ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™  

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

 
  Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > May 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 96494 May 28, 1992 - CASA FILIPINA
DEV’T CORP. v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:
 

  Custom Search
Search
   

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 96494. May 28, 1992.]

CASA FILIPINA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT, MALACAÑANG, MANILA, AND JOSE VALENZUELA, JR., Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; ESTOPPEL; PRINCIPLE APPLIED IN CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner is already estopped from
raising this issue because in its appeal memorandum submitted before the HLURB, it pleaded that: "5. Appellant prays
that it be given a period/time to redeem the title or the demand for issuance of title be suspended from the ComSavings
Bank before any deed of absolute sale be executed so that the Transfer Certificate of Title be issued and/or refund be
ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ACCORDED RESPECT ON APPEAL. — The OAALA
found as a fact that "the complainant-appellee was ready, willing and able to pay for the expenses for the transfer of title
as stipulated in the Contract to Sell . . . ." We accord respect and finality to this finding (Filipinas Manufacturers Bank v.
NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 72805, February 28, 1990, 182 SCRA 848; Vda. de Pineda, Et. Al. v. Peña, etc., Et Al., G.R. No. 57665,
July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 22).

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
3. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; RATE OF INTEREST FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, HOW DETERMINED. — The ruling in
Reformina v. Tomol, it must be underscored, deals exclusively with cases where damages in the form of interest is due
but no specific rate has been previously set by the parties. In such cases, the legal interest of 12% per annum must be
applied. In Solid Homes Inc. v. Court of Appeals (170 SCRA 63 [1989]), this Honorable Court ruled: On the matter of
interest, we agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the proper rate of interest is twelve (12%) per centum
per annum, which is the rate of interest expressly agreed upon in writing by the parties, as appearing in the invoices, and
sanctioned by Art. 2209 of the Civil Code, . . . It is, thus, evident that if a particular rate of interest has been expressly
stipulated by the parties, that interest, not the legal rate of interest, shall be applied.

4. ID.; PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957 (REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISION LOTS AND CONDOMINIUMS);
REDEMPTION OF MORTGAGE WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS FROM ISSUANCE; ISSUANCE OF TITLE, NOT A PREREQUISITE
TO THE RUNNING OF PERIOD. — Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 imposes an obligation on the part of the owner or developer,
in the event the mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, to redeem
the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance. We focus Our attention on the
period of "six months" to be reckoned "from the issuance of the title." Supposing there is no such issuance of the title, as
in this case, from what event is the six month period to be counted? Or, will this period not begin to run at all unless the
title has been issued? The argument of petitioner that the issuance of the title is a prerequisite to the running of the six
month period of redemption, fails to convince Us. Otherwise, the owner or developer can readily concoct a thousand and
one reasons as justifications for its failure to issue the title and in the process, prolong the period within which to deliver
the title to the buyer free from any liens or encumbrances. Additionally, by not issuing/delivering the title of the lot to
private respondent upon full payment thereof, petitioner has already violated the explicit mandate of the first sentence of
Section 25 of P.D. 957. If We were to count the six month period of redemption from the belated issuance of the title,
petitioner will have a lot to gain from its own non-observance of said provision. We shall not countenance such
absurdity.

DECISION
 ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division
 
 
 
 
 
  May-1992 Jurisprudence                  delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith.
G.R. No. 83811 May 5, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
RAYMUNDO CRUZ
G.R. No. 89020 May 5, 1992 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO.,
INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 94149 May 5, 1992 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE,
CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 94255 May 5, 1992 - RICARDO L. MEDALLA, JR. v.
PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 95393 May 5, 1992 - RAUL H. SESBRENO v. OSCAR E.
ALA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 95914 May 5, 1992 - BLUE BAR COCONUT PHILS. INC.
v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 79184 May 6, 1992 - ERLINDA L. PONCE v. VALENTINO
L. LEGASPI, ET AL.
G.R. No. 88282 May 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN F.
PASCUAL
G.R. No. 93654 May 6, 1992 - FRANCISCO U. DACANAY v.
MACARIO ASISTIO, JR., ET AL.
G.R. No. 96058 May 6, 1992 - VICTOR C. MACALINCAG, ET AL. v.
ROBERTO E. CHANG
G.R. No. 104712 May 6, 1992 - MANUEL T. DE GUIA v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 38810 May 7, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 49463 May 7, 1992 - JAIME T. MALANYAON v. DELFIN
VIR. SUÑGA, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 49863-71 May 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ARTEMIO ESCAMILLAS
G.R. No. 73864 May 7, 1992 - TEODORO PALMES HERNAEZ, JR.
v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 79167 May 7, 1992 - HEIRS OF PROCESO BAUTISTA v.
SPS. SEVERO BARZA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 89802 May 7, 1992 - ASSOCIATED BANK, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 95554 May 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
FRANCISCO M. DANICO
G.R. No. 96452 May 7, 1992 - PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS,
INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 97822 May 7, 1992 - MAURICIO N. CACHOLA, SR. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-91-528 May 8, 1992 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR v. JOSE B. GATICALES, ET AL.
A.C. No. 2427 May 8, 1992 - ONOFRE P. TEJADA v. HAROLD M.
HERNANDO
G.R. No. 40457 May 8, 1992 - MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC. v.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH VI, ET AL.
G.R. No. 48772 May 8, 1992 - PASTOR T. BRAVO v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari (treated as a petition for certiorari) seeking reversal of the decision of the Office
of the President dated April 11, 1989, in O.P. Case No. 3722, entitled "Casa Filipina Development Corporation,
Respondent-Appellant, v. Jose Valenzuela, Jr., Complainant-Appellee," which affirmed the decision of the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board dated October 6, 1987; and its resolution dated September 26, 1989, which denied the
motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
The antecedent facts are, as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On June 30, 1986, private respondent Jose Valenzuela, Jr. filed a complaint against petitioner Casa Filipina Development
Corporation before the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the then Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission (now Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board) for its failure to execute and deliver the deed of
sale and transfer certificate of title. He alleged therein that on May 2, 1984, he entered into a contract to sell with
petitioner for the purchase of a 120 sq. m. lot denominated as Lot 8, Block 9, Phase II of Casa Filipina, Sucat II, Bo. San
Dionisio, Parañaque, Metro Manila, for a total purchase price of P68,400.00 with P16,416.00 as downpayment and the
balance of P51,984.00 to be paid in 12 equal monthly installments of P4,915.16 with 24% interest per annum starting
September 3, 1984; that on October 7, 1985, he made his full and final payment under O.R. No. 6266; that despite full
payment of the lot, petitioner refused to execute the necessary deed of absolute sale and deliver the corresponding
transfer certificate of title to him; that since October 1985, he had offered to pay for or reimburse petitioner the expenses
for the transfer of the title but the latter refused to accept the same; and that he was constrained to hire a lawyer for a
fee to protect his interests. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
For petitioner’s defense, it contended that private respondent’s action is premature because of his failure to comply with
the other conditional requirements of their contract such as payment of transfer expenses, and that had the latter paid
said fees, it would have been very much willing to effect the transfer of the title.
On January 21, 1987, the OAALA rendered judgment in favor of private respondent, relying on Section 25 of Presidential
Decree No. 957 (Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing Penalties for Violations thereof),
which provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
SEC. 25. Issuance of Title — The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment
of the lot or unit. No fee except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be
collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the
issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner of or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion
thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and
The dispositive portion of its decision reads (p. 19, Rollo): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is rendered ordering respondent, within 15 days from finality of this
decision, to execute the deed of absolute sale for Lot 8, Block 9, Phase II, Casa Filipina, Sucat II, Bo. San Dionisio,
Parañaque, Metro Manila in favor of the complainant and thereafter to bill complainant the total amount due for the
registration and transfer expenses of the title. Respondent is further ordered, within 15 days from receipt of
complainant’s payment for registration and transfer expenses, to deliver to the latter the transfer certificate of title of
subject lot from all liens and encumbrances. In the event respondent is unable to deliver the title to the said lot,
respondent is hereby ordered to refund (to) complainant his total payments amounting to SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY PESOS and 82/100 (P76,180.82) plus 24% interest per annum from June 30, 1986, the date of
the filing of the complaint, until fully paid. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay complainant TWO THOUSAND PESOS
(P2,000.00) by way of attorney’s fees, for compelling the latter to litigate and incur expenses in the protection of his
rights.
"It is SO ORDERED." cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioner then filed an appeal before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. In petitioner’s memorandum, it
narrated the events that transpired which led to its failure to deliver the title, namely: its original mortgagee bank was
Royal Savings Bank which was absorbed by Comsavings Bank apparently due to bankrun; Comsavings Bank is not
amenable to petitioner’s earlier arrangement with Royal Savings Bank on individual redemption of title, thus, it demanded
that petitioner’s obligations should be paid prior to the release of any individual title; petitioner cannot seasonably meet
such demand due to the inability of the past administration to put up a viable and progressive economic program that
brought it into a fix situation wherein it has no participation either intentionally or by negligence. chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
On October 6, 1987, the HLURB dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the questioned
decision of the OAALA (p. 23, Rollo). It opined that (ibid): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . Suffice it to state that the payment in full by the complainant-appellee of the purchased (sic) price of the lot should
warrant the immediate deliver of the title to the lot purchased. Section 25 of P.D. 957 clearly provides that the
redemption by the mortgagor or (sic) any mortgage (sic) property shall be within a period of six (6) months from (the)
date of issuance of the title in favor of the buyer. Obviously from the moment full payment is made by the buyer to (sic)
his purchased lot, the maximum period contemplated by law for delivery of title is only six (6) months. Within this period
it becomes mandatory upon the owner or developer of a subdivision to deliver (the) title of the lot buyer. In the case at
bar, full payment was made on October 7, 1985 and despite the lapse of one (1) year more or less from (the) date of full
payment, delivery of (the) title is still uncertain.
"The defense of the respondent-appellant that its failure to deliver the title allegedly due to the inability of the past
administration to put up a viable and progressive economic program which led to the closure of the Royal Savings Bank
as its original mortgagee bank is not well-taken since there is no proof submitted to this Board to substantiate
appellant’s claim. On the contrary it was only the OAALA decision that made the respondent-appellant change its line of
justification which happened to be just an allegation which need not be passed upon by this Board." cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioner appealed further to the Office of the President. Again, on April 11, 1989, its appeal was dismissed for lack of
merit and the questioned decision of the HLURB was affirmed (p. 32, Rollo). On September 26, 1989, the motion for
reconsideration was denied for lack of merit (p. 36, Rollo). Hence, the present, petition, wherein petitioner raises the
following issues (pp. 9-10, Rollo): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. THE RESPONDENT DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, WITH DUE RESPECT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING SETTLED
JURISPRUDENCE AND THE PROVISION OF LAW APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE."
cralaw virtua1aw library
2. THE RESPONDENT DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION
CONTRADICTORY OF (sic) THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION." cralaw virtua1aw library
Mainly, petitioner asseverates that in granting both remedies of specific performance and rescission, public respondent
ignored a well-pronounced rule that these remedies cannot be availed at the same time. There is no evidence showing
that private respondent had offered to pay the expenses for the transfer of the title. Furthermore, the amount of 24%
interest imposed by the OAALA in case of refund is high and without basis: firstly, HLURB Resolution No. R-421, series of
1988, strictly enjoins the maximum interest to be awarded in case of refund to 12%; secondly, although condition no. 1 of
their contract to sell provides for said rate of interest, it merely applies to interest on installment payments but not with
respect to refunds; thirdly, since the contract between them is not a forbearance of money or loan, the doctrine laid down
in the case of Reformina v. Tomol, Jr., G.R. No. 59096, 139 SCRA 260 applies, that is, except where the action involves
forbearance of money or loan, interest which courts may award is only up to 12% (should be 6%). Finally, inasmuch as
 G.R. Nos. 60225-26 May 8, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER issuance of the title has not yet been effected because of the take over by Comsavings Bank of the Royal Savings Bank,
CORPORATION v. ZAIN B. ANGAS, ET AL. the period specified under Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 has not begun to run for the purpose of redemption. cralawnad

G.R. Nos. 61864-69 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

v. BENIGNO M. PUNO, ET AL. The arguments advanced by petitioner utterly lack merit.

G.R. No. 62773 May 8, 1992 - OLIMPIO REYES, ET AL. v. OSCAR
R. ZUBIRI, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 66873-74 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
It is plain enough in the OAALA decision that rescission is being ordered only in the event specific performance is not
feasible. Moreover, petitioner is already estopped from raising this issue because in its appeal memorandum submitted
before the HLURB, it pleaded that (p. 28, Rollo):
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

FRUCTUOSO MANCAO, ET AL.

"5. Appellant prays that it be given a period/time to redeem the title or the demand for issuance of title be suspended
G.R. No. 71662 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO I. from the ComSavings Bank before any deed of absolute sale be executed so that the Transfer Certificate of Title be
DACOYCOY, ET AL. issued and/or refund be ordered." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 72244 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE

AGRIPA
G.R. No. 84623 May 8, 1992 - FELIPE TORIBIO, ET AL. v.
TEMISTOCLES B. DIEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 84974 May 8, 1992 - BENGUET CORPORATION v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
The OAALA found as a fact that "the complainant-appellee for the transfer of title as stipulated in the Contract to Sell . . ."
(p. 22, Rollo). We accord respect and finality to this finding (Filipinas Manufacturers Bank v. NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 72805,
February 28, 1990, 182 SCRA 848; Vda. de Pineda, Et. Al. v. Peña, etc., Et Al., G.R. No. 57665, July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 22).
We adopt the disposition of the Office of the Solicitor General on the correct rate of interest as Our own (pp. 124-125,
Rollo):
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

G.R. No. 86186 May 8, 1992 - RAFAEL GELOS v. THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO ALZONA
G.R. No. 86787 May 8, 1992 - MILAGROS TUMULAK BISHOP, ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 88331 May 8, 1992 - SPS. RICARDO B. VILLAMIL, ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 88353 May 8, 1992 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 89307 May 8, 1992 - MA. WENDELYN V. YAP, ET AL. v.
"The ruling in Reformina v. Tomol, it must be underscored, deals exclusively with cases where damages in the form of
interest is due but no specific rate has been previously set by the parties. In such cases, the legal interest of 12% per
annum must be applied. In the present case, however, the interest rate of 24% per annum was mutually agreed upon by
petitioner and private respondent in their contract to sell — this was the interest rate imposed on private respondent for
the payment of the installments on the contract price and there is no reason why this same interest rate should not be
equally applied to petitioner which is guilty of violating the reciprocal obligation.
"In Solid Homes Inc. v. Court of Appeals (170 SCRA 63 [1989]), a subdivision owner, in violation of their Offsetting
Agreement, incurred delay in the delivery of a house and lot to the supplier of the construction materials. On review, the
issue of which rate of interest — the 6% per annum which was then the legal interest or the stipulated interest rate of
12% — was raised. This Honorable Court ruled: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

VERGEL G. CRUZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91158 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE V.
SANGIL
G.R. No. 91544 May 8, 1992 - LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92087 May 8, 1992 - SOFIA FERNANDO, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92585 May 8, 1992 - CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC. v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 93409 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
RAMONITO GELOTIN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 93709 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH
RABANES
G.R. No. 93899 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE C.
CADAG
G.R. Nos. 93929-31 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
FERNANDO C. CABODAC
‘On the matter of interest, we agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the proper rate of interest is twelve
(12%) per centum per annum, which is the rate of interest expressly agreed upon in writing by the parties, as appearing in
the invoices (Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘D’), and sanctioned by Art. 2209 of the Civil Code, . . .’. (Emphasis supplied)
"It is, thus, evident that if a particular rate of interest has been expressly stipulated by the parties, that interest, not the
legal rate of interest, shall be applied.
Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 imposes an obligation on the part of the owner or developer, in the event the mortgage over
the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, to redeem the mortgage or the
corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance. We focus Our attention on the period of "six
months" to be reckoned "from the issuance of the title." Supposing there is no such issuance of the title, as in this case,
from what event is the six month period to be counted? Or, will this period not begin to run at all unless the title has been
issued? The argument of petitioner that the issuance of the title is a prerequisite to the running of the six month period
of redemption, fails to convince Us. Otherwise, the owner or developer can readily concoct a thousand and one reasons
as justifications for its failure to issue the title and in the process, prolong the period within which to deliver the title to
the buyer free from any liens or encumbrances. Additionally, by not issuing/delivering the title of the lot to private
respondent upon full payment thereof, petitioner has already violated the explicit mandate of the first sentence of
Section 25 of P.D. No. 957. If We were to count the six month period of redemption from the belated issuance of the title,
petitioner will have a lot to grain from its own non-observance of said provision. We shall not countenance such
absurdity. Of equal importance as the preceding ratiocination are the reasons behind the enactment of P.D. No. 957, as
expressed succinctly in its "whereas" clauses, to wit: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

G.R. No. 94133 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS

VILLANUEVA "WHEREAS, reports of alarming magnitude also show cases of swindling and fraudulent manipulations perpetrated by
unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and operators, such as failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles
G.R. No. 94529 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO free from liens and encumbrances, and to pay real estate taxes, and fraudulent sales of the same subdivision lots to
REYES
different innocent purchasers for value; chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

G.R. No. 94784 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

ANGELITO CALING "WHEREAS, these acts not only undermine the land and housing program of the but also defeat the objectives of the
New Society, particularly the promotion of peace and order and the enhancement of the economic, social and moral
G.R. No. 96605 May 8, 1992 - FELICIANO MORCOSO v. COURT condition of the Filipino people;
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96787 May 8, 1992 - PEDRO TRIA v. EMPLOYEES’ "WHEREAS, this state of affairs has rendered it imperative that the real estate subdivision and condominium businesses
COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL. be closely supervised and regulated, and that penalties be imposed on fraudulent practices and manipulations
committed in connection therewith." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. 97086 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO

A. CANELA ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of the Office of the President dated April 11, 1989 and its
G.R. No. 97146 May 8, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON resolution dated September 26, 1989 are AFFIRMED.
C. COLLANTES
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 97180 May 8, 1992 - BENJAMIN D. SISON v. CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 97477 May 8, 1992 - CAMILO E. TAMIN, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 98258 May 8, 1992 - TIRSO OPORTO, ET AL. v. COURT

OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Back to Home | Back to Main
G.R. No. 98334 May 8, 1992 - MANUEL D. MEDIDA, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.  
G.R. No. 101767 May 8, 1992 - TERTULIANO ABEJARON v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. QUICK SEARCH

G.R. No. 86495 May 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL S.
FERNANDEZ

G.R. No. 57227 May 14, 1992 - AMELITA CONSTANTINO v. IVAN 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
MENDEZ 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 49855 May 15, 1992 - NICOLAS V. ICASIANO v. OFFICE 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
OF THE PRESIDENT
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 55488 May 15, 1992 - MARCIANA DAPIN v. ALBINO 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
DIONALDO
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 66207 May 18, 1992 - MAXIMINO SOLIMAN, JR. v. HON. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
JUDGE RAMON TUAZON
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 89070 May 18, 1992 - BENGUET ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. 60673 May 19, 1992 - PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS v.
JOSE K. RAPADAS 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
 G.R. No. 61024 May 19, 1992 - JUAN D. CELESTE v. COURT OF 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
APPEALS
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 69138 May 19, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018    
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 83113 & 83256 May 19, 1992 - RAFAEL S. BELTRAN v.
PAIC FINANCE CORPORATION

G.R. No. 67664 May 20, 1992 - ANANIAS PANDAY v. NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. 55691 May 21, 1992 - ESPERANZA BORILLO v. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 56925 May 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO
I. SIMON

G.R. No. 69581 May 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO
GARCIA

G.R. No. 92706 May 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS
MIRANTES

G.R. No. 97906 May 21, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v.

COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 47362 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO
GUTIERREZ

G.R. No. 68946 May 22, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 76743 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME
C. CARANZO

G.R. No. 81158 May 22, 1992 - OSCAR A. JACINTO v. ROGELIO

KAPARAZ

G.R. No. 87135 May 22, 1992 - ALMA MAGALAD v. PREMIERE

FINANCING CORP.

G.R. Nos. 89404-05 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

EFREN DEGOMA

G.R. No. 90197 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH
FAGYAN

G.R. Nos. 98423-24 May 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

RAFAEL ACURAM

G.R. No. 63201 May 27, 1992 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. CFI OF
RIZAL, BRANCH XXI

G.R. No. 71526 May 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

JOSELITO VILLALOBOS

G.R. No. 77114 May 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

BERNARDO P. LITERADO

G.R. No. 80268 May 27, 1992 - BOGO-MEDELLIN CO. v. HON.

JUDGE PEDRO SON

G.R. No. 97930 May 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

STANLEY BLAS

G.R. No. 98448 May 27, 1992 - AIDA ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 74135 May 28, 1992 - M. H. WYLIE v. AURORA I.

RARANG

G.R. No. 92595 May 28, 1992 - HON. MITA PARDO DE TAVERA v.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. 95642 May 28, 1992 - AURELIO G. ICASIANO, JR. v.

SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 96548 May 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL
DAG-UMAN

G.R. No. 90462 May 29, 1992 - RICARDO LIRIO v. COURT OF

APPEALS

G.R. No. 100111 May 29, 1992 - TESCO SERVICES, INC. v. HON.
ABRAHAM P. VERA

G.R. No. 104037 & 104069 May 29, 1992 - REYNALDO V. UMALI
v. JESUS P. ESTANISLAO, ET AL.

A.M. No. P-89-295 May 29, 1992 - ADORACION G. ANGELES v.

EMMANUEL BANTUG

G.R. No. 94429 May 29, 1992 - BLTB COMPANY v. NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

G.R. No. 96494 May 28, 1992 - CASA FILIPINA DEV’T CORP. v.
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

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