ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.

com

Like 0
Tweet Share Share
Tweet Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > May 1956 Decisions > [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.:

Custom Search Search

EN BANC
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review [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.

DECISION
BENGZON, J.:
As guardian of the property of the minor Mariano L. Bernardo, the Philippine Trust Company
filed in the Manila court of first instance a complaint to annul two contracts regarding 17 parcels
of land: (a) sale thereof by Socorro Roldan, as guardian of said minor, to Fidel C. Ramos;
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chan

and (b) sale thereof by Fidel C. Ramos to Socorro Roldan personally. The complaint likewise
roblesvirtualawlibrary

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
sought to annul a conveyance of four out of the said seventeen parcels by Socorro Roldan to
Emilio Cruz.
The action rests on the proposition that the first two sales were in reality a sale by the guardian to
herself therefore, null and void under Article 1459 of the Civil Code. As to the third
conveyance, it is also ineffective, because Socorro Roldan had acquired no valid title to convey
to Cruz.
The material facts of the case are not complicated. These 17 parcels located in Guiguinto,
Bulacan, were part of the properties inherited by Mariano L. Bernardo from his father, Marcelo
Bernardo, deceased. In view of his minority, guardianship proceedings were instituted, wherein
Socorro Roldan was appointed his guardian. She was the surviving spouse of Marcelo Bernardo,
and the stepmother of said Mariano L. Bernardo.
On July 27, 1947, Socorro Roldan filed in said guardianship proceedings (Special Proceeding
2485, Manila), a motion asking for authority to sell as guardian the 17 parcels for the sum of
P14,700 to Dr. Fidel C. Ramos, the purpose of the sale being allegedly to invest the money in a
residential house, which the minor desired to have on Tindalo Street, Manila. The motion was
granted.
On August 5, 1947 Socorro Roldan, as guardian, executed the proper deed of sale in favor of her
brother-in-law Dr. Fidel C. Ramos (Exhibit A-1), and on August 12, 1947 she asked for, and
obtained, judicial confirmation of the sale. On August 13, 1947, Dr. Fidel C. Ramos executed in
favor of Socorro Roldan, personally, a deed of conveyance covering the same seventeen parcels,
for the sum of P15,000 (Exhibit A-2). And on October 21, 1947 Socorro Roldan sold four
parcels out of the seventeen to Emilio Cruz for P3,000, reserving to herself the right to

ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
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 G 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.
repurchase (Exhibit A-3).
The Philippine Trust Company replaced Socorro Roldan as guardian, on August 10, 1948. And
this litigation, started two months later, seeks to undo what the previous guardian had done. The
step-mother in effect, sold to herself, the properties of her ward, contends the Plaintiff, and the
sale should be annulled because it violates Article 1459 of the Civil Code prohibiting the
guardian from purchasing either in person or through the mediation of another the property of
her ward.
The court of first instance, following our decision in Rodriguez vs. Mactal, 60 Phil. 13 held the
article was not controlling, because there was no proof that Fidel C. Ramos was a mere
intermediary or that the latter had previously agreed with Socorro Roldan to buy the parcels for
her benefit.
However, taking the former guardian at her word - she swore she had repurchased the lands from
Dr. Fidel C. Ramos to preserve it and to give her protege opportunity to redeem the court
rendered judgment upholding the contracts but allowing the minor to repurchase all the parcels
by paying P15,000, within one year.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, adding that the minor knew the particulars of, and
approved the transaction, and that only clear and positive evidence of fraud or bad faith, and not
mere insinuations and inferences will overcome the presumptions that a sale was concluded in
all good faith for value.
At first glance the resolutions of both courts accomplished substantial justice: the minor chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
recovers his properties. But if the conveyances are annulled as prayed for, the minor will obtain a
better deal: he receives all the fruits of the lands from the year 1947 (Article 1303 Civil Code)
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
and will return P14,700, not P15,000.
To our minds the first two transactions herein described couldnt be in a better juridical situation
than if this guardian had purchased the seventeen parcels on the day following the sale to Dr.
Ramos. Now, if she was willing to pay P15,000 why did she sell the parcels for less? In one day
(or actually one week) the price could not have risen so suddenly. Obviously when, seeking
approval of the sale she represented the price to be the best obtainable in the market, she was not
entirely truthful. This is one phase to consider.
Again, supposing she knew the parcels were actually worth P17,000; then she agreed to sell chan roblesvirtualawlibrary
them to Dr. Ramos at P14,700; and knowing the realtys value she offered him the next day chan roblesvirtualawlibrary
P15,000 or P15,500, and got it. Will there be any doubt that she was recreant to her
guardianship, and that her acquisition should be nullified? Even without proof that she had
connived with Dr. Ramos. Remembering the general doctrine that guardianship is a trust of the
highest order, and the trustee cannot be allowed to have any inducement to neglect his wards
interest and in line with the courts suspicion whenever the guardian acquires the wards property
1 we have no hesitation to declare that in this case, in the eyes of the law, Socorro Roldan took
by purchase her wards parcels thru Dr. Ramos, and that Article 1459 of the Civil Code applies.
She acted it may be true without malice; there may have been no previous agreement between chan roblesvirtualawlibrary
her and Dr. Ramos to the effect that the latter would buy the lands for her. But the stubborn fact
remains that she acquired her proteges properties, through her brother-in-law. That she planned
to get them for herself at the time of selling them to Dr. Ramos, may be deduced from the very
short time between the two sales (one week). The temptation which naturally besets a guardian
so circumstanced, necessitates the annulment of the transaction, even if no actual collusion is
proved (so hard to prove) between such guardian and the intermediate purchaser. This would
uphold a sound principle of equity and justice. 2
We are aware of course that in Rodriguez vs. Mactal, 60 Phil. p. 13 wherein the guardian Mactal
sold in January 1926 the property of her ward to Silverio Chioco, and in March 1928 she bought
it from Chioco, this Court said: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In order to bring the sale in this case within the part of Article 1459, quoted above, it is
essential that the proof submitted establish some agreement between Silverio Chioco and
Trinidad Mactal to the effect that Chioco should buy the property for the benefit of Mactal. If
there was no such agreement, either express or implied, then the sale cannot be set aside . (Page
cralaw
16; Italics supplied.)
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary
However, the underlined portion was not intended to establish a general principle of law
applicable to all subsequent litigations. It merely meant that the subsequent purchase by Mactal
could not be annulled in that particular case because there was no proof of a previous agreement
between Chioco and her. The court then considered such proof necessary to establish that the
two sales were actually part of one scheme guardian getting the wards property through
another person because two years had elapsed between the sales. Such period of time was
sufficient to dispel the natural suspicion of the guardians motives or actions. In the case at bar,
however, only one week had elapsed. And if we were technical, we could say, only one day had
elapsed from the judicial approval of the sale (August 12), to the purchase by the guardian (Aug.
13).
Attempting to prove that the transaction was beneficial to the minor, Appellees attorney alleges
that the money (P14,700) invested in the house on Tindalo Street produced for him rentals of
P2,400 yearly; whereas the parcels of land yielded to his step-mother only an average of
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary
P1,522 per year. 3 The argument would carry some weight if that house had been built out of the
purchase price of P14,700 only. 4 One thing is certain: the calculation does not include the
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
price of the lot on which the house was erected. Estimating such lot at P14,700 only, (ordinarily
 [G.R. Nos. L-8787 & L-8788. May 11, 1956.] the city lot is more valuable than the building) the result is that the price paid for the seventeen
BIENVENIDO PACIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA parcels gave the minor an income of only P1,200 a year, whereas the harvest from the seventeen
RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. VICENTE parcels netted his step-mother a yearly profit of P1,522.00. The minor was thus on the losing
VIAS and GUILLERMO ORBETA, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA
end.
RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Hence, from both the legal and equitable standpoints these three sales should not be sustained: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

[G.R. Nos. L-8830 & L-8837-39. May 11, 1956.] the first two for violation of article 1459 of the Civil Code; and the third because Socorro chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

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.
Roldan could pass no title to Emilio Cruz. The annulment carries with is (Article 1303 Civil
Code) the obligation of Socorro Roldan to return the 17 parcels together with their fruits and the
duty of the minor, through his guardian to repay P14,700 with legal interest.
Judgment is therefore rendered:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

[G.R. No. L-7031. May 14, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE

a. Annulling the three contracts of sale in question; b. declaring the minor as the owner of the chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUSEBIO seventeen parcels of land, with the obligation to return to Socorro Roldan the price of P14,700
MOLIJON, ET AL., Defendants, EUSEBIO MOLIJON, with legal interest from August 12, 1947; c. Ordering Socorro Roldan and Emilio Cruz to
Defendant-Appellant.
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

deliver said parcels of land to the minor; d. Requiring Socorro Roldan to pay him beginning chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

[G.R. No. L-7088. May 16, 1956.] BACOLOD ICE AND with 1947 the fruits, which her attorney admits, amounted to P1,522 a year; e. Authorizing the chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

COLD STORAGE CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. NEGROS ICE

AND COLD STORAGE CO. INC., Respondent.
minor to deliver directly to Emilio Cruz, out of the price of P14,700 above mentioned, the sum
of P3,000; and f. charging Appellees with the costs. SO ORDERED.
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

[G.R. No. L-7240. May 16, 1956.] LADISLAO PALMA,

Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HONORATO GRACIANO, THE Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
CITY OF CEBU, HON. MIGUEL CUENCO AND THE
PROVINCE OF CEBU, Defendants-Appellees.
and Endencia, JJ., concur.

[G.R. No. L-5995. May 18, 1956.] MANUEL CHUA KAY,

Petitioner, vs. LIM CHANG, Respondent.
Endnotes: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

[G.R. No. L-7409. May 18, 1956.] INTERWOOD

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. 1. 25 Am. Jur. pp. 128, 130; Daniel vs. Tolon, 53 Okla. 666, 4 A. L. R. 704.
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD & VENEER COMPANY OF

THE PHILIPPINES (INTERWOOD), Respondent. 2. cf. Saverino vs. Severino, 44 Phil. 343. No fraud in fact need be shown.
Name[G.R. No. L-7555. May 18, 1956.] JOHN D. 3. Appellees brief, p. 20.
SINGLETON, as guardian of the property of the
incompetent WALTER E. HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. 4. The contract with the builder called for P16,500.00; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary and Roldan said its total cost
THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, Defendant- amounted to P18,720.00.
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-7880. May 18, 1956.] RAYMUNDO

TRANSPORTATION Co., INC., Petitioner, vs. TEOFILO
CERDA, Respondent. Ads by Google Trust Attorney GR Education Law
Ads by Google Trust Attorney GR GR 2 Law Trust
[G.R. No. L-8101. May 18, 1956.] MARIANO DE
GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET Ads by Google Trust Attorney Supreme Court Property Trust
AL., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8133. May 18, 1956.] MANUEL C. Back to Home | Back to Main
MANARANG and LUCIA D. MANARANG, Petitioners-
Appellants, vs. MACARIO M. OFILADA, Sheriff of the
City of Manila and ERNESTO ESTEBAN, Respondents-
Appellees. QUICK SEARCH

[G.R. No. L-8147. May 18, 1956.] ALFONSO

BACSARPA, VENANCIO LAUSA and FERNANDO MACAS,
Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
[G.R. No. L-8328. May 18, 1956.] MANILA ELECTRIC 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. SOTERO REMOQUILLO, in his
own behalf and as guardian of the minors MANUEL, 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
BENJAMIN, NESTOR, MILAGROS, CORAZON, CLEMENTE 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
and AURORA, all surnamed MAGNO, SALUD MAGNO,
and the COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
Respondents. 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948

[G.R. No. L-8340. May 18, 1956.] ANGEL ALAFRIZ, ET 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
AL., Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PRIMITIVO 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
GONZALES, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
[G.R. No. L-8551. May 18, 1956.] AUGUSTO C. DE LA 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
PAZ, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. CDR RAMON A. ALCARAZ,
as Commander, Service Squadron, Philippine Navy, 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
etc., et al., Respondents-Appellees. 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

[G.R. No. L-8596. May 18, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JULIANA UBA and 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
CALIXTA UBA, Defendants-Appellees.
2013 2014 2015 2016
[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.

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
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
ASCAO, 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 WORKMENS
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 PINEDAS 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 LAMONDAA, 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,
GUIGA 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 CASTAEDA, 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 VIAA,

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 1998 - 20171998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com RED