10/28/2019 G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v.

COURT OF APPEALS, …

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 2 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > September 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 92310 September
3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 92310. September 3, 1992.]

AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP, represented by Nicasio D.

Sanchez, Sr., substituted by Milagros S. Bucu, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, and LIBRADO
CABAUTAN, Respondents.

Gideon C. Bondoc for Petitioner.

Balgos & Perez for Private Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; SPECIAL CONTRACTS; SALE; RULE IN CASE OF DOUBLE SALE; APPLICATION IN CASE AT
BAR. — Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code of the Philippines: Art. 1544. If the same thing should have
been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first
taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be immovable property,
the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of
Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was
first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided
there is good faith. It is not disputed that the first sale to Gundran was not registered while the second
sale to Cabautan was registered. Following the above-quoted provision, the courts below were justified in
according preferential rights to the private respondent, who had registered the sale in his favor, as
against the petitioner’s co-venturer whose right to the same property had not been recorded.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH; DEFINED. — A purchaser in good faith is defined as "one
who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such
property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before he has notice
of the claim or interest of some other person in the property." cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SALE OF PROPERTY REGISTERED UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM; EFFECT OF
NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS ANNOTATED ON THE CERTIFICATE. — The petitioner claims, however, that
Cabautan was a purchaser in bad faith because he was fully aware of the notices of lis pendens at the
back of TCT No. 287416 and of the earlier sale of the land to Gundran. An examination of TCT No.
287416 discloses no annotation of any sale, lien, encumbrance or adverse claim in favor of Gundran or
the petitioner. Well-settled is the rule that when the property sold is registered under the Torrens system,
registration is the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned. Thus,
a person dealing with registered land is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property which
are noted on the register or certificate of title. While it is true that notices of lis pendens in favor of other
persons were earlier inscribed on the title, these did not have the effect of establishing a lien or
encumbrance on the property affected. Their only purpose was to give notice to third persons and to the
whole world that any interest they might acquire in the property pending litigation would be subject to
the result of the suit.

DECISION

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=612 1/5
10/28/2019 G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, …
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
September-1992
Jurisprudence                  1976, plus the costs of suit. 2
A.M. No. RTJ-88-22 September 1, 1992 - JOEL
GARGANERA v. ENRIQUE JOCSON
G.R. No. 32075 September 1, 1992 - SIAO TIAO
HONG v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 32657 September 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 70746-47 September 1, 1992 -
BIENVENIDO O. MARCOS v. FERNANDO S. RUIZ, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 86051 September 1, 1992 - JAIME
LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 86844 September 1, 1992 - SPOUSES
CESAR DE RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC September 2, 1992 - RE:
JOSEFINA V. PALON
G.R. No. 43747 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 46025 September 2, 1992 - FLORITA T.
BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 50618 September 2, 1992 - LEOPOLDO
FACINAL, ET AL. v. AGAPITO I. CRUZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 51289 September 2, 1992 - RODOLFO
ENCARNACION v. DYNASTY AMUSEMENT CENTER
CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 56865 September 2, 1992 - IRENEO
TOBIAS, ET AL. v. TEMISTOCLES B. DIEZ
G.R. No. 61043 September 2, 1992 - DELTA MOTOR
SALES CORPORATION v. NIU KIM DUAN, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 62554-55 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC
BANK v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 70120 September 2, 1992 - CIVIL
AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 73198 September 2, 1992 - PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL. v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 74618 September 2, 1992 - ANA LIM
KALAW v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 75242 September 2, 1992 - MANILA
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 78777 September 2, 1992 - MERLIN P.
CAIÑA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=612
CRUZ, J.:
We are asked again to determine who as between two successive purchasers of the same land should be
recognized as its owner. The answer is simple enough. But we must first, as usual, plow through some
alleged complications.
The pertinent background facts are as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On March 29, 1972, the spouses Andres Diaz and Josefa Mia sold to Bruno Gundran a 19-hectare parcel
of land in Las Piñas, Rizal, covered by TCT No. 287416. The owner’s duplicate copy of the title was turned
over to Gundran. However, he did not register the Deed of Absolute Sale because he said he was advised
in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pasig of the existence of notices of lis pendens on the title. chanrobles law library
On November 20, 1972, Gundran and the herein petitioner, Agricultural and Home Development Group,
entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for the improvement and subdivision of the land. This agreement
was also not annotated on the title.
On August 30, 1976, the spouses Andres Diaz and Josefa Mia again entered into another contract of sale
of the same property with Librado Cabautan, the herein private Respondent.
On September 3, 1976, by virtue of an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a new owner’s copy
of the certificate of title was issued to the Diaz spouses, who had alleged the loss of their copy. On that
same date, the notices of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. 287416 were canceled and the Deed of Sale
in favor of private respondent Cabautan was recorded. A new TCT No. S-33850/T-172 was thereupon
issued in his name in lieu of the canceled TCT No. 287416.
On March 14, 1977, Gundran instituted an action for reconveyance before the Court of First Instance of
Pasay City * against Librado Cabautan and Josefa Mia seeking, among others, the cancellation of TCT No.
33850/T-172 and the issuance of a new certificate of title in his name.
On August 31, 1977, the petitioner, represented by Nicasio D. Sanchez, Sr., filed a complaint in
intervention with substantially the same allegations and prayers as that in Gundran’s complaint.
In a decision dated January 12, 1987, 1 Gundran’s complaint and petitioner’s complaint in intervention
were dismissed for lack of merit. So was the private respondent’s counterclaims, for insufficiency of
evidence.
Upon appeal, this decision was affirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals, with the modification that
Josefa Mia was ordered to pay Gundran the sum of P90,000.00, with legal interest from September 3,
Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code of the Philippines: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be
transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith
first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in
the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is
good faith.
It is not disputed that the first sale to Gundran was not registered while the second sale to Cabautan was
registered.
Following the above-quoted provision, the courts below were justified in according preferential rights to
the private respondent, who had registered the sale in his favor, as against the petitioner’s co-venturer
whose right to the same property had not been recorded.
The petitioner claims, however, that Cabautan was a purchaser in bad faith because he was fully aware of
the notices of lis pendens at the back of TCT No. 287416 and of the earlier sale of the land to Gundran.
chanrobles virtual
lawlibrary
A purchaser in good faith is defined as "one who buys the property of another without notice that some
other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the
time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the
property." 3
An examination of TCT No. 287416 discloses no annotation of any sale, lien, encumbrance or adverse
claim in favor of Gundran or the petitioner. Well-settled is the rule that when the property sold is
registered under the Torrens system, registration is the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar
as third persons are concerned. 4 Thus, a person dealing with registered land is only charged with notice
of the burdens on the property which are noted on the register or certificate of title. 5
While it is true that notices of lis pendens in favor of other persons were earlier inscribed on the title,
these did not have the effect of establishing a lien or encumbrance on the property affected. Their only
purpose was to give notice to third persons and to the whole world that any interest they might acquire
in the property pending litigation would be subject to the result of the suit.
Cabautan took this risk. Significantly, three days after the execution of the deed of sale in his favor, the
notices of lis pendens were canceled by virtue of the orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch
23, dated April 1, 1974, and April 4, 1974. Cabautan therefore acquired the land free of any liens or
encumbrances and so could claim to be a purchaser in good faith and for value.
The petitioner insists that it was already in possession of the disputed property when Cabautan
purchased it and that he could not have not known of that possession. Such knowledge should belie his
claim that he was an innocent purchaser for value. However, the courts below found no evidence of the
alleged possession, which we must also reject in deference to this factual finding. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The petitioner’s reliance on Casis v. Court of Appeals 6 is misplaced.
The issue at bar is whether private respondent Cabautan is an innocent purchaser for value and so
entitled to the priority granted under Article 1544 of the Civil Code. The Casis case, on the other hand,
involved the issues of whether or not: 1) certiorari was the proper remedy of the petitioner: 2) the
previous petition for certiorari which originated from the quieting of title case was similar to and, hence,
a bar to the petition for certiorari arising from the forcible entry case; and 3) the court a quo committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order which dissolved
the restraining order issued in connection with the ejectment case. The Court was not called upon in that
2/5
10/28/2019 G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, …
G.R. No. 80812 September 2, 1992 - LUZ E. TAN v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 84256 September 2, 1992 - ALEJANDRA
RIVERA OLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 87318 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JAIME G. SERDAN
G.R. No. 91535 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO L. DE JESUS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92461 September 2, 1992 - ESTATE
case to determine who as between the two purchasers of the subject property should be preferred.
The petitioner invokes the ruling of the lower court in that case to the effect that the registration of the
sale in favor of the second purchaser and the issuance of a new certificate of title in his favor did not in
any manner vest in him any right of possession and ownership over the subject property because the
seller, by reason of their prior sale, had already lost whatever right or interest she might have had in the
property at the time the second sale was made.
This excerpt was included in the ponencia only as part of the narration of the background facts and was
not thereby adopted as a doctrine of the Court. It was considered only for the purpose of ascertaining if
the court below had determined the issue of the possession of the subject property pending resolution of
the question of ownership. Obviously, the Court could not have adopted that questionable ruling as it
would clearly militate against the provision of Article 1544.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CORPORATION v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Worthy of note at this juncture is the observation of Justice Edgardo L. Paras, to wit: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

G.R. No. 92789 September 2, 1992 - SILLIMAN True, no one can sell what he does not own, but this is merely the general rule. Is Art. 1544 then an
UNIVERSITY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
exception to the general rule? In a sense, yes, by reason of public convenience (See Aitken v. Lao, 36
COMMISSION, ET AL.
Phil. 510); in still another sense, it really reiterates the general rule in that insofar as innocent third
G.R. No. 92795-96 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF persons are concerned, the registered owner (in the case of real property) is still the owner, with power
THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE B. TANTIADO of disposition. 7

G.R. No. 93141 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL v. ESTANISLAO GENERALAO, JR.
G.R. No. 93634 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MASALIM CASIM
G.R. No. 94918 September 2, 1992 - DANILO I.
SUAREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
The language of Article 1544 is clear and unequivocal. In light of its mandate and of the facts established
in this case, we hold that ownership must be recognized in the private respondent, who bought the
property in good faith and, as an innocent purchaser for value, duly and promptly registered the sale in
his favor.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the questioned decision AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against
the petitioner.

G.R. No. 95249 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC SO ORDERED.

PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 95843 September 2, 1992 - EDILBERTO C.
ABARQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. 95921 September 2, 1992 - SPOUSES
ROBERT DINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
* Now Regional Trial Court, Branch 111.
G.R. No. 96333 September 2, 1992 - EDUARDO C.
DE VERA v. ERNESTO L. PINEDA
1. Thru Judge Sofronio G. Sayo; Rollo, p. 39.
G.R. Nos. 96952-56 September 2, 1992 - SMI FISH
INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR 2. Penned by Mendoza, Filemon, J., with Marigomen and Isnani, JJ., concurring.
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
3. Co v. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 705.
G.R. Nos. 97408-09 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MORENO, JR. 4. Radiowealth Finance Company v. Palileo, 197 SCRA 245; Quilisadio v. Court of Appeals,
182 SCRA 401; Lu v. IAC, 169 SCRA 595.
G.R. No. 97805 September 2, 1992 - NILO H.
RAYMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
5. Ibid.
G.R. No. 99050 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. CONWAY B. OMAWENG 6. 180 SCRA 732.

G.R. No. 99359 September 2, 1992 - ORLANDO M. 7. Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1990 Ed., Vol. V, p. 157.
ESCAREAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 100970 September 2, 1992 - FINMAN

GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL. Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 103269 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO VALIENTE
QUICK SEARCH
A.M. No. P-90-418 September 3, 1992 - EDILBERTO
NATIVIDAD v. ALFONSO B. MELGAR

G.R. No. 86695 September 3, 1992 - MARIA ELENA

MALAGA, ET AL. v. MANUEL R. PENACHOS, JR., ET AL. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 90693 September 3, 1992 - SPARTAN
SECURITY & DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

G.R. No. 91284 September 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
THE PHIL. v. PEPITO T. PEÑERO 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948

G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
G.R. No. 77285 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
THE PHIL. v. AMADEO ABUYEN
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
G.R. No. 83995 September 4, 1992 - BENJAMIN 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
EDAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. No. 88788 September 4, 1992 - RESTITUTO DE 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
G.R. No. 89278 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. FERNANDITO S. SICAT

G.R. No. 94375 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. SOTERO A. CRUZ

G.R. No. 94825 September 4, 1992 - PHIL.

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97111-13 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. MONICA P. PADILLA

G.R. No. 101469 September 4, 1992 - MALAYAN

INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES, CORPORATION v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=612 3/5
10/28/2019 G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, …

G.R. No. 101539 September 4, 1992 - CECILE DE

OCAMPO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 102397 September 4, 1992 - BAGUIO

COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105120 September 4, 1992 - SIMPLICIO C.

GRIÑO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105346 September 4, 1992 - RAUL H.

SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 93842 September 7, 1992 - ERNANDO C.

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

G.R. No. 92988 September 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. IRENEO TIWAKEN

G.R. No. 55741 September 11, 1992 - LUZ LATAGAN

v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 73071 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO S. ALVAREZ

G.R. No. 82586 September 11, 1992 - SALVADOR M.

MISON, ET AL. v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91159 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. LARRY A. FRANCISCO

G.R. No. 91915 September 11, 1992 - DIVINE

WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN v. SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97441 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASINILLO

G.R. No. 98062 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. REGOBERTO YBEAS

G.R. No. 103903 September 11, 1992 - MELANIO D.

SAMPAYAN, ET AL. v. RAUL. A. DAZA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 57475 September 14, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF

THE PHIL. v. RUFO NERI, ET AL.

G.R. No. 74851 September 14, 1992 - RIZAL

COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

A.C. No. 3248 September 18, 1992 - DOMINGO R.

MARCELO v. ADRIANO S. JAVIER, SR.

G.R. No. 70890 September 18, 1992 - CRESENCIO

LIBI, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 73919 September 18, 1992 - NATIONAL

IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 75915-16 September 18, 1992 - SPS. GO

IT BUN, ET AL. v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON, ET AL.

G.R. No. 84917 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. QUEROBEN A. POLIZON

G.R. No. 86218 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ELSIE B. BAGISTA

G.R. No. 91001 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. SILFERIO F. SILLO

G.R. No. 94511-13 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO C. VALENCIA

G.R. No. 94828 September 18, 1992 - SPOUSES

ROMULO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ASIAN CONSUMER
AND INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

G.R. No. 95456 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. MARIO A. BAÑEZ

G.R. No. 95540 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ARCHIE Q. DISTRITO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96255 September 18, 1992 - HERCULES

INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96329 September 18, 1992 - MABUHAY

VINYL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97918 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. VICTOR E. JAPSAY

G.R. No. 102141 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SABORNIDO

G.R. No. 105227 September 18, 1992 - LEANDRO I.

VERCELES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 61218 September 23, 1992 - LIBERTAD

SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 81883 September 23, 1992 - KNITJOY

MANUFACTURING, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET
AL.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=612 4/5
10/28/2019 G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, …

G.R. No. 83580 September 23, 1992 - ENRICO SY v.

ARTURO A. ROMERO

G.R. Nos. 85403-06 September 23, 1992 -

ANTONIO T. TIONGSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 101706 September 23, 1992 -

CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL.
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 102693 September 23, 1992 - SPOUSES

AGOSTO MUÑOZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 85086 September 24, 1991

ARSENIO P. BUENAVENTURA ENTERPRISES v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90254 September 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. CARLOS C. FLORIDA

G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW

MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-44936 September 25, 1992 -

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 91114 September 25, 1992 - NELLY LIM v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91359 September 25, 1992 - VETERANS

MANPOWER AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 58027 September 28, 1992 - GOLDEN

COUNTRY FARMS, INC. v. SANVAR DEVELOPMENT
CORP.

G.R. No. 97431 September 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN J. ALABAN

G.R. No. 99046 September 28, 1992 - AQUALYN

CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 100574 September 28, 1992 - SPS.

MARINO SAPUGAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 102381 September 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO H. LOPEZ

G.R. No. 53630 September 30, 1992 - ENRIQUE

KHO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 82531 September 30, 1992 - DOMINGO T.

MENDOZA v. MARIA MENDOZA NAVARETTE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 82630 September 30, 1992 - MARIA

GULANG v. GENOVEVA NADAYAG, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94461 September 30, 1992 -

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, INC. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97356 September 30, 1992 - ARTURO C.

CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105017 September 30, 1992 - PABLO

NIDOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

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

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=612 5/5