Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > October 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 88233 October 4, 1991 - OSCAR NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 88233. October 4, 1991.]

OSCAR NATIVIDAD, BARTOLOME RAMOS and EUGENIO PASCUAL, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Aladdin F. Trinidad for petitioners.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; PUBLIC LAND ACT (C.A. 141); ALIENABLE PUBLIC LAND, MAY BE CONVERTED TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP THROUGH ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION. — In Susi v. Razon (48 Phil. 424), this Court ruled that "open, continuous, adverse and public possession of a land of the public domain from time immemorial by a private individual personally and through his predecessors confers an effective title on said possessor, whereby the land ceases to be public, to become private property." In Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., 146 SCRA 509, this Court upheld the doctrine that "open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other sanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; PROHIBITION AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF TITLE IN FAVOR OF CORPORATION; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — The Director’s contention that a corporation may not apply for confirmation of title under Section 48 of Commonwealth Act 141, the Public Land Act, was disposed of in the Acme case where this Court ruled that the defect in filing the confirmation proceedings in the name of a corporation was simply an "accidental circumstance, . . . in nowise affecting the substance and merits of the right of ownership sought to be confirmed in said proceedings." (Director of Lands v. IAC and Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., 146 SCRA 509, 522.) Since the petitioners could have had their respective titles confirmed prior to the sale to TCMC, it was not necessary for the corporation to take the circuitous route of assigning to natural persons its rights to the lots for the purpose of complying, on paper, with the technicality of having natural persons file the applications for confirmation of title to the private lands.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY; PROHIBITION AGAINST ACQUISITION OF ALIENABLE PUBLIC LAND BY CORPORATION; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — Under the facts of this case and pursuant to the above rulings, the parcels of land in question had already been converted to private ownership through acquisitive prescription by the predecessors-in-interest of TCMC when the latter purchased them in 1979. All that was needed was the confirmation of the titles of the previous owners or predecessors-in-interest of TCMC. Being already private land when TCMC bought them in 1979, the prohibition in the 1973 Constitution against corporations acquiring alienable lands of the public domain except through lease (Article XIV, Section 11, 1973 Constitution) did not apply to them for they were no longer alienable lands of the public domain but private property.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


This is a petition for review of the decision dated August 25, 1988 of the Court of Appeals (Annex G, Petition) reversing the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Makati, Metro Manila, that allowed the registration in the names of petitioners Oscar Natividad, Eugenio Pascual and Bartolome Ramos of six (6) parcels of land which had originally been applied for by Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. (TCMC for short) in LRC Case No. 10585.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The facts set forth in the decision of the Court of Appeals are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On January 18, 1982, Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. (TCMC) filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 19 (now Regional Trial Court, Branch 137) an application for registration of title to six (6) parcels of land designated as lots 3010, 3011, 2855, 2853, 2851 and 5650 each respectively containing an area of 2,269, 11,672, 2,273, 3,422, 11,183 and 1,178 square meters, more or less. These lots are situated in Barrio San Juan, Morong, Rizal (Appellees’ Brief, p. 208, Rollo).

On August 16, 1982, the Director of Lands opposed the application (pp. 151-152, Records) on the grounds among others that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Neither the applicant (TMC) nor its predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto (Sec. 48[b], P.D. 1073);

2. The muniments of title and/or the tax declarations and taxpayments receipts, if any, alleged in the application, do not constitute sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the lands applied for . . .;

3. The parcels applied for are portions of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines not subject to private appropriation; and

4. The applicant is a private corporation disqualified under the New Philippine Constitution to hold alienable land of the public domain (Sec. 11, Art. XVI, New Constitution; Meralco v. Judge Bartolome, G.R. No. L-49623, June 29, 1982; Republic v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 55289, June 29, 1982).

On November 19, 1982, TCMC filed a motion for substitution (pp. 238-241, Records), praying that it be substituted by petitioners Oscar Natividad, Eugenio Pascual and Bartolome Ramos because on November 9, 1982, it sold to them the six parcels of land subject of its application. The motion was granted by the lower court in an order dated November 22, 1982 (p. 247, Records).chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Accordingly, in lieu of TCMC, the petitioners thereafter adduced evidence in support of the application, showing that he is original owners had possessed and cultivated the land as owners for more than 30 years before they were sold to TCMC. Thus, did the witnesses for the applicants testify:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) Oscar J. Natividad, 55 years old, college professor and resident of 111 Calero St., Morong, Rizal declared that he is the present owner and possessor of Lot 3011; that on November 9, 1982, he purchased Lot 3011 from Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. (Exh. E-Natividad) which in turn purchased it from the heirs of Geronimo Manapat namely Tiburcio Manapat and Manuel Manapat (Exhs. K-L, Natividad) who inherited the same upon the death of their father Geronimo in 1937; that the survey plan of Lot 3011 was approved by the Director of Lands (Exh. E-Natividad); that Lot 3011 was declared for taxation purposes (Exhs. 1, 0, Q R, S) and the realty taxes for the year covering 1966 up to 1982 were paid (Exhs. J, I T) (pp. 1-13, tsn. Nov. 13, 1982);

"(b) Crispin Manapat, 54 years old, farmer and resident of Pililla, Rizal, declared that he is the son of Tiburcio Manapat; that Oscar J. Natividad and his predecessors-in-interest Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc., Tiburcio Manapat, Manuel Manapat and Geronimo Manapat possessed Lot 3011 continuously openly, adversely and exclusively for over thirty (30) years; that he and his father Tiburcio Manapat used to till said land before it was sold to Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. (pp. 9-13, tsn., Nov. 23, 1982).

"(c) Eugenio Pascual, 74 years old, vice-president of Tomas Claudio Memorial College and resident of Morong, Rizal declared that he is the present owner and possessor of Lots 2851 and 2853; that on November 9, 1982, he purchased Lots 2851 and 2853 from Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. (Exh. E-Pascual) which in turn purchased them from the heirs of Simeon Bonifacio on June 29, 1978 (Exh. L-Pascual); that Simeon Bonifacio had been the owner of Lots 2851 and 2853 about fifteen years prior to World War II: that the survey plans of Lots 2851 and 2853 were approved by the Director of Lands (Exhs. F, 6-Pascual); that Lots 2851 and 2853 were declared for taxation purposes (Exhs. M to M-4 Pascual) and the realty taxes for the years covering 1950 up to 1982 were paid (Exhs. N to N-Q; O, P-Pascual) (pp. 1-9, tsn., Dec. 10, 1982).

"(d) Victor Bonifacio, 45 years old, farmer and resident of Morong, Rizal, declared that he is the grandson of Simeon Bonifacio who was the original owner of Lots 2851 and 2853; that his grandfather worked on their properties for forty years; that when his grandfather died before the Second World War, his father Apolonio and his uncles Lucio, Gaudencio and Jose inherited said properties and worked on them until they were sold to Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. on 29 June 1979; that applicant Eugenio Pascual and his predecessors-in-interest owned and possessed said properties continuously, openly, adversely and exclusively for over thirty (30) years.

"(e) Bartolome R. Ramos, 44 years old, employee of Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. and resident of Morong, Rizal, declared that he is the present owner and possessor of lots 5650, 2855, and 3010; that on November 9, 1982, he purchased lots 5650, 2855 and 3010 from Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. (Exh. E-Ramos); that Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. purchased lot 5650 from the heirs of Marcos Trinidad on June 27, 1978 (Exh. 1-Ramos), lot 2855 from the heirs of Domingo Gonzalvo and Modesta Manapat on January 15, 1981 and lot 3010 from Mariano de Castro on December 5, 1979 (Exh. R-Ramos); that the survey plans of lots 5650, 2856 and 3010 were approved by the Director of Lands (Exhs. F, M, S-Ramos); that said lots were declared for taxation purposes (Exhs. J, P, V, X, to X-1; Y to Y-2; AA-Ramos) and the realty taxes for the year 1966 to 1982 (Exhs. J, Q, Z, to Z-2, BB-Ramos);

"(f) Edilberto Trinidad, 67 years old, farmer, and resident of Morong, Rizal declared that he is the son of Marcos Trinidad who was the original owner and possessor of Lot 5650; that his father worked on said Lot until he died during the Second World War. that he and the other heirs of Marcos Trinidad inherited said property from the latter; that the heirs tilled the land until it was sold by them to Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. on 27 June 1979; that applicant Bartolome Ramos and his predecessors-in-interest owned and possessed said land continuously, openly, adversely and exclusively for over thirty (30) years (pp. 4-8, tsn., Dec. 6, 1982).

"(g) Pedro Gonzalvo, 63 years old, carpenter, and resident of Morong, Rizal, declared that he is the son of Domingo Gonzalvo and Modesta Manapat, the original owner/possessor of Lot 2855; that his parents cultivated said land even before the Second World War, planted it with vegetables, mango trees, sampaloc and bananas; that after the death of their parents, he and his brothers, Ireneo, Seferino and Honorio inherited the property; that they cultivated the same until it was sold to Tomas Claudio Memorial, Inc. of (sic) 15 January 1981; that possession of applicant Bartolome Ramos and his predecessors-in-interest over said lot is continuous, openly, adverse and exclusive against the whole world (pp. 7-8, tsn., Dec. 6, 1982).

"(h) Mariano de Castro, 77 years old, farmer and resident of Morong, Rizal declared that his father. Juan de Castro was the original owner of lot 3010; that his father planted said lot with peanuts, bamboo and sampaloc trees; that when his father died in 1938 and his mother died in 1965, he, being the only child, inherited the property; that he cultivated the same until it was sold to Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. in 1979; that the possession of applicant Bartolome Ramos and his predecessors-in-interest over said property is continuous, adverse, open, notorious and exclusive against the whole world (pp. 7-11, tsn., Dec. 14, 1980)." (pp. 108-112, Rollo.)

On March 16, 1983, the lower court rendered a decision (pp. 248-253, Records), ordering the registration of Lots 3010, 2855, 2853, 2851 and 5650 in the names of Oscar H. Natividad, Eugenio P. Pascual and Bartolome R. Ramos. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding the application to be meritorious, and it appearing that all the applicants have a registerable title over the lots subject of this application, as prayed for, the Court hereby orders the registration of title of herein applicant Oscar J. Natividad over lot 3011 . . . Eugenio P. Pascual over Lots 2851 and 2853 . . . Bartolome R. Ramos over Lots 5650, 2855 and 3010 subject to the condition that a width of ten (10) meters strip of Lot 3010 along the Sakayin Creek on the N. along lines 1-2; Sakayin Creek on the NW and SW along lines 45-6-7-8-9-1; Sakayin Creek on the SW along lines 2-3-Creek on the SW along lines 2-3-4-5-6 shall be reserved to the easement of public use for the maintenance and improvement of the channels for flood control and other purposes.

"As soon as this decision shall have become final, let the corresponding decrees be issued in favor of the applicants." (p. 5, Respondents-Appellees Brief, p. 208, Rollo.)

The Director of Lands appealed the lower court’s decision to the Court of Appeals (formerly Intermediate Appellate Court) alleging that the trial court erred in not holding that the registration of titles of the parcels of land in question in favor of petitioners through substitution was a circumvention of the constitutional prohibition against acquisition by private corporations of alienable lands of the public domain and that furthermore, petitioners failed to adduce adequate and substantial proof that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of owners since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto, as required by law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The petitioners did not file their appellees’ brief.

On August 25,1988, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the application for registration of title in petitioner’s names.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals, hence, the present recourse (pp. 1-7, Appellees’ Brief, p. 208, Rollo).

The issue raised in the petition for review is whether TCMC, may by itself, or through its vendees, register the titles of the lots in question.

Determinative of this issue is the character of the parcels of land — whether they were still public land or already private when the registration proceedings were commenced. If they were already private lands, the constitutional prohibition against acquisition by a private corporation would not apply (Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., 146 SCRA 509).

Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the Public Land Act, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First instance of the province where the land is located for the confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this Chapter."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the other hand, Article XIV, Section II, of the 1973 Constitution, in part, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 11. . . . No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area, nor may any citizen hold such lands by lease in excess of five hundred hectares . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The thrust of the argument of the Director of Lands is that the sales of the parcels of land to the petitioners were sham transactions intended to circumvent the constitutional prohibition disqualifying a private corporation from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain.

In Susi v. Razon (48 Phil. 424), this Court ruled that "open, continuous, adverse and public possession of a land of the public domain from time immemorial by a private individual personally and through his predecessors confers an effective title on said possessor, whereby the land ceases to be public, to become private property."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the Acme case, supra, this Court upheld the doctrine that "open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other sanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property." We said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the logical inevitability of considering possession of public land which is of the character and duration prescribed by statute as the equivalent of an express grant from the State than the dictum of the statute itself that the possessor(s) ‘. . . shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title . . .’ No proof being admissible to overcome a conclusive presumption, confirmation proceedings would in truth be little more than a formality, at the most limited to ascertaining whether the possession claimed is of the required character and length of time; and registration thereunder would not confer title, but simply recognize a title already vested. The proceedings would not originally convert the land from public to private land, but only confirm such conversion already affected (sic) from the moment the required period of possession became complete." (Director of Lands v. IAC and Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., 146 SCRA 509, 520.)

Under the facts of this case and pursuant to the above rulings, the parcels of land in question had already been converted to private ownership through acquisitive prescription by the predecessors-in-interest of TCMC when the latter purchased them in 1979. All that was needed was the confirmation of the titles of the previous owners or predecessors-in-interest of TCMC.

Being already private land when TCMC bought them in 1979, the prohibition in the 1973 Constitution against corporations acquiring alienable lands of the public domain except through lease (Article XIV, Section 11, 1973 Constitution) did not apply to them for they were no longer alienable lands of the public domain but private property.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The Director’s contention that a corporation may not apply for confirmation of title under Section 48 of Commonwealth Act 141, the Public Land Act, was disposed of in the Acme case where this Court ruled that the defect in filing the confirmation proceedings in the name of a corporation was simply an "accidental circumstance, . . . in nowise affecting the substance and merits of the right of ownership sought to be confirmed in said proceedings." (Director of Lands v. IAC and Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., 146 SCRA 509, 522.) Since the petitioners could have had their respective titles confirmed prior to the sale to TCMC, it was not necessary for the corporation to take the circuitous route of assigning to natural persons its rights to the lots for the purpose of complying, on paper, with the technicality of having natural persons file the applications for confirmation of title to the private lands.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside. The order of the Regional Trial Court dated March 16, 1983 is reinstated.chanrobles law library : red

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur.




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






October-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 89093 October 2, 1991 - POE MINING ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. CANCIO C. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96141 October 2, 1991 - EVANGELISTA GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53837 October 3, 1991 - FELIX PAINAGA v. NOLI MA. CORTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81567 October 3, 1991 - IN RE: ROBERTO UMIL, ET AL. v. FIDEL V. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85464 October 3, 1991 - DAVID P. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87184-85 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD VIRAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88636 October 3, 1991 - LINA B. OCTAVIANO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89325-26 October 3, 1991 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90739 October 3, 1991 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91162 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO F. CARAIG

  • G.R. No. 91271 October 3, 1991 - RESTITUTO P. RIZON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91626 October 3, 1991 - FRANKLIN DRILON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91716 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO T. CAMPOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95136 October 3, 1991 - RAFAEL BAYLOSIS, ET AL. v. APOLONIO R. CHAVEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 90-474 October 4, 1991 - CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-583 October 4, 1991 - MANOLO D. ADRIANO v. EUSTAQUIO P. STO. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 60714 October 4, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JAPAN AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79004-08 October 4, 1991 - FRANKLIN BAGUIO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83697 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BENITEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83720 October 4, 1991 - FELICITAS ENRIQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88233 October 4, 1991 - OSCAR NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91109 October 4, 1991 - SARKIES AND MOLAVE TOURS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92646-47 October 4, 1991 - AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93300 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE BALLINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93550 October 4, 1991 - SSFBWA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95026 October 4, 1991 - SPS. PEDRO and ANGELINA TELAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95625 October 4, 1991 - HIYAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95680 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO NGO

  • G.R. No. 82350 October 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC LONDOÑO

  • G.R. No. 93464 October 7, 1991 - REYMA BROKERAGE, INC. v. PHILIPPINE HOME ASS. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95582 October 7, 1991 - DANGWA TRANS. CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90745 October 10, 1991 - INTER-CAPITOL MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93690 October 10, 1991 - ERECTORS, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97332 October 10, 1991 - SPS. JULIO D. VILLAMOR AND MARINA VILLAMOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97664 October 10, 1991 - OUANO ARRASTRE SERVICE, INC. v. PEARY G. ALEONAR, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 90-7-1159-MTC October 15, 1991 - IN RE: SOLICITATION OF DONATIONS BY JUDGE BENJAMIN H. VIRREY

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-602 October 15, 1991 - RAYMUNDO Z. ANNANG v. TERESlTA GARAMPIL VDA. DE BLAS

  • Adm. Case No. 1424 October 15, 1991 - ISMAELA DIMAGIBA v. JOSE MONTALVO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 73504 October 15, 1991 - BALMAR FARMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78781-82 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAVELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81093 October 15, 1991 - PORAC TRUCKING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85133 October 15, 1991 - FLORITA E. DALUYON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMM.

  • G.R. No. 86926 October 15, 1991 - CESAR E. A. VIRATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90319 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO BRIONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91363-73 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO VINAS

  • G.R. Nos. 92362-67 October 15, 1991 - CIRILO A. CINCO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92542 October 15, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZENAIDA ELEPANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94677 October 15, 1991 - ORIGINAL DEV’T. AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95624 October 15, 1992

    DANTE G. BUGAYONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96535 October 15, 1991 - INOCENCIO PARI-AN, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96859 October 15, 1991 - MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO v. RAMON V. MITRA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96938 October 15, 1991 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97105 October 15, 1991 - ROSETTE YNIGUEZ LERIAS v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99031 October 15, 1991 - RODOLFO D. LLAMAS v. OSCAR ORBOS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1359 October 17, 1991 - GENEROSA BUTED, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. Nos. 79926-27 October 17, 1991 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., ET AL. v. CITIBANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80747-48 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERLO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 92241 October 17, 1991 - LILIA T. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92447 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENERANDO NEBREJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92633 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR SADIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96016 October 17, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96368-69 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERUBIEN Z. NABAYRA

  • G.R. No. 96713. October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ARBOLANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98023 October 17, 1991 - MULTINATIONAL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45031 October 21, 1991 - NANERICO D. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50264 October 21, 1991 - IGNACIO WONG v. LUCAS D. CARPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56487 October 21, 1991 - REYNALDA GATCHALIAN v. ARSENIO DELIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81756 October 21, 1991 - NICOMEDES SILVA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL

  • G.R. No. 85176 October 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DENNIS MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83498 October 22, 1991 - SPS. MIGUEL S. JUANITA KHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 33438 October 28, 1991 - REPUBLIC RESOURCES AND DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44712 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55393 October 28, 1991 - FAGEL TABIN AGRICULTURAL, CORP. v. EMILIO A. JACINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71562 October 28, 1991 - JOSE C. LAUREL V v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74070-71 October 28, 1991 - SUNSHINE FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74197 October 28, 1991 - JOSEPHINE L. LUCERO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84730 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO GABATIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 88301 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAMOS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 93413 October 28, 1991 - EDWIN DEL CARMEN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94369 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CO

  • G.R. No. 94521 October 28, 1991 - OLIVER O. LOZANO v. HAYDEE B. YORAC

  • G.R. No. 95631 October 28, 1991 - METALS ENGINEERING RESOURCES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98273 October 28, 1991 - CLARITA V. CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100239 October 28, 1991 - BONIFACIO S. MACEDA, JR., ET AL. v. MOREMAN BUILDERS CO., INC., ET AL.