Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

May 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > May 1956
Decisions > [G.R. No. L-9306. May 25, 1956.] SOUTHERN
ChanRobles On-Line MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELISEO BARBOSA,
Bar Review Defendant-Appellant.:

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-9306. May 25, 1956.]
SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELISEO BARBOSA,
Defendant-Appellant.

DECISION
CONCEPCION, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“(a) Ordering the Defendant Eliseo Barbosa to pay to the Court, for the benefit of
the Plaintiff within a period of ninety (90) days from receipt by the Defendant
SPONSORED SEARCHES hereof, the sum of P2,889.53, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum computed
on the basis of the amounts of the installments mentioned in the mortgage and of the
Look Up Court Cases dates they respectively fell due, until fully paid; the sum of P200 by way of chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

attorney’s fees, plus costs; chan and (b) Upon failure of the Defendant to pay as
roblesvirtualawlibrary

Filing a Civil Lawsuit aforesaid, ordering the land described in the complaint and subject of the mortgage
to be sold at public auction in accordance with law in order to realize the amount of
Criminal Lawsuit Cases the judgment debt and costs.”

Municipal Record Search Although originally forwarded to the Court of Appeals, the same has certified the
record to this Court in view of the fact that the issues raised in the appeal involve
Applying for General Relief Online
merely questions of law.
Plaintiff, Southern Motors, Inc., brought this action against Eliseo Barbosa, to
foreclose a real estate mortgage, constituted by the latter in favor of the former, as
security for the payment of the sum of P2,889.53 due to said Plaintiff from one
Alfredo Brillantes, who had failed to settle his obligation in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the corresponding deed of mortgage. Defendant Eliseo
Barbosa filed an answer admitting the allegations of the complaint and alleging, by
way of “special and affirmative” defense: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“That the Defendant herein has executed the deed of mortgage Annex A for the only
purpose of guaranteeing — as surety and/or guarantor — the payment of the above
mentioned debt of Mr. Alfredo Brillantes in favor of the Plaintiff.
“That the Plaintiff until now has no right action against the herein Defendant on the
ground that said Plaintiff, without motive whatsoever, did not intent or intent to
exhaust all recourses to collect from the true debtor Mr. Alfredo Brillantes the debt
contracted by the latter in favor of said Plaintiff, and did not resort nor intends to
resort all the legal remedies against the true debtor Mr. Alfredo Brillantes,
notwithstanding the fact that said Mr. Alfredo Brillantes is solvent and has many
properties within the Province of Iloilo.”

Thereupon, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment which a branch of the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo, presided over by Hon. Roman Ibañez, Judge, denied upon the
SEARCH THE WEB ground that it “is premature”. Plaintiff moved for a reconsideration of the order to
this effect. Soon later, he filed, also, another motion praying that the case be
supreme court transferred to another branch of said court, because that of Judge Ibañez would be
busy trying cadastral cases, and had adopted the “policy of refraining from
scc online cases entertaining any other civil cases and all incidents related thereto, until after said
cadastral cases shall have been finally disposed of.” With the express authority of
judgement order Judge Ibañez, the case was referred to the branch of said court, presided over by
Hon. Querube C. Makalintal, Judge, for action, upon said motion for reconsideration.
Thereafter, Judge Makalintal rendered the aforementioned decision, from which the
have i been sued
Defendant has appealed. He maintains, in his brief, that: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

motions samples “1. The trial court erred in hearing Plaintiff-Appellee’s ‘motion for reconsideration’
dated June 9, 1951, notwithstanding the fact that Defendant-Appellant was not
served with a copy thereof nor served with notice of the hearing thereof.
SPONSORED SEARCHES
2. “The trial court erred in rendering a ‘judgment on the pleadings’ in Appellee’s
supreme court favor when no issue was at all submitted to it for resolution, to the prejudice of the
substantial rights of Appellant.
civil cases

have i been sued
judicial branch
motions samples
3. “The court a quo erred in depriving Defendant-Appellant of his property rights
without due process of law.”
The first assignment of error is based upon an erroneous predicate, for, contrary to
Defendant’s assertion, his counsel in the lower court, Atty. Manuel F. Zamora,
through an employee of his office, by the name of Agripino Aguilar, was actually
served on June 9, 1951, with copy of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, with
notice to the effect that said motion would be submitted for the consideration and
SPONSORED SEARCHES approval of the lower court, on Saturday, June 16, 1951, at 8: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 00 a.m., or soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard.
judicial branch
The second assignment of error is, likewise, untenable. It is not true that there was
no issue submitted for determination by the lower court when it rendered the
motions samples
decision appealed from.

thomas vitrano It will be recalled that each one of the allegations made in Plaintiff’s complaint were
expressly admitted in Defendant’s answer, in which he merely alleged, as “special
and affirmative” defense, that Plaintiff is not entitled to foreclose the mortgage
civil complaint
constituted in its favor by the Defendant, because the property of Alfredo Brillantes,
the principal debtors, had not been exhausted as yet, and were not sought to be
find case law uk exhausted, for the satisfaction of Plaintiff’s credit. Thus, there was no question of
fact left for determination. The only issue set up by the pleadings was the sufficiency
of said affirmative defense. And such was the only point discussed by the Defendant
in his opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a summary judgment, referring, evidently,
to a judgment on the pleadings.
May-1956 Jurisprudence Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order of Judge Roman Ibañez refusing to
render said judgment, upon the ground that it was premature, revived said issue of
sufficiency of the aforementioned affirmative defense, apart from calling for a
reexamination of the question posed by said order of Judge Ibañez, namely, whether
[G.R. No. L-8873. May it was proper, under the circumstances, to render a judgment on the pleadings. In
2, 1956.] CIPRIANO other words, said motion for reconsideration had the effect of placing before then
AMORA, CONRADO Judge Makalintal, for resolution, the following issues, to wit: (1) whether achanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

summary judgment or a judgment on the pleadings was in order, considering the

MATONDO, APOLONIO allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint and those of Defendant’s answer; and (2) chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

SIGNAR, FLORENTINO whether the mortgage in question could be foreclosed although Plaintiff had not
LOVETE, LORETO CINCO, exhausted, and did not intend to exhaust, the properties of his principal debtor,
Alfredo Brillantes.
APOLINAR ROSAL and
FILOMENO TABLO,
Petitioners-Appellees, vs. The third assignment of error is predicated upon the alleged lack of notice of the
FRANCO BIBERA, hearing of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. As stated in our discussion of the
first assignment of error, this pretense is refuted by the record. Moreover, it is
FRANCISCO TAVERA, obvious that Defendant’s affirmative defense is devoid of merit for: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

MELECIO AGUILAR,
1. The deed of mortgage executed by him specifically provides: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SINFORIANO SERIDAN,
“That if said Mr. Alfredo Brillantes or herein mortgagor, his heirs, executors,
ANTONIO BRIONES, administrators and assigns shall well and truly perform the full obligations above-
ANTONIO RED, ISABELO stated according to the terms thereof, then this mortgage shall be null and void,
otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect, in which event herein mortgagor
REMOLADOR and
authorizes and empowers herein mortgagee-company to take any of the following
FLORENCIO AGUILAR, actions to enforce said payment;.
Respondents-Appellants. “(a) Foreclose, judicially or extrajudicially, the chattel mortgage above referred to
and/or also this mortgage, applying the proceeds of the purchase price at public sale
[G.R. No. L-7155. May of the real property herein mortgaged to any deficiency or difference between the
purchase price of said chattel at public auction and the amount of P2,889.53,
4, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF
together with its interest hereby secured; or
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

THE PHILIPPINES,
“(b) Simply foreclose this mortgage judicially in accordance with the provisions of
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. section 2, Rule 70, Rules of Court, or extra- judicially under the provisions of Act
JESUS AGASANG, No. 3135 and Act No. 4118, to satisfy the full amount of P2,889.53, together with its
interest of 12 per cent per annum.”
Defendant-Appellant.
2. The right of guarantors, under Article 2058 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
to demand exhaustion of the property of the principal debtor, exists only when a
[G.R. No. L-8049. May pledge or a mortgage has not been given as special security for the payment of the
9, 1956.] BUKLOD ÑG principal obligation. Guarantees, without any such pledge or mortgage, are governed
SAULOG TRANSIT, by Title XV of said Code, whereas pledges and mortgages fall under Title XVI of the
same Code, in which the following provisions, among others, are found:
Petitioner, vs. MARCIANO
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ART. 2087. “It is also of the essence of these contracts that when the principal
CASALLA, ET ALS.,
obligation becomes due, the things in which the pledge or mortgage consists may be
Respondents. alienated for the payment to the creditor.”
ART. 2126. “The mortgage directly and immediately subjects the property upon
which it is imposed, whoever the possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the
[G.R. No. L-7261. May
obligation for whose security it was constituted.”
11, 1956.] THE REGISTER
3. It has been held already (Saavedra vs. Price, 68 Phil., 688), that a mortgagor is
OF DEEDS, PASIG, RIZAL, not entitled to the exhaustion of the property of the principal debtor.
Petitioner-Appellee, vs.
4. Although an ordinary personal guarantor — not a mortgagor or pledgor — may
HEIRS OF HI CAIJI and demand the aforementioned exhaustion, the creditor may, prior thereto, secure a
ELISEO YMZON, judgment against said guarantor, who shall be entitled, however, to a deferment of
the execution of said judgment against him until after the properties of the principal
Oppositors-Appellants.
debtor shall have been exhausted to satisfy the obligation involved in the case.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
[G.R. No. L-7902. May Defendant-Appellant. It is SO ORDERED.
11, 1956.] MANILA
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
PRESS, INCORPORATED, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
MARCELINO SARMIENTO,
as City Treasurer of the
City of Manila, Defendant-
Appellee. Back to Home | Back to Main

[G.R. No. L-8399. May

11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
BIENVENIDO UMALI, ET
AL., Defendants.
BIENVENIDO UMALI,
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8718. May

11, 1956.] MALATE
TAXICAB & GARAGE, INC.,
Petitioner, vs. THE COURT
OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS AND
NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
Respondents.

[G.R. Nos. L-8787 & L-

8788. May 11, 1956.]
BIENVENIDO PACIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
KAPISANAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA
MANILA RAILROAD
COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellee. VICENTE VIÑAS
and GUILLERMO ORBETA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs.
KAPISANAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA
MANILA RAILROAD
COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellee.

[G.R. Nos. L-8830 & L-

8837-39. May 11, 1956.]
BISAYA LAND
TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY, INC., Petitioner,
vs. HON. MANUEL M.
MEJIA, ET AL.,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-9048. May

11, 1956.] MARIANO
BEYSA, ET AL., Petitioners,
vs. COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF CAGAYAN,
ET AL., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-7031. May

14, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
EUSEBIO MOLIJON, ET
AL., Defendants, EUSEBIO
MOLIJON, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-7088. May

16, 1956.] BACOLOD ICE
AND COLD STORAGE CO.,
INC., Petitioner, vs.
NEGROS ICE AND COLD
STORAGE CO. INC.,
Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-7240. May

16, 1956.] LADISLAO
PALMA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs. HONORATO
GRACIANO, THE CITY OF
CEBU, HON. MIGUEL
CUENCO AND THE
PROVINCE OF CEBU,
Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-5995. May

18, 1956.] MANUEL CHUA
KAY, Petitioner, vs. LIM
CHANG, Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-7409. May

18, 1956.] INTERWOOD
EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,
vs. INTERNATIONAL
HARDWOOD & VENEER
COMPANY OF THE
PHILIPPINES
(INTERWOOD),
Respondent.

Name[G.R. No. L-7555.

May 18, 1956.] JOHN D.
SINGLETON, as guardian
of the property of the
incompetent WALTER E.
HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs. THE PHILIPPINE
TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-7880. May

18, 1956.] RAYMUNDO
TRANSPORTATION Co.,
INC., Petitioner, vs.
TEOFILO CERDA,
Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8101. May

18, 1956.] MARIANO DE
GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8133. May

18, 1956.] MANUEL C.
MANARANG and LUCIA D.
MANARANG, Petitioners-
Appellants, vs. MACARIO
M. OFILADA, Sheriff of the
City of Manila and
ERNESTO ESTEBAN,
Respondents-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-8147. May

18, 1956.] ALFONSO
BACSARPA, VENANCIO
LAUSA and FERNANDO
MACAS, Petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8328. May

18, 1956.] MANILA
ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Petitioner, vs. SOTERO
REMOQUILLO, in his own
behalf and as guardian of
the minors MANUEL,
BENJAMIN, NESTOR,
MILAGROS, CORAZON,
CLEMENTE and AURORA,
all surnamed MAGNO,
SALUD MAGNO, and the
COURT OF APPEALS
(Second Division),
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8340. May

18, 1956.] ANGEL
ALAFRIZ, ET AL.,
Petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE PRIMITIVO
GONZALES, ETC., ET AL.,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8551. May

18, 1956.] AUGUSTO C.
DE LA PAZ, Petitioner-
Appellant, vs. CDR RAMON
A. ALCARAZ, as
Commander, Service
Squadron, Philippine Navy,
etc., et al., Respondents-
Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-8596. May

18, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
JULIANA UBA and
CALIXTA UBA,
Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-8789. May

18, 1956.] ANG KOO
LIONG, Petitioner-
Appellee, vs. THE BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION,
Respondent-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8826. May

18, 1956.] ISABELO I.
PACQUING and CARMEN
B. PACQUING, Petitioners-
Appellants, vs.
HONORABLE LAURO C.
MAIQUEZ, Acting Judge of
the Municipal Court of
Manila and AUYONG HIAN,
Respondents-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-8874. May

18, 1956.] GAVINO
CONJURADO and JORGIA
MORALES, Petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE MODESTO R.
RAMOLETE, Judge of the
Court of First Instance of
Surigao, and VEDASTO R.
NIERE, Assistant Provincial
Fiscal of Surigao,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8934. May

18, 1956.] ANASTACIO T.
TEODORO, JR., Plaintiff-
Appellant, vs. ARMANDO
MIRASOL, Defendant-
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-8660. May

21, 1956.] ISAAC
NAVARRE, Plaintiff-
Appellee, vs. VICENTE
BARREDO, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-7991. May

21, 1956.] PAUL
MACDONALD, ET AL.,
Petitioners, vs. THE
NATIONAL CITY BANK OF
NEW YORK, Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-7746. May

23, 1956.] FRANCISCO
PULUTAN, Petitioner-
Appellant, vs.
HONORABLE TOMAS
DIZON, as Mayor, the
MUNICIPAL BOARD, City
of San Pablo, and SIMON
MAGPANTAY, City
Treasurer of San Pablo
City, Respondents-
Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-8041. May

23, 1956.] JOSEPH
ARCACHE, Plaintiff-
Appellee, vs. B. S.
CHAINANI, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8292. May

23, 1956.] RED LINE
TRANSPORTATION CO.,
INC., Petitioner, vs.
TEODOLFO ASCAÑO,
Respondent.
 [G.R. No. L-8349. May
23, 1956.] PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-
Appellant, vs.
MACAPANGA PRODUCERS
INC., Defendant.
PLARIDEL SURETY AND
INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-8898. May

23, 1956.] PLACIDO
PEREZ, Petitioner, vs.
HON. ENRIQUE
FERNANDEZ, Judge, Court
of First Instance of Davao,
and APOLONIO PAGARAN,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8945. May

23, 1956.] THE
MUNICIPALITY OF
CAMILING, Plaintiff-
Appellant, vs. DIEGO Z.
LOPEZ, Defendant-
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-8991. May

23, 1956.] FELIX GARCIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
ISABEL VDA. DE ARJONA,
ET AL., Defendants-
Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-6930. May

23, 1956.] ROBERT
JANDA, as administrator
of the estate of Walter C.
Wurdeman, Plaintiff-
Appellant, vs. LEPANTO
CONSOLIDATED MINING
COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-7532. May

25, 1956.] PEDRO
MALONG and LOURDES
MALONG, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, vs. MACARIO
OFILADA and A. B.
MENDOZA, Sheriff and
Chief Deputy Sheriff of
Manila, and THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
MANILA, Defendants-
Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-7821. May

25, 1956.] Heirs of
Gervacio D. Gonzales,
namely: PILAR GONZALES
DE DARCERA, FELIX
GONZALES, RICARDO
GONZALES, JOSE
GONZALES, FRANCISCO
GONZALES and
CHARLITOS GONZALES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs.
ARCADIO ALEGARBES,
EUSEBIO BANDEBAS and
JUANITO QUIRANTES,
Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-7916. May

25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
ARTURO R. SILO,
Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8055. May

25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
MORO JUMDATAL,
Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8227. May

25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
TOMAS QUITAN, ET AL.,
Defendants. TEOFILO
ANCHITA, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8579. May

25, 1956.] PALINKUD
SAMAL, Petitioner, vs. THE
COURT OF APPEALS and
GREGORIA VDA. DE
PALMA GIL, ET AL.,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8586. May

25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
CONRADO MANALO Y
GUANLAO, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8589. May

25, 1956.] THE
BACHRACH MOTOR CO.,
INC., Petitioner, vs. THE
WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION AND
DOMINGO PANALIGAN,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8669. May

25, 1956.] VICENTA
REYES, ET AL., Petitioners,
vs. GUARDALINO C.
MOSQUEDA and THE
COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8681. May

25, 1956.] LUZON
MARINE DEPARTMENT
UNION, Petitioner, vs.
LEON C. PINEDA AND
PINEDA’S LIGHTER
TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Respondent.
 [G.R. No. L-8744. May
25, 1956.] THE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM,
Petitioner, vs. MAGDALENA
A. VDA. DE SAYSON, ETC.,
Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8759. May

25, 1956.] SEVERINO
UNABIA, Petitioner-
Appellee, vs. THE
HONORABLE CITY MAYOR,
CITY TREASURER, CITY
AUDITOR and the CITY
ENGINEER, Respondents-
Appellants.

[G.R. Nos. L-8820 & L-

8821. May 25, 1956.]
MARCIAL PUNZALAN,
Petitioner-Appellant, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent-
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-9306. May

25, 1956.] SOUTHERN
MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff-
Appellee, vs. ELISEO
BARBOSA, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-7570. May

28, 1956.] PHILIPPINE
REFINING COMPANY, INC.,
Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO
PONCE (President of the
Employees and Laborers
Association, Philippine
Refining Co., Inc.), ET AL.,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-6938. May

30, 1956.] J. M. TUASON
& CO., INC., Plaintiff-
Appellee, vs. MIGUEL DE
GUZMAN and LUCIA
SANCHEZ, Defendants-
Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-7151. May

30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
ELIGIO JIMENEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-7273. May

30, 1956.] THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner, vs.
MANILA JOCKEY CLUB,
INC., ET AL.,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-7444. May

30, 1956.] CEBU
ARRASTRE SERVICE,
Petitioner-Appellant, vs.
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent-
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-8025. May

30, 1956.] JOSE AMAR,
ESPERANZA AMAR,
ILDEFONSO AMAR,
TORIBIO AMAR,
BERNARDO AMAR,
DOLORES AMAR and
ANTONIO AMAR, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, vs. TIMOTEO
PAGHARION, Defendant-
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-8056. May

30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
FRANCISCO BUENAFE Y
CALUPAS, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8150. May

30, 1956.] HILARION
TOLENTINO, LUIS
LAMONDAÑA, NERIO
MONCES, ALFONSO
SERRANO, LAURO
GARCES, ENRIQUE
COSTALES, JUSTINIANO
ORTEGA and TEOFILO
MARTINES, Petitioners, vs.
RAMON ANGELES, FELIX
MAPILI, MANULI
SALVADOR and
DOMINADOR BOLINAO,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8505. May

30, 1956.] THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner, vs.
THE PHILIPPINE
EDUCATION CO., INC.,
Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8640. May

30, 1956.] JOSE
FERNANDEZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs.
KEE WA, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8690. May

30, 1956.] JULIAN
FLORENTINO, Petitioner,
vs. HONORABLE JUAN P.
ENRIQUEZ, ETC., ET AL.,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8775. May

30, 1956.] LEONCIO
DAYATA, alias SEE SING
TOW, Petitioner-Appellee,
vs. HONORABLE VICENTE
DE LA CRUZ, as
Commissioner of
Immigration, Respondent-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8962. May

30, 1956.] DIONISIO
FENIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-
Appellees, vs. ANDRES F.
CORDERO, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-9325. May

30, 1956.] ROSARIO
MATUTE, Petitioner, vs.
HON. HIGINIO B.
MACADAEG, as Judge of
the Court of First Instance
of Manila, Branch X, and
ARMANDO MEDEL,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-6858. May

31, 1956.] FERNANDO
IGNACIO and SIMEON DE
LA CRUZ, Petitioners-
Appellants, vs. THE
HONORABLE NORBERTO
ELA, Mayor of Sta. Cruz,
Zambales, Respondent-
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-7096. May

31, 1956.] IN RE:
PETITION to Change
Citizenship Status from
Chinese to Filipino Citizen
on Transfer Certificates of
Title issued to Heirs of
Ricardo Villa-Abrille Lim;
AND/OR, in the
alternative, a Petition for
Declaratory Judgment to
determine Citizenship
status, LORENZO VILLA-
ABRILLE LIM, GUIÑGA
VILLA-ABRILLE LIM,
ROSALIA VILLA-ABRILLE
LIM, ADOLFO VILLA-
ABRILLE LIM, SAYA VILLA-
ABRILLE LIM, LUISA
VILLA-ABRILLE LIM, and
CANDELARIA VILLA-
ABRILLE TAN, Petitioners-
Appellees, vs. REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Oppositor-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-7544. May

31, 1956.] Intestate
Estate of Joaquin Navarro
and Angela Joaquin,
deceased. RAMON
JOAQUIN, Petitioner-
Appellant, vs. ANTONIO C.
NAVARRO, Oppositor-
Appellee.

[G.R. Nos. L-7996-99.

May 31, 1956.] ESTATE OF
FLORENCIO P. BUAN,
Petitioner, vs. PAMPANGA
BUS COMPANY AND LA
MALLORCA, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8264. May

31, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
ARTEMIO GARCIA, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-8352. May

31, 1956.] JUANA BAYAUA
DE VISAYA, Plaintiff-
Appellant, vs. ANTONIO
SUGUITAN and CATALINA
BLAZ, Defendants-
Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-8477. May

31, 1956.] THE
PHILIPPINE TRUST
COMPANY, as Guardian of
the Property of the minor,
MARIANO L. BERNARDO,
Petitioner, vs. SOCORRO
ROLDAN, FRANCISCO
HERMOSO, FIDEL C.
RAMOS and EMILIO CRUZ,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8619. May

31, 1956.] MANUEL
ARICHETA, Petitioner, vs.
THE HONORABLE JUDGE,
COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA,
HONORABLE MARIANO
CASTAÑEDA, Justice of the
Peace of Mabalacat,
Pampanga, NOLI B.
CASTRO, PHILIPPINE
RABBIT BUS LINES and
ANTOLIN TIGLAO,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8697. May

31, 1956.] CHUA CHIAN,
in her capacity as widow
of her deceased husband
NG YOC SIU, and in behalf
of her children with said
deceased, NG SIU HONG
and MARCELINO NG SIU
LIM, Petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE
HERMOGENES
CONCEPCION, in his
capacity as presiding
Judge of Branch VI, Court
of First Instance of Manila,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8749. May

31, 1956.] DOMINGO
MAYOL and EMILIO
MAYOL, Petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE EDMUNDO S.
PICCIO in his capacity as
Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu, JULIAN
MAYOL and IRENEA LASIT,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8967. May

31, 1956.] ANASTACIO
VIAÑA, Petitioner, vs.
ALEJO AL-LAGADAN and
FILOMENA PIGA,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-9282. May

31, 1956.] EMILIO
ADVINCULA, Petitioner, vs.
HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE
TEODORO, SR., Judge of
the Court of First Instance
of Negros Occidental, and
ENRIQUE A. LACSON,
Respondents.

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz