9/2/2019 G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

ET AL. <br /><br />109 Phil 629 : SEPTEMBER 1…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Share
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > September 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14628
September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

109 Phil 629:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14628. September 30, 1960.]

FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA, Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents.

Regino Hermosisima for Petitioner.

F. P. Gabriel, Jr. for Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. DAMAGES; BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY; NOT ACTIONABLE. — It is the clear and manifest intent
of Congress not to sanction actions for breach of promise to marry.

2. ID.; ID.; SEDUCTION AS GROUND FOR AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES; NATURE OF SEDUCTION
CONTEMPLATED IN ARTICLE 2219 OF NEW CIVIL CODE. — The "seduction" contemplated in Article 2219
of the New Civil Code as one of the cases where moral damages may be recovered, is the crime punished
as such in Articles 337 and 338 of the Revised Penal Code.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN SEDUCTION DOES NOT EXIST. — Where a woman, who was an insurance
agent and former high school teacher, around 36 years of age and approximately 10 years older than the
DebtKollect Company, Inc. man, "overwhelmed by her love" for a man approximately 10 years younger then her, had intimate
relations with him, because she "wanted to bind" him "by having a fruit of their engagement even before
they had the benefit of clergy," it cannot be said that he is morally guilty of seduction.

DECISION

CONCEPCION, J.:

An appeal by certiorari, taken by petitioner Francisco Hermosisima, from a decision of the Court of
Appeals modifying that of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.

On October 4, 1954, Soledad Cagigas, hereinafter referred to as complainant, filed with said court of first
instance a complaint for the acknowledgment of her child, Chris Hermosisima, as natural child of said
petitioner, as well as for support of said child and moral damages for alleged breach of promise.
Petitioner admitted the paternity of child and expressed willingness to support the later, but denied
having ever promised to marry the complainant. Upon her motion, said court ordered petitioner, on
October 27, 1954, to pay, by way of alimony pendente lite, P50.00 a month, which was, on February 16,
1955, reduced to P30.00 a month. In due course, later on, said court rendered a decision the dispositive
ChanRobles Intellectual Property part of which reads:
Division
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, declaring the child, Chris Hermosisima, as the natural

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960septemberdecisions.php?id=556 1/5
9/2/2019 G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. <br /><br />109 Phil 629 : SEPTEMBER 1…
September-1960 Jurisprudence               one year, computed from the day of the refusal to celebrate the marriage."
  
G.R. No. L-12645 September 15, 1960 - JUANA
PADRON VDA. DE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
109 Phil 396
G.R. No. L-14179 September 15, 1960 -
PERMANENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v.
JUAN FRIVALDO
109 Phil 404
G.R. No. L-13943 September 19, 1960 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MARCELIANO ARRANCHADO, ET AL.
109 Phil 410
G.R. No. L-13815 September 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ELIAS OYCO
109 Phil 415
G.R. No. L-14740 September 26, 1960 - ANDRES
SANTOS, ET AL. v. HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO,
ETC.
109 Phil 419
G.R. No. L-14939 September 26, 1960 - ELVIRA
VIDAL TUASON DE RICKARDS v. ANDRES F.
GONZALES
109 Phil 423
G.R. No. L-12298 September 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO AGARIN
109 Phil 430
G.R. No. L-12906 September 29, 1960 -
DUMANGAY GUITING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.
109 Phil 436
G.R. No. L-13255 September 29, 1960 -
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE
COJUANGCO
109 Phil 443
G.R. No. L-13475 September 29, 1960 - PHIL.
SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, ET AL.
109 Phil 452
G.R. No. L-15226 September 29, 1960 - LEE GUAN
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
109 Phil 460
G.R. No. L-10119 September 30, 1960 - RAFAEL
LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
109 Phil 462
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960septemberdecisions.php?id=556
daughter of defendant, and confirming the order pendente lite, ordering defendant to pay to the said
child, through plaintiff, the sum of thirty pesos (P30.00), payable on or before the fifth day of every
month; sentencing defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS
(P4,500.00) for actual and compensatory damages; the sum Of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) as
moral damages; and the further sum of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) as attorney’s fees for plaintiff,
with costs against defendant." cralaw virtua1aw library
On appeal taken by petitioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, except as to the actual and
compensatory damages and the moral damages, which were increased to P5,614.25 and P7,000.00,
respectively.
The main issue before us is whether moral damages are recoverable, under our laws, for breach of
promise to marry. The pertinent facts are: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Complainant Soledad Cagigas, was born in July 1917. Since 1950, Soledad then a teacher in the Sibonga
Provincial High School in Cebu, and petitioner, who was almost ten (10) years younger than she, used to
go around together and were regarded as engaged, although he had made no promise of marriage prior
thereto. In 1951, she gave up teaching and became a life insurance underwriter in the City of Cebu,
where intimacy developed among her and the petitioner, since one evening, in 1953, when after coming
from the movies, they had sexual intercourse in his cabin on board M/V "Escaño" to which he was then
attached as apprentice pilot. In February, 1954, Soledad advised petitioner that she was in the family
way, whereupon he promised to marry her. Their child, Chris Hermosisima, was born on June 17, 1954,
in a private maternity and clinic. However, subsequently, or on July 24, 1954, defendant married one
Romanita Perez. Hence, the present action, which was commenced on or about October 4, 1954.
Referring now to the issue above referred to, it will be noted that the Civil Code of Spain permitted the
recovery of damages for breach of promise to marry. Articles 43 and 44 of said Code provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
ART. 43. "A mutual promise of marriage shell not give rise to an obligation to contract marriage. No court
shell entertain any complaint by which the enforcement of such promise is sought." cralaw virtua1aw library
ART. 44. "If the promise has been in a public or private instrument by an adult, or by a minor with the
concurrence of the person whose consent is necessary for the celebration of the marriage, or if the banns
have been published, the one who without just cause refuses to marry shall be obliged to reimburse the
other for the expenses which he or she may have incurred by reason of the promised marriage.
"The action for reimbursement of expenses to which the foregoing article refers must be brought within
cralaw virtua1aw library
Inasmuch as these articles were never in force in the Philippines, this Court ruled in de Jesus v. Syquia
(58 Phil., 866), that "the action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart
from the right to recover money or property advanced . . . upon the faith of such promise." The Code
Commission charged with the drafting of the Proposed Civil Code of the Philippines deemed it best,
however, to change the law thereon. We quote from the report of the Code Commission on said Proposed
Civil Code:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Articles 43 and 44 of the Civil Code of 1889 refer to the promise of marriage. But these articles are not
in force in the Philippines. The subject is regulated in the proposed Civil Code not only as to the aspects
treated of in said articles but also in other particulars. It is advisable to furnish legislative solutions to
some questions that might arise relative to betrothal. Among the provisions proposed are: That
authorizing the adjudication of moral damages, in case of breach of promise of marriage, and that
creating liability for causing a marriage engagement to be broken." cralaw virtua1aw library
Accordingly, the following provisions were inserted in said Proposed Civil Code, under Chapter I, Title III,
Book I thereof: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ART. 56. A mutual promise to marry may be made expressly or impliedly." cralaw virtua1aw library
"ART. 57. An engagement to be married must be agreed directly by the future spouses." cralaw virtua1aw library
"ART. 58. A contract for a future marriage cannot, without the consent of the parent or guardian, be
entered into by a male between the ages of sixteen and twenty years or by a female between the ages of
sixteen and eighteen years. Without such consent of the parents or guardian, the engagement to marry
cannot be the basis of a civil action for damages in case of breach of the promise.
"ART. 59. A promise to marry when made by a female under the age of fourteen years is not civilly
actionable, even though approved by the parent or guardian." cralaw virtua1aw library
"ART. 60. In cases referred to in the preceding articles, the criminal and civil responsibility of a male for
seduction shall not be affected." cralaw virtua1aw library
"ART. 61. No action for specific performance of a mutual promise to marry may be brought." cralaw virtua1aw library
"ART. 62. An action for breach of promise to marry may be brought by the aggrieved party even though
a minor without the assistance of his or her parent or guardian. Should the minor refuse to bring suit, the
parent or guardian may institute the action." cralaw virtua1aw library
"ART. 63. Damages for breach of promise to marry shall include not only material and pecuniary losses
but also compensation for mental and moral suffering." cralaw virtua1aw library
"ART. 64. Any person, other than a rival, the parents, guardians and grandparents, of the affianced
parties, who causes a marriage engagement to be broken shall be liable for damages, both material and
moral, to the engaged person who is rejected."
cralaw virtua1aw library
"ART. 65. In case of breach of promise to marry, the party breaking the engagement shall be obliged to
return what he or she has received from the other as gift on account of the promise of the marriage." cralaw virtua1aw library
These articles were, however, eliminated in Congress. The reason therefor are set forth in the report of
the corresponding Senate Committee, from which we quote: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The elimination of this Chapter is proposed. That breach of promise to marry is not actionable has been
definitely decided in the case of De Jesus v. Syquia, 53 Phil., 366. The history of bleach of promise suits
in the United States and in England has shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by
designing women and unscrupulous man. It is this experience which has led to the abolition of rights of
action in the so-called Balm suits in many of the American States.
See statutes of: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Florida 1945 — pp. 1342-1344
Maryland 1945 — pp. 1759-1762
Nevada 1948 — p. 74
2/5
9/2/2019 G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. <br /><br />109 Phil 629 : SEPTEMBER 1…
G.R. Nos. L-10352-53 September 30, 1960 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO MANlGBAS, ET Maine 1941 — pp. 140-141
AL.
New Hampshire 1941 — p. 223
109 Phil 469
California 1939 — p. 1245
G.R. No. L-11329 September 30, 1960 - CIPRIANO
B. MOTOS v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.
Massachusetts 1938 — p. 326
109 Phil 481
Indiana 1936 — p. 1009
G.R. No. L-11440 September 30, 1960 - SERGIO F.
DEL CASTILLO v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. Michigan 1935 — p. 201

109 Phil 491 New York 1935

G.R. No. L-12030 September 30, 1960 - JOSE J.
ROTEA v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI
109 Phil 495
G.R. No. L-12149 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF
EMILIO CANDELARIA, ETC. v. LUISA ROMERO, ET AL.
109 Phil 500
G.R. No. L-12328 September 30, 1960 - CARLOS J.
RIVERA v. TOMAS T. TIRONA, ET AL.
Pennsylvania p. 450
"The Commission perhaps thought that it has followed the more progressive trend in legislation when it
provided for breach of promise to marry suits. But it is clear that the creation of such causes of action at
a time when so many States, in consequence of years of experience are doing away with them, may well
prove to be a step in the wrong direction. (Congressional Record, Vol. IV, No. 79, Thursday, May 19,
1949, p. 2352.)"
The views thus expressed were accepted by both houses of Congress. In the light of the clear and
manifest intent of our law making body not to sanction actions for breach of promise to marry, the award
of moral damages made by the lower court is, accordingly, untenable. The Court of Appeals said in
justification of said award: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

109 Phil 505

G.R. No. L-12353 September 30, 1960 - NORTH
CAMARINES LUMBER CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
109 Phil 511
"Moreover, it appearing that because of defendant-appellant’s seductive powers, plaintiff-appellee,
overwhelmed by her love for him finally yielded to his sexual desires in spite of her age and self- control,
she being a woman after all, we hold that said defendant- appellant is liable for seduction and, therefore,
moral damages may be recovered from him under the provisions of Article 2219, paragraph 3, of the new
Civil Code." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. L-12641 September 30, 1960 - EMILIANA
C. ESTRELLA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.
109 Phil 514
G.R. Nos. L-12664-65 September 30, 1960 -
ANTONINO LAZARO, ET AL. v. FIDELA R. GOMEZ, ET
AL.
109 Phil 518
Apart from the fact that the general tenor of said Article 2219, particularly the paragraphs preceding and
those following the one cited by the Court of Appeals, and the language used in said paragraph strongly
indicates that the "seduction" therein contemplated is the crime punished as such in Articles 337 and 338
of the Revised Penal Code, which admittedly does not exist in the present case, we find ourselves unable
to say that petitioner is morally guilty of seduction, not only because he is approximately ten (10) years
younger than the complainant — who was around thirty-six (36) years of age, and as highly enlightened
as a former high school teacher and a life insurance agent are supposed to be — when she became
intimate with petitioner, then a mere apprentice pilot, but, also, because, the court of first instance found
that, complainant "surrendered herself" to petitioner because, "overwhelmed by her love" for him, she
"wanted to bind" him "by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergy." cralaw

G.R. No. L-12894 September 30, 1960 - LILIA virtua1aw library

JUANA BARLES, ET AL. v. DON ALFONSO PONCE

ENRILE
109 Phil 522
G.R. No. L-13023 September 30, 1960 - INSULAR
LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. TERESA DUAT VDA. DE
FERNANDEZ, ET AL.
109 Phil 530
G.R. No. L-13283 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. SERAPIO CARUNUNGAN, ET AL.
The court of first instance sentenced petitioner to pay the following: (1) a monthly pension of P30.00 for
the support of the child; (2) P4,500, representing the income that complainant had allegedly failed to
earn during her pregnancy and shortly after the birth of the child, as actual and compensatory damages;
(3) P5,000, as moral damages; and (4) P500.00, as attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals added to the
second item the sum of P1,114.25 — consisting of P144.20, for hospitalization and medical attendance,
in connection with the parturiation, and the balance representing expenses incurred to support the child
— and increased the moral damages to P7,000.00.
With the elimination of this award for moral damages, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
affirmed, therefore, in all other respects, without special pronouncement as to costs in this instance. It is
so ordered.

109 Phil 534 Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes,
and Dizon, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-13349 September 30, 1960 - MIGUEL
GAMAO, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR C. CALAMBA, ET AL.

109 Phil 542

G.R. Nos. L-13389-90 September 30, 1960 - Back to Home | Back to Main
CAPITOL SUBD., INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO LOPEZ
MONTELIBANO, ET AL.

109 Phil 546 QUICK SEARCH

G.R. No. L-13417 September 30, 1960 - JOSE B.
VILLACORTA, ETC. v. HON. FERNANDO VILLAROSA,
ET AL.
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
109 Phil 551 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. L-13426 September 30, 1960 - INT’L. OIL 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
FACTORY v. TOMASA MARTINEZ VDA. DE DORIA, ET 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
AL.
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
109 Phil 553 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. L-13446 September 30, 1960 - MAXIMO 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
SISON v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL. 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
109 Phil 557 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. L-13467 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JUAN NECESITO, ET AL. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
109 Phil 563
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. No. L-13546 September 30, 1960 - GREGORIO 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
VERZOSA v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
109 Phil 571

G.R. Nos. L-13567-68 September 30, 1960 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO B. DE LEON

109 Phil 574

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. L-13582 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC
OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO P. BAYLOSIS, ET AL.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960septemberdecisions.php?id=556 3/5
9/2/2019 G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. <br /><br />109 Phil 629 : SEPTEMBER 1…

109 Phil 580

G.R. No. L-13686 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF

JUSTO MALFORE v. DlR. OF FORESTRY

109 Phil 586

G.R. No. L-13912 September 30, 1960 -

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.
CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO

109 Phil 592

G.R. No. L-13941 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO

A. RODRIGUEZ, ETC. v. S. BLAQUERA, ETC.

109 Phil 598

G.R. Nos. L-13992 & L-14035 September 30, 1960 -

MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, ET AL.

109 Phil 603

G.R. No. L-14008 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. TRIZON REMOLLINO

109 Phil 607

G.R. No. L-14348 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO YEBRA

109 Phil 613

G.R. No. L-14395 September 30, 1960 - MALAYAN

INSURANCE CO., INC. v. CATALINA V. YANDOC, ET AL.

109 Phil 616

G.R. No. L-14497 September 30, 1960 - FELIX

PAULINO, SR., ET AL. v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET
AL.

109 Phil 621

G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 -

FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

109 Phil 629

G.R. No. L-14630 September 30, 1960 - LY HONG v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

109 Phil 635

G.R. No. L-14733 September 30, 1960 - ERLINDA

ESTOPA v. LORETO PIANSAY, JR.

109 Phil 640

G.R. No. L-14737 September 30, 1960 - LEONCIA

VELASCO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

109 Phil 642

G.R. No. L-14817 September 30, 1960 - ANDRES G.

SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. NORTHERN LUZON TRANS. CO.
INC.

109 Phil 647

G.R. No. L-14822 September 30, 1960 - KHAW DY,

ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

109 Phil 649

G.R. No. L-14874 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO

PEREZ v. ANGELA TUASON DE PEREZ

109 Phil 654

G.R. No. L-14914 September 30, 1960 - JOHN TAN

CHIN ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

109 Phil 660

G.R. No. L-14930 September 30, 1960 - MARLI

PLYWOOD & VENEER CORP. v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

109 Phil 664

G.R. No. L-15021 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC

OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

109 Phil 667

G.R. No. L-15101 September 30, 1960 - IN RE:

CHUA TIAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

109 Phil 670

G.R. No. L-15158 September 30, 1960 - JESUS S.

DIZON v. HON. NECIAS O. MENDOZA, ET AL.

109 Phil 674

G.R. No. L-15179 September 30, 1960 - TEODORA

AMAR v. JESUS ODIAMAN

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960septemberdecisions.php?id=556 4/5
9/2/2019 G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. <br /><br />109 Phil 629 : SEPTEMBER 1…

109 Phil 681

G.R. No. L-15208 September 30, 1960 - ALIPIO N.

CASILAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO, ET AL.

109 Phil 686

G.R. No. L-15266 September 30, 1960 - TAN HOI v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

109 Phil 689

G.R. No. L-15274 September 30, 1960 - DOMINGO

ALMONTE UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

109 Phil 694

G.R. No. L-15305 September 30, 1960 - CITY OF

MANILA v. ARCADIO PALLUGNA

109 Phil 698

G.R. No. L-15327 September 30, 1960 - FIDEL

FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

109 Phil 701

G.R. No. L-15380 September 30, 1960 - CHAN WAN

v. TAN KIM, ET AL.

109 Phil 706

G.R. No. L-15392 September 30, 1960 - REX

TAXlCAB CO., INC. v. JOSE BAUTISTA, ET AL.

109 Phil 712

G.R. No. L-15454 September 30, 1960 - MANILA

RAILROAD CO. v. EMILIANA FERRER, ET AL.

109 Phil 716

G.R. No. L-15802 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC

OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGALONA, JR., ET AL.

109 Phil 723

G.R. Nos. L-15928-33 September 30, 1960 -

DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS CIA. DE SEGUROS, ET
AL.

109 Phil 730

G.R. No. L-16088 September 30, 1960 - LUZON

SURETY CO., INC. v. FIDELA MORIN DE MARBELLA, ET
AL.

109 Phil 734

G.R. No. L-16226 September 30, 1960 -

GUILLERMO REÑOSA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

109 Phil 740

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960septemberdecisions.php?id=556 5/5