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 MOTORS,
ChanRobles On-Line Bar INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELISEO BARBOSA, Defendant-Appellant.:
Review

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
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
dates they respectively fell due, until fully paid; the sum of P200 by way of chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

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

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
the judgment debt and costs.”
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
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
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
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
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
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
Defendant has appealed. He maintains, in his brief, that: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Get up to 50%* Cheaper

Tickets to Philippines
Ad asaptickets.com

Open

“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.
2. “The trial court erred in rendering a ‘judgment on the pleadings’ in Appellee’s
favor when no issue was at all submitted to it for resolution, to the prejudice of the
 substantial rights of Appellant.
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
ASIA notice to the effect that said motion would be submitted for the consideration and
approval of the lower court, on Saturday, June 16, 1951, at 8: 00 a.m., or soon chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

thereafter as counsel may be heard.

The second assignment of error is, likewise, untenable. It is not true that there was
DAILY FLIGHTS AND no issue submitted for determination by the lower court when it rendered the
GREAT FARES. WHY decision appealed from.
WAIT?
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
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
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.
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
it was proper, under the circumstances, to render a judgment on the pleadings. In
other words, said motion for reconsideration had the effect of placing before then
Judge Makalintal, for resolution, the following issues, to wit: (1) whether a chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

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

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

whether the mortgage in question could be foreclosed although Plaintiff had not
exhausted, and did not intend to exhaust, the properties of his principal debtor,
Alfredo Brillantes.
The third assignment of error is predicated upon the alleged lack of notice of the
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
obvious that Defendant’s affirmative defense is devoid of merit for: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

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

“That if said Mr. Alfredo Brillantes or herein mortgagor, his heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns shall well and truly perform the full obligations above-
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
authorizes and empowers herein mortgagee-company to take any of the following
actions to enforce said payment;.
 Identity Theft is the
Fastest Growing Crime.
Protect Yourself and…
Ad IdentityGuard.com

Open

“(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

Flat Fee Divorce 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,
together with its interest hereby secured; or
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

“(b) Simply foreclose this mortgage judicially in accordance with the provisions of
section 2, Rule 70, Rules of Court, or extra- judicially under the provisions of Act
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.”
2. The right of guarantors, under Article 2058 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
Free 15 minute phone to demand exhaustion of the property of the principal debtor, exists only when a
pledge or a mortgage has not been given as special security for the payment of the
consultation to see if youprincipal obligation. Guarantees, without any such pledge or mortgage, are governed
by Title XV of said Code, whereas pledges and mortgages fall under Title XVI of the
and your spouse qualify.same Code, in which the following provisions, among others, are found: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ART. 2087. “It is also of the essence of these contracts that when the principal
obligation becomes due, the things in which the pledge or mortgage consists may be
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
obligation for whose security it was constituted.”
3. It has been held already (Saavedra vs. Price, 68 Phil., 688), that a mortgagor is
SPONSORED SEARCHES
not entitled to the exhaustion of the property of the principal debtor.
supreme court 4. Although an ordinary personal guarantor — not a mortgagor or pledgor — may
demand the aforementioned exhaustion, the creditor may, prior thereto, secure a
hearing aid cases 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
hardwood veneer 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
labor and law Defendant-Appellant. It is SO ORDERED.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
cebu top 10 Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

May-1956 Jurisprudence

[G.R. No. L-8873. May 2,

1956.] CIPRIANO AMORA,
CONRADO MATONDO,
APOLONIO SIGNAR,
FLORENTINO LOVETE,
LORETO CINCO, APOLINAR
ROSAL and FILOMENO
TABLO, Petitioners-
Appellees, vs. FRANCO
BIBERA, FRANCISCO
TAVERA, MELECIO AGUILAR,
SINFORIANO SERIDAN,
ANTONIO BRIONES,
ANTONIO RED, ISABELO
REMOLADOR and
FLORENCIO AGUILAR,
Respondents-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-7155. May 4,

1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, vs. JESUS
AGASANG, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8049. May 9,

1956.] BUKLOD ÑG SAULOG
TRANSIT, Petitioner, vs.
MARCIANO CASALLA, ET
ALS., Respondents.
 [G.R. No. L-7261. May 11,
1956.] THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS, PASIG, RIZAL,
Petitioner-Appellee, vs.
HEIRS OF HI CAIJI and
ELISEO YMZON, Oppositors-
Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-7902. May 11,

1956.] MANILA PRESS,
INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-
Appellant, vs. MARCELINO
SARMIENTO, as City
Treasurer of the City of
Manila, Defendant-Appellee.

[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