the following amicable settlement as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That defendant Santiago Revale agrees to pay plaintiff-Denyse Espinas the sum of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS, payable as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"a. That defendant Santiago Revale will pay an initial amount of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P1,500.00) PESOS, within TEN (10) days from judgment, and the balance of THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P3,500.00) PESOS shall be paid monthly at the rate of FIVE HUNDRED (P500.00) PESOS, until after the full amount is fully paid.

"b. That defendant Santiago Revale, undertakes to pay the attorney’s fee for the plaintiffs in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED (P500.00) PESOS.

"c. That the counterbond of the defendant shall not be discharged, until after the whole amount is fully paid.

"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in the above-entitled case is accordance with the above amicable settlement."cralaw virtua1aw library

Legazpi City, December 7, 1967.

(SGD) PEDRO ESPINAS, JR. (SGD) SANTIAGO REVALE

In behalf of the minor Defendant

Denyse Espinas Plaintiffs

(SGD) IRENEO T. SALES (SGD) CESAR AGUILAR

Counsel for the Plaintiff Counsel for the Defendants,

Polangui, Albay Libon, Albay

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in accordance with the above-quoted compromise agreement without finding as to costs.

"SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

Legazpi City, Philippines, December 7, 1967. (pp. 107-108, Rollo)

However, when defendants failed to comply with the terms of said compromise agreement, execution was issued upon motion of the plaintiff. Consequently after due proceedings, the two attached parcels of land declared under Tax Declaration Nos. 11690 and 15363, were sold at public auction on February 17, 1969 to Pedro Espinas, Jr. The corresponding certificates of sale were registered with the Registry of Deeds on July 16, 1969.

On July 20, 1970, the redemption period having expired with no redemption being made by the former owners, definite deeds of sale of both parcels of land were executed by the Sheriff in favor of Espinas and were duly registered with the Register of Deeds.

Thereafter, the land covered by Tax Declaration No. 11690 was sold by Espinas to Jorge and Lourdes Sabile (co-respondents herein). It turned out later on that this same parcel of land was also sold by Santiago Revale to Ranulfo Pamparo in January, 1968 when the said land was already under attachment.

The aforementioned incidents started the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Civil Case No. 4171 — brought by Ranulfo Pamparo against Pedro Espinas, Jr. and the Provincial and Deputy Provincial Sheriffs of Albay to annul the execution sale made to Espinas and to declare Pamparo the true and lawful owner and possessor of the land covered by Tax Declaration No. 11690.

2. Civil Case No. 4173 — an action for annulment of the execution sale of the land covered by Tax Dec. No. 15363 in Civil Case No. 3353, instituted by Ma. Luisa Samson-Revale, wife of Santiago Revale against Pedro Espinas, Jr. and the Provincial Sheriff of Albay on the grounds that she (plaintiff) was never a party to the action.

3. Civil Case No. 4280 — filed by Jorge and Lourdes Sabile (respondents herein) against Ranulfo Pamparo and Santiago Revale to annul the sale of the land covered by Tax Dec. No. 11690 executed by Santiago Revale in favor of Ranulfo Pamparo at the time when the property was already in custodia legis, being under valid attachment in Civil Case No. 3353.

From a joint proceedings of these three (3) interrelated cases, the lower court, thru Judge Ezequiel Grageda ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Declaring the plaintiff Ranulfo Pamparo to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land formerly covered by Tax Declaration No. 11690, now Tax Declaration No. 15724 in the name of Ranulfo Pamparo, and declaring the proceedings made thereon by the Sheriff in Civil Case No. 3353, affecting the said property as null and void and without force and effect;

"2. Declaring the proceedings made by the Sheriff in Civil Case No. 3353, affecting the property of plaintiff in Civil Case No. 4173, as null and void and without force and effect;

"3. Ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 4280 for lack of merit;

"4. Ordering defendants in Civil Case No. 4171 and 4173, to pay plaintiffs, in both cases, jointly and severally, the attorney’s fees of P1,500.00 for having (been) forced to litigate, plus costs of suit.

"SO ORDERED.

Legazpi City, December 14, 1972.

(SGD.) EZEKIEL S. GRAGEDA

Judge" (p. 61, Joint Record on Appeal)

Upon a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendants, the lower court thru Judge Jose F. Madera, did not completely agree with the findings of Judge Grageda and issued an order dated March 12, 1973, the dispositive portion reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the complaint in Civil Case No. 4171 is hereby dismissed, with costs against the plaintiff. The Deed of sale executed by the Provincial Sheriff of the parcel of abaca land situated in Maocang, Polangui, Albay, containing an area of 255,000 square meters, more or less, in the name of Maria Luisa Samson is hereby declared null and void and without force and effect. Jorge Sabile and Lourdes Duran Sabile are hereby declared the rightful owners of that parcel of land consisting of 106.55 hectares, more or less, which they had acquired from Pedro Espinas, Jr. The sale executed by the Sheriff covering the land covered by Tax Declaration No. 11690, involved in Civil Case No. 41717, is hereby sustained.

"Ranulfo Pamparo is hereby ordered to pay Jorge Sabile and Lourdes Duran Sabile the sum of P2,000.00 in damages and to pay the costs. The decision rendered by the Court dated December 14, 1972 is hereby amended in the sense (of) herein above stated pro tanto.

"SO ORDERED." (pp. 127-128, Joint Record on Appeal, Annex B)

All the parties appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the appealed judgment with modification by ordering Pedro Espinas, Jr. and Deputy Sheriff Vicente Ramirez to pay Ma. Luisa Samson attorney’s fees and incidental expenses in the total amount of P1,250.00.

Petitioner Ranulfo Pamparo now comes to Us assigning several errors, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First Assignment of Error

The court-a-quo, speaking thru Hon. Jose Madara, erred in sustaining the legality and validity of the levy of attachment in Civil Case No. 3353, entitled Denyse Espinas, Et. Al. v. Rodolfo Eugenio y Baracina, S.M. Revale Transit, Silvestre Batbat and Celestino Castillo (T.S.N., Hearing Aug. 4, 1971, pp. 7-8) of the lot now involved in Civil Case No. 4171, and considering the said lot in custodia legis.

Second Assignment of Error

The court-a-quo speaking thru Jose Madara, erred in amending the decision of Hon. Ezekiel S. Grageda, dated Dec. 14, 1972, in its Order dated March 12, 1973, in dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 4171, and in declaring Jorge Sabile and Lourdes Duran-Sabile as the rightful owners of that parcel of land consisting of 10655 hectares, more or less, which they acquired from Pedro Espinas, Jr. and in sustaining the sale executed by the Sheriff covered by Tax Dec. No. 11690, (now Tax Dec. No. 15724 in the name of Ranulfo Pamparo) involved in Civil Case No. 4171.

Third Assignment of Error

The court-a-quo speaking thru the Hon. Jose Madara, erred in the application of the parol evidence, of possession of Ranulfo Pamparo, of the lot involved in Civil Case No. 4171, as early as 1966 when the sale thereof was perfected, notwithstanding consummation of the deed of sale Exh. A-Pamparo, on January 22, 1968.

Fourth Assignment of Error

The court-a-quo erred in ordering Ranulfo Pamparo to pay Jorge Sabile and Lourdes Duran-Sabile, P2,000.00 damages and to pay the costs.

Fifth Assignment of Error

The court-a-quo although it sustained the declaration of the nullity of the sale executed by the Provincial Sheriff of the parcel of abaca land situated in Maocang, Polangui, Albay, containing an area of 250,000 sq.m., more or less, in the name of Maria Luisa Samson (plaintiff in Civil Case No. 4173) and the same to be without force and effect, nevertheless, it failed to grant the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of said complained acts, compelling her to litigate. (pp. 2-4, Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants).

Petitioner is concerned chiefly with the land declared under Tax Declaration No. 11690 involved in Civil Cases Nos. 4171 and 4280. His assignments of error can be narrowed down into two (2) main arguments, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. that the levy on attachment and eventual execution on the property were null and void because the party sued and held liable in Civil Case No. 3353 was ‘S.M. Revale Transit,’ not Santiago Revale, the declared owner of said property, who was never impleaded and did not intervene as a party in that action, and

"2. that petitioner, being already in possession of the property at the time of issuance of the writ of attachment in Civil Case No. 3353, he was entitled to notice of such attachment under the rules; and that for want of such notice, the levy on attachment and all proceedings had on the basis thereof were null and void." (pp. 110, Rollo, Memorandum for the Respondents) 5

Petitioner maintains that S.M. Revale Transit is not the single proprietorship of Santiago Revale but a corporation with a separate and distinct juridical personality. He avers that the burden of proving otherwise belongs to plaintiff (or Pedro Espinas, Jr. in representation of daughter Denyse) in Civil Case No. 3353. Consequently, Santiago Revale, not being a party to the case, should not be made to answer for any judgment against S.M. Revale Transit.

Such contentions merit no consideration. A perusal of the records shows that Santiago Revale, by his own acts, voluntarily bound himself, as the judgment debtor. In their compromise agreement, made as the basis of the compromise judgment in Civil Case No. 3353 of the court a quo, Santiago Revale and not S.M. Revale Transit, appeared therein as the defendant and the signatory for the judgment debtor. In the course of the proceedings, his land was attached, and later sold at a public auction, without him ever questioning or objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over his person and property. And now comes petitioner Ranulfo Pamparo, raising a defense personal only to Santiago Revale who is now in estoppel in questioning the jurisdiction of the court because of his failure to assert his rights seasonably. It can be concluded therefore that such failure can only be attributed to Santiago Revale’s admission of or voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction that he is liable as a debtor being the single proprietor of S.M. Revale Transit. Moreover, in the entire proceedings in Civil Case No. 3353, down to the time that the judgment against him became final and executory, Santiago Revale never impugned the validity or property of the attachment on the ground that he was not a party to Civil Case No. 3353.

We find no merit in petitioner’s contention that Santiago Revale was never notified of the attachment of the land under Tax Declaration No. 11690. The writ of attachment issued by the Court a quo in September 1967 was duly served on the parties as per Sheriff’s Return (Exh. "K-1" Samson, Exh. "G-7-A" Pamparo). This levy of attachment was duly registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Albay on November 2, 1967. Likewise the writ of execution issued by the court on March 13, 1968 and the notice of levy upon failure of Santiago Revale to comply with the terms embodied in the compromise agreement as the basis of the judgment of the court a quo, were duly served upon defendants by the Sheriff as per Officer’s Return of Service (Exh. "M-1," Samson and Exh. "G-9-A," Pamparo).

As to Pamparo’s assertion that he was likewise entitled to the notice of attachment as a possessor of the property in question at the time of attachment, the respondent appellate court made the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When Ranulfo Pamparo was called to testify in the hearing of August 5, 1971, he testified in the following (manner):chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ATTY. OPIDA: (on direct examination)

Q. Do you know the land in question in these cases?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why?

A. I am the one in possession of the land.

Q. Why are you now possessing? (TSN p. 19)

x       x       x


A. Yes, sir, because I bought it in January 1968. (ibid, p. 20)

x       x       x


Q. You said you were in possession of this land, when did you actually take possession of this land in question?

A. In 1968, when I paid him in full the purchase price for the land.

Q. What was the purchase price?

A. Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos.

"Whereas in the hearing of August 6, 1971, Pamparo testified that in 1968, prior to the execution of the deed of absolute sale (Exh. "A," Pamparo) by and between Santiago Revale and Ranulfo Pamparo, he was already in possession of the land in dispute and as a matter of fact he was allowed to pay little amounts from time to time, the sale being one of installment, and started improvements thereon until it was fully paid in 1968. According to Pamparo he could not count exactly the number of payments he made in consideration of the sale and neither did he secure any receipt of whatever amount Santiago Revale (the vendor) has taken from him nor was he recording the payments given to the vendor because of the trust and confidence bestowed on each other. He testified, further, on cross-examination, that despite his knowledge that the parcel of land in dispute was encumbered with the bank he nevertheless was giving money to Mr. Santiago Revale.

"It appears now that there are two conflicting testimonies of Pamparo regarding the commencement of his possession of the landholding in question. The court is inclined to believe his testimony given on August 5, 1971 it being in consonance with the documentary evidence he presented which is the Deed of Absolute Sale between him and Santiago Revale, executed on January 22, 1968. The claim of Pamparo that his payments on the parcel of land started way back in 1966, which is neither supported by any receipt nor any memorandum, become worthless in view of the fact that, Pamparo himself in the hearing of August 5, 1971 testified, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Atty. OPIDA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


Q. Before you bought this property, was this encumbered with any financial institution?

A. It was.

Q. What happened to this encumbrance?

A. We agreed that I will first redeem it from the bank, and the remaining amount I will just pay him. (TSN, p. 30)

Clearly we can infer from the aforequoted testimony that the redemption of the property from the bank was a condition precedent before the sale could be consummated. Had it been true that payments before the redemption of the land from the bank were made, Pamparo could have easily said so. It can be seen from Exhibit "Pamparo," which is the release of real estate mortgage executed by the Philippine National Cooperative Bank, that it was issued only on December 29, 1967. The interregnum from the time of redemption (December 29, 1967) to the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale (January 22, 1968) reveals the normal course of events that took place. Thus, we affirm the court a quo’s finding that "the declarations of Pamparo on possession are not clear and convincing, and that his possession is coetaneous with perfection of the sale in the full payment of the purchase price and execution of the document of sale. Whatever rights Ranulfo Pamparo might have acquired anent the parcel of irrigated riceland covered by Tax Dec. No. 11690 which is in question in this case accrued only on January 22, 1968, the date when the Deed of sale was executed in his favor and also when he took possession actually of the land in question.

"Hence, Pamparo having failed to establish his possession of the land in dispute way back in 1968 entitling him thereby to a notice of levy and attachment as possessor of the lot in compliance with Sec. 7, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, it becomes inevitable to conclude that the levy of the property covered by Tax Dec. No. 11690 by virtue of a writ of attachment issued by the court on September 21, 1967, in Civil Case No. 3353, was valid and legal. Thus,

‘When property is lawfully, taken by virtue of legal process, it is in the custody of the law, and not otherwise.’ (Auyong Hian v. Court of Tax Appeals, 59 SCRA 110)

"The lot having been in custodia legis since September 21, 1967, and the sale of the same made by Santiago Revale, to Ranulfo Pamparo on January 22, 1968, inevitably Pedro Espinas, Jr., had superior rights over said lot by reason of the lien created in his favor resulting from the levy which was duly registered with the register of Deeds considering that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Where a preliminary attachment was duly noted on the title register against registered land before a purported sale of such property by the owner to third persons was noted, rights under the attachment and execution sale pursuant thereto were superior to those of the purchasers from the registered owner." (Phil. Executive Commission v. Abadilla, 74 Phil. 68; Raal v. Provincial Government of Rizal, 67 Phil. 654; Government v. Mercado, G.R. No. 54298, April 15, 1959).

"Perforce, Pedro, Espinas’ superior rights over the lot in question necessarily holds true to his successors-in-interest, who, in these cases, are spouses Jorge Sabile and Lourdes Duran Sabile.

"As borne out by the records, Jorge Sabile and Lourdes Duran-Sabile are the purchasers for valuable consideration of the same lot acquired by Pedro Espinas, Jr. in the execution sale (Exh. "16," Sabile). During the pendency of Civil Case No. 3353 while the land in dispute was in custodia legis being then under attachment, Santiago Revale, in fraud of his creditors, Pedro Espinas, Jr. particularly, sold the attached property to Ranulfo Pamparo who was charged with notice of the levy by virtue of the filing of the notice of levy with the Register of Deeds.

"In view of the conclusion reached by this Court that Pedro Espinas, Jr. had superior rights over the landholding in question he having been an attaching creditor before the same property was sold to Ranulfo Pamparo by Santiago Revale, the following observations of the court a quo are affirmed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the sale was made in fraud of creditors of Santiago Revale which in this particular case are Pedro Espinas, Jr., and/or Denyse Espinas;

"2. That Exhibit "A-Pamparo is a sale involving a property in custodia legis which in this particular case is the land covered by Tax Declaration No. 11690 in the name of Santiago Revale, formerly;

"3. That said property sold by Santiago Revale to Ranulfo Pamparo (Exh. A-Pamparo) had already become the property of Pedro Espinas, Jr., by virtue of a valid, legal and final judicial sale (Exh. 15-Sabile);

"4. That there was manifest bad faith on the part of Santiago Revale and Ranulfo Pamparo in entering into the transaction of sale of the property covered by Tax Declaration No. 11690; and

"5. Consequently Ranulfo Pamparo acquired no rights whatsoever under the said sale (Exh. A-Pamparo) as a valid cause of action for annulment of the execution sale made by the Provincial Sheriff to Pedro Espinas, Jr. and from Pedro Espinas, Jr., to the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4280.

"Therefore, Ranulfo Pamparo was devoid of any right whatsoever under the deed of absolute sale executed in his favor which could validly annul the execution sale made by the Provincial Sheriff to Pedro Espinas, Jr., and from Espinas to the spouses Jorge Sabile and Lourdes Duran-Sabile." (pp. 27-30, Rollo)

The aforementioned findings of facts of the respondent appellate court are well supported by the records of the case and therefore binding on Us, considering further that such conclusion was arrived at not by mere speculations, surmises or conjectures; nor manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; nor based on a misapprehension of certain occurrences; nor are they in conflict with other facts or with the admissions of both parties nor that in arriving at such conclusions, the appellate court had committed a grave abuse of discretion or went beyond the issue of the case.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed judgment, the same is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Justice Carlos L. Sundiam, with the concurring votes of Justice Pacifico P. de Castro and Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.

2. Decided by Judge Jose F. Madera who reversed, as far as Civil Case Nos. 4280 and 4173 are concerned, the decision, dated December 14, 1972 penned by Judge Ezekiel S. Grageda — upon a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the losing parties.

3. Pedro Espinas, Jr. in representation of his daughter Denyse Espinas.

4. S.M. Revale Transit, Et. Al.

5. Respondents were then represented by their counsel Andres Narvasa (now a distinguished member of this Court) and Associates. (p. 117, Rollo)




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





September-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 76001 September 5, 1988 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31600 September 12, 1988 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. COMMUNITY BUILDERS CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48762 September 12, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. 76768 September 12, 1988 - CARLOS KENG SENG v. LORENZO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80228 September 12, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-57519 September 13, 1988 - DELFIN ORODIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46881 September 15, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-47821 September 15, 1988 - BENITO ROSALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77090 September 16, 1988 - DIOSDADO ESPADERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29320 September 19, 1988 - FELIPE SEGURA, ET AL. v. NICOLAS SEGURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44264 September 19, 1988 - HEDY Y. GAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45388 September 19, 1988 - TACIANA B. ESPEJO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47646 September 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR R. MARAVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-48728-29 September 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-60764 September 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BARDON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71142 September 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE MARALIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73794 September 19, 1988 - ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARKS CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74711 September 19, 1988 - NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75395 September 19, 1988 - ESTELITO BAGADIONG, ET AL. v. PLACIDA VDA. DE ABUNDO

  • G.R. No. 77210 September 19, 1988 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. LIWANAG PARAS BRIONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78535-36 September 19, 1988 - MANUEL DY v. MATILDE SACAY

  • G.R. No. L-32684 September 20, 1988 - RAMON TUMBAGAHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59097 September 20, 1988 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. ARSENIO D. TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. 73418 September 20, 1988 - PELICULA SABIDO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80006 September 21, 1988 - APOLONIA BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80294-95 September 21, 1988 - CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80992 September 21, 1988 - EDWIN REANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36413 September 26, 1988 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39910 September 26, 1988 - CECILIA TEODORO DAYRIT, ET AL. v. FERNANDO A CRUZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-49762-64 September 26, 1988 - RANULFO PAMPARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68357 September 26, 1988 - SAMAHAN NG MGA NANGUNGUPAHAN SA AZCARRAGA TEXTILE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68992 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO PACNIS

  • G.R. No. L-68993 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-69205-06 September 26, 1988 - NUWHRAIN-BONANZA RESTAURANT CHAPTER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69934 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANITO INTINO

  • G.R. No. 73488 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BALARES

  • G.R. No. 73859 September 26, 1988 - JUAN DE CASTRO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73876 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAURO G. CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74123-24 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONILO L. PINLAC

  • G.R. No. 75816 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO AGUINALDO

  • G.R. No. 75877 September 26, 1988 - SANTOS BERNARDO, ET AL. v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 76132 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO CLAVO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 76711 September 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARVIN H. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77201 September 26, 1988 - AVENTINO C. SASAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77290 September 26, 1988 - DIVINA JABALLAS v. CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 77951 September 26, 1988 - COOPERATIVE RURAL BANK OF DAVAO CITY, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78606 September 26, 1988 - GELACIO V. SAMULDE v. RAMON M. SALVANI, JR.

  • G.R. No. 79891 September 26, 1988 - AURELIO M. DE VERA v. C. F. SHARP & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80383 September 26, 1988 - EMMANUEL LABAJO v. PUREZA V. ALEJANDRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81163 September 26, 1988 - EDUARDO S. BARANDA, ET AL. v. TITO GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81969 September 26, 1988 - JOCELYN RULONA-AL AWADHI v. ABDULMAJID J. ASTIH

  • G.R. No. 82833 September 26, 1988 - 3M PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-52034 September 27, 1988 - SALVADOR LACORTE v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60935 September 27, 1988 - ANTONIO GARCIA, JR. v. SANTIAGO RANADA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75880 September 27, 1988 - BERNARDO M. CORDIAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45447 September 28, 1988 - CARLITO V. SEMBRANO v. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54287 September 2, 1988 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. CONRADO M. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75569 September 28, 1988 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80380 September 28, 1988 - CARLOS BELL RAYMOND, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-82173 September 28, 1988 - EDGAR S. ASUNCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37079 September 29, 1988 - HEIRS OF ZOILO LLIDO v. PAULINO S. MARQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41322 September 29, 1988 - MUNICIPALITY OF KAPALONG, ET AL. v. FELIX L. MOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44347 September 29, 1988 - VICENTE TAN v. CITY OF DAVAO

  • G.R. No. L-49731 September 29, 1988 - ALFREDO SERING v. RESTITUTO PLAZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70987 September 29, 1988 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75736 September 29, 1988 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU-TUCP), ET AL. v. ANTONIO V. BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80457 September 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIANO ROSE, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80737 September 29, 1988 - PHILIPPINE GRAPHIC ARTS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81760 September 29, 1988 - EDGARDO L. STO. DOMINGO v. SEDFREY A. ORDOÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-82542 September 29, 1988 - BARRY JOHN PRICE, ET AL. v. UNITED LABORATORIES

  • G.R. No. L-40218 September 30, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50168 September 30, 1988 - HEIRS OF GAVINO SABANAL v. BENJAMIN K. GOROSPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65935 September 30, 1988 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69136 September 30, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MEGA GENERAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-74610-11 September 30, 1988 - ALGA MOHER INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES v. DIEGO P. ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74811 September 30, 1988 - CHUA YEK HONG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77032 September 30, 1988 - EXCEL AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. JUAN T. GOCHANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79488 September 30, 1988 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80040 September 30, 1988 - ISMAEL AMORGANDA, ET AL. v. COURT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81381 September 30, 1988 - EFIGENIO S. DAMASCO v. HILARIO L. LAQUI, ET AL.