Home Law Firm Law Library Laws

Jurisprudence Contact Us

September 1992 - Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme
Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year

1992 > September 1992 Decisions >

G.R. No. 86051 September 1, 1992 - JAIME LEDESMA

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

 THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 86051. September 1, 1992.]

JAIME LEDESMA, Petitioner, v. THE

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
CITIWIDE MOTORS, INC., Respondents.

Ledesma, Saludo & Associates for Petitioner.

Magtanggol C. Gunigundo for Private

Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; POSSESSION; REQUISITES TO

MAKE POSSESSION OF MOVABLE PROPERTY
EQUIVALENT TO TITLE. — It is quite clear that a
party who (a) has lost any movable or (b) has
been unlawfully deprived thereof can recover the
same from the present possessor even if the latter
acquired it in good faith and has, therefore, title
thereto for under the first sentence of Article 559,
such manner of acquisition is equivalent to a title.
There are three (3) requisites to make possession
of movable property equivalent to title, namely:
(a) the possession should be in good faith; (b) the
owner voluntarily parted with the possession of the
thing; and (c) the possession is in the concept of
owner. (TOLENTINO, A.M., Civil Code of the
Philippines, Vol. II, 1983 ed., 275-276, citing 2-II
Colin and Capitant 942; De Buen: Ibid., 1009, 2
 Salvat 165; 4 Manresa 339). Undoubtedly, one
who has lost a movable or who has been
unlawfully deprived of it cannot be said to have
voluntarily parted with the possession thereof. This
is the justification for the exceptions found under
the second sentence of Article 559 of the Civil
Code.

2. CIVIL LAW; SPECIAL CONTRACTS; CONTRACT

OF SALE; ABSENCE OF CONSIDERATION; EFFECT
THEREOF. — There was a perfected unconditional
contract of sale between private respondent and
the original vendee. The former voluntarily caused
the transfer of the certificate of registration of the
vehicle in the name of the first vendee — even if
the said vendee was represented by someone who
used a fictitious name — and likewise voluntarily
delivered the cars and the certificate of
registration to the vendee’s alleged representative
Title thereto was forthwith transferred to the
vendee. The subsequent dishonor of the check
because of the alteration merely amounted to a
failure of consideration which does not render the
contract of sale void, but merely allows the
prejudiced party to sue for specific performance or
rescission of the contract, and to prosecute the
impostor for estafa under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code.

DECISION

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Petitioner impugns the Decision of 22 September

1988 of respondent Court of Appeals 1 in C.A.-G.R.
CV No. 05955 2 reversing the decision of then Branch
XVIII-B (Quezon City) of the then Court of First
Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Rizal in a
replevin case, Civil Case No. Q-24200, the dispositive
portion of which reads: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"Accordingly, the Court orders the plaintiff to return

the repossessed Isuzu Gemini, 1977 Model vehicle,
subject of this case to the defendant Ledesma. The
incidental claim (sic) for damages professed by the
plaintiff are dismissed for lack of merit. On
defendant’s counterclaim, Court (sic) makes no
pronouncement as to any form of damages,
particularly, moral, exemplary and nominal in view of
the fact that Citiwide has a perfect right to litigate its
claim, albeit by this pronouncement, it did not
succeed." 3

which was supplemented by a Final Order dated 26

June 1980, the dispositive portion of which reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court grants

defendant Ledesma the sum of P35,000.00 by way of
actual damages recoverable upon plaintiff’s replevin
bond. Plaintiff and its surety, the Rizal Surety and
Insurance Co., are hereby ordered jointly and
severally to pay defendant Jaime Ledesma the sum of
P10,000.00 as damages for the wrongful issue of the
writ of seizure, in line with Rule 57, Sec. 20,
incorporated in Rule 60, Sec. 10.

In conformity with the rules adverted to, this final

order shall form part of the judgment of this Court on
September 5, 1979.

The motion for reconsideration of the judgment filed

by the plaintiff is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. No
costs at this instance." 4
The decision of the trial court is anchored on its
findings that (a) the proof on record is not persuasive
enough to show that defendant, petitioner herein,
knew that the vehicle in question was the object of a
fraud and a swindle 5 and (b) that plaintiff, private
respondent herein, did not rebut or contradict
Ledesma’s evidence that valuable consideration was
paid for it.

The antecedent facts as summarized by the

respondent Court of Appeals are as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On September 27, 1977, a person representing

himself to be Jojo Consunji, purchased purportedly for
his father, a certain Rustico T. Consunji, two (2) brand
new motor vehicles from plaintiff-appellant Citiwide
Motors, Inc., more particularly described as follows: chanrobles lawlibrary :

rednad

a) One (1) 1977 Isuzu Gemini, 2-door Model PF

50ZIK, with Engine No. 751214 valued at P42,200.00;
and

b) One (1) 1977 Holden Premier Model 8V41X with

Engine No. 198-1251493, valued at P58,800.00.

Said purchases are evidenced by Invoices Nos. 3054

and 3055, respectively. (See Annexes A and B).

On September 28, 1977, plaintiff-appellant delivered

the two-above described motor vehicles to the person
who represented himself as Jojo Consunji, allegedly
the son of the purported buyers Rustico T. Consunji,
and said person in turn issued to plaintiff-appellant
Manager’s Check No. 066-110-0638 of the Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank dated September 28,
1977 for the amount of P101,000.00 as full payment
of the value of the two (2) motor vehicles.

However, when plaintiff-appellant deposited the said

check, it was dishonored by the bank on the ground
that it was tampered with, the correct amount of
P101.00 having been raised to P101,000.00 per the
bank’s notice of dishonor (Annexes F and G).

On September 30, 1977, plaintiff-appellant reported

to the Philippine Constabulary the criminal act
perpetrated by the person who misrepresented
himself as Jojo Consunji and in the course of the
investigation, plaintiff-appellant learned that the real
identity of the wrongdoer/impostor is Armando Suarez
who has a long line of criminal cases against him for
estafa using this similar modus operandi.

On October 17, 1977, plaintiff-appellant was able to

recover the Holden Premier vehicle which was found
abandoned somewhere in Quezon City.

On the other hand, plaintiff-appellant learned that the

1977 Isuzu Gemini was transferred by Armando
Suarez to third persona and was in the possession of
one Jaime Ledesma at the time plaintiff-appellant
instituted this action for replevin on November 16,
1977.

In his defense, Jaime Ledesma claims that he

purchases (sic) and paid for the subject vehicle in
good faith from its registered owner, one Pedro Neyra,
as evidenced by the Land Transportation Commission
Registration Certificate No. RCO1427249. chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

After posting the necessary bond in the amount

double the value of the subject motor vehicle,
plaintiff-appellant was able to recover possession of
the 1977 Isuzu Gemini as evidenced by the Sheriff’s
Return dated January 23, 1978." 6
After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered the
decision and subsequently issued the Final Order both
earlier adverted to, which plaintiff (private respondent
herein) appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals;
it submitted the following assignment of errors: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The trial court erred.

IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO

THE POSSESSION OF THE CAR;

II

IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANT IS AN INNOCENT

PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE;

III

IN RULING THAT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD RETURN

THE CAR TO DEFENDANT, DISMISSING ITS CLAIM
FOR DAMAGES, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT
P35,000.00 DAMAGES RECOVERABLE AGAINST THE
REPLEVIN BOND AND P101,000.00 DAMAGES FOR
ALLEGED WRONGFUL SEIZURE;

IV

IN RENDERING THE DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 3,

1979 AND THE FINAL ORDER DATED JUNE 26, 1980."
7

In support of its first and second assigned errors,

private respondent cites Article 559 of the Civil Code
which provides: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 559. The possession of movable property

acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title.
Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has
been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from
the person in possession of the same.

If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the

owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in
good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain
its return without reimbursing the price paid
therefor." cralaw virtua1aw library

Without in any way reversing the findings of the trial

court that herein petitioner was a buyer in good faith
and for valuable consideration, the respondent Court
ruled that: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"‘Under Article 559, Civil Code, the rule is to the effect

that if the owner has lost a thing, or if he has been
unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right to recover it
not only from the finder, thief or robber, but also from
third persons who may have acquired it in good faith
from such finder, thief or robber. The said article
establishes two (2) exceptions to the general rule of
irrevendicability (sic), to wit: when the owner (1) has
lost the thing, or (2) has been unlawfully deprived
thereof. In these cases, the possessor cannot retain
the thing as against the owner who may recover it
without paying any indemnity, except when the
possessor acquired it in a public sale.’ (Aznar v.
Yapdiangco, 13 SCRA 486).

Put differently, where the owner has lost the thing or

has been unlawfully deprived thereof, the good faith
of the possessor is not a bar to recovery of the
movable unless the possessor acquired it in a public
sale of which there is no pretense in this case.
Contrary to the court a assumption, the issue is not
primarily the good faith of Ledesma for even if this
were true, this may not be invoked as a valid defense,
if it be shown that Citiwide was unlawfully deprived of
the vehicle.

In the case of Dizon v. Suntay, 47 SCRA 160, the

Supreme Court had occasion to define the phrase
unlawfully deprived, to wit: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘. . . it extends to all cases where there has been no

valid transmission of ownership including depositary
or lessee who has sold the same. It is believed that
the owner in such a case is undoubtedly unlawfully
deprived of his property and may recover the same
from a possessor in good faith.’

x x x

In the case at bar, the person who misrepresented

himself to be the son of the purported buyer, Rustico
T. Consunji, paid for the two (2) vehicles using a
check whose amount has been altered from P101.00
to P101,000.00. There is here a case of estafa.
Plaintiff was unlawfully deprived of the vehicle by
false pretenses executed simultaneously with the
commission of fraud (Art. 315 2(a) R.P.C.). Clearly,
Citiwide would not have parted with the two (2)
vehicles were it not for the false representation that
the check issued in payment thereupon (sic) is in the
amount of P101,000.00, the actual value of the two
(2) vehicles." 8

In short, said buyer never acquired title to the

property; hence, the Court rejected the claim of
herein petitioner that at least, Armando Suarez had a
voidable title to the property.

His motion for reconsideration having been denied in

the resolution of the respondent Court of 12
December 1988, 9 petitioner filed this petition
alleging therein that: chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"A

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN

APPLYING ARTICLE 559 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE TO
THE INSTANT CASE DESPITE THE FACT THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENT CITIWIDE MOTORS, INC. WAS NOT
UNLAWFULLY DEPRIVED OF THE SUBJECT CAR, AS IN
FACT CITIWIDE VOLUNTARILY PARTED WITH THE
TITLE AND POSSESSION OR (sic) THE SAME IN
FAVOR OF ITS IMMEDIATE TRANSFEREE.

THE FACTUAL MILIEU OF THE INSTANT CASE FALLS

WITHIN THE OPERATIVE EFFECTS OF ARTICLES 1505
AND 1506 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE CONSIDERING
THAT THE IMMEDIATE TRANSFEREE OF THE PRIVATE
RESPONDENT CITIWIDE MOTORS, INC., ACQUIRED A
VOIDABLE TITLE OVER THE CAR IN QUESTION
WHICH TITLE WAS NOT DECLARED VOID BY A
COMPETENT COURT PRIOR TO THE ACQUISITION BY
THE PETITIONER OF THE SUBJECT CAR AND ALSO
BECAUSE PRIVATE RESPONDENT, BY ITS OWN
CONDUCT, IS NOW PRECLUDED FROM ASSAILING
THE TITLE AND POSSESSION BY THE PETITIONER OF
THE SAID CAR." 10

There is merit in the petition. The assailed decision

must be reversed.

The petitioner successfully proved that he acquired

the car in question from his vendor in good faith and
for valuable consideration. According to the trial
court, the private respondent’s evidence was not
persuasive enough to establish that petitioner had
knowledge that the car was the object of a fraud and
a swindle and that it did not rebut or contradict
petitioner’s evidence of acquisition for valuable
consideration. The respondent Court concedes to such
findings but postulates that the issue here is not
whether petitioner acquired the vehicle in that
concept but rather, whether private respondent was
unlawfully deprived of it so as to make Article 559 of
the Civil Code apply.

It is quite clear that a party who (a) has lost any

movable or (b) has been unlawfully deprived thereof
can recover the same from the present possessor
even if the latter acquired it in good faith and has,
therefore, title thereto for under the first sentence of
Article 559, such manner of acquisition is equivalent
to a title. There are three (3) requisites to make
possession of movable property equivalent to title,
namely: (a) the possession should be in good faith;
(b) the owner voluntarily parted with the possession
of the thing; and (c) the possession is in the concept
of owner. 11

Undoubtedly, one who has lost a movable or who has

been unlawfully deprived of it cannot be said to have
voluntarily parted with the possession thereof. This is
the justification for the exceptions found under the
second sentence of Article 559 of the Civil Code.

The basic issue then in this case is whether private

respondent was unlawfully deprived of the cars when
it sold the same to Rustico Consunji, through a person
who claimed to be Jojo Consunji, allegedly the latter’s
son, but who nevertheless turned out to be Armando
Suarez, on the faith of a Manager’s Check with a face
value of P101,000.00, dishonored for being altered,
the correct amount being only P101.00. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Under this factual milieu, the respondent Court was of

the opinion, and thus held, that private respondent
was unlawfully deprived of the car by false pretenses.

We disagree. There was a perfected unconditional

contract of sale between private respondent and the
original vendee. The former voluntarily caused the
transfer of the certificate of registration of the vehicle
in the name of the first vendee — even if the said
vendee was represented by someone who used a
fictitious name — and likewise voluntarily delivered
the cars and the certificate of registration to the
vendee’s alleged representative Title thereto was
forthwith transferred to the vendee. The subsequent
dishonor of the check because of the alteration merely
amounted to a failure of consideration which does not
render the contract of sale void, but merely allows the
prejudiced party to sue for specific performance or
rescission of the contract, and to prosecute the
impostor for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code. This is the rule enunciated in EDCA
Publishing and Distributing Corp. v. Santos, 12 the
facts of which do not materially and substantially
differ from those obtaining in the instant case. In said
case, a person identifying himself as Professor Jose
Cruz, dean of the De la Salle College, placed an order
by telephone with petitioner for 406 books, payable
upon delivery. Petitioner agreed, prepared the
corresponding invoice and delivered the books as
ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal check
covering the purchase price. Two (2) days later, Cruz
sold 120 books to private respondent Leonor Santos
who, after verifying the seller’s ownership from the
invoice the former had shown her, paid the purchase
price of P1,700.00. Petitioner became suspicious over
a second order placed by Cruz even before his first
check had cleared, hence, it made inquiries with the
De la Salle College. The latter informed the petitioner
that Cruz was not in its employ. Further verification
revealed that Cruz had no more account or deposit
with the bank against which he drew the check.
Petitioner sought the assistance of the police which
then set a trap and arrested Cruz. Investigation
disclosed his real name, Tomas de la Peña, and his
sale of 120 of the books to Leonor Santos. On the
night of the arrest; the policemen whose assistance
the petitioner sought, forced their way into the store
of Leonor’ and her husband, threatened her with
prosecution for the buying of stolen property, seized
the 120 books without a warrant and thereafter
turned said books over to the petitioner. The Santoses
then sued for recovery of the books in the Municipal
Trial Court which decided in their favor; this decision
was subsequently affirmed by the Regional Trial Court
and sustained by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the
petitioner came to this Court by way of a petition for
review wherein it insists that it was unlawfully
deprived of the books because as the check bounced
for lack of funds, there was failure of consideration
that nullified the contract of sale between it and the
impostor who then acquired no title over the books.
We rejected said claim in this wise: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The contract of sale is consensual and is perfected

once agreement is reached between the parties on
the subject matter and the consideration. According
to the Civil Code: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ART. 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the

moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing
which is the object of the contract and upon the price.

From that moment, the parties may reciprocally

demand performance, subject to the provisions of the
law governing the form of contracts. chanrobles.com : virtual law library

x x x

ART. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be

transferred to the vendee upon the actual or
constructive delivery thereof.

ART. 1478. The parties may stipulate that ownership

in the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he
has fully paid the price.

It is clear from the above provisions, particularly the

last one quoted, that ownership in the thing sold shall
not pass to the buyer until full payment of the
purchase price only if there is a stipulation to that
effect. Otherwise, the rule is that such ownership shall
pass from the vendor to the vendee upon the actual
or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the
purchase price has not yet been paid.

Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment

or to rescind the contract, or to criminal prosecution
in the case of bouncing checks. But absent the
stipulation above noted, delivery of the thing sold will
effectively transfer ownership to the buyer who can in
turn transfer it to another." 13

In the early case of Chua Hai v. Hon. Kapunan, 14 one

Roberto Soto purchased from the Youngstown
Hardware, owned by private respondent, corrugated
galvanized iron sheets and round iron bars for
P6,137.70, in payment thereof, he issued a check
drawn against the Security Bank and Trust Co.
without informing Ong Shu that he (Soto) had no
sufficient funds in said bank to answer for the same.
In the meantime, however, Soto sold the sheets to,
among others, petitioner Chua Hai. In the criminal
case filed against Soto, upon motion of the offended
party, the respondent Judge ordered petitioner to
return the sheets which were purchased from Soto.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been
denied, he came to this Court alleging grave abuse of
discretion and excess of jurisdiction. In answer to the
petition, it is claimed that inter alia, even if the
property was acquired in good faith, the owner who
has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it
from the person in possession of the same unless the
property was acquired in good faith at a public sale.
15 Resolving this specific issue, this Court ruled that
Ong Shu was not illegally deprived of the possession
of the property: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . It is not denied that Ong Shu delivered the

sheets to Soto upon a perfected contract of sale, and
such delivery transferred title or ownership to the
purchaser. Says Art. 1496: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Art. 1496. The ownership of the thing sold is acquired

by the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him
in any of the ways specified in articles 1497 to 1501,
or in any other manner signifying an agreement that
the possession is transferred from the vendor to the
vendee.’ (C.C.)

The failure of the buyer to make good the price does

not, in law, cause the ownership to revest in the seller
until and unless the bilateral contract of sale is first
rescinded or resolved pursuant to Article 1191 of the
new Civil Code. chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

And, assuming that the consent of Ong Shu to the

sale in favor of Soto was obtained by the latter
through fraud or deceit, the contract was not thereby
rendered void ab initio, but only voidable by reason of
the fraud, and Article 1390 expressly provides that: chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library

‘ART. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or

annullable, even though there may have been no
damage to the contracting parties: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of

giving consent to a contract;

(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake,

violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.

These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled

by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of
ratification.’

Agreeably to this provision, Article 1506 prescribes: chanrob1es virtual 1aw

library

‘ARTICLE 1506. Where the seller of goods has a

voidable title thereto, but his title has not been
avoided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a
good title to the goods, provided he buys them in
good faith, for value, and without notice of the seller’s
defect of title.’ (C.C.)

Hence, until the contract of Ong Shu with Soto is set

aside by a competent court (assuming that the fraud
is established to its satisfaction), the validity of
appellant’s claim to the property in question can not
be disputed, and his right to the possession thereof
should be respected." 16

It was therefore erroneous for the respondent Court

to declare that the private respondent was illegally
deprived of the car simply because the check in
payment therefor was subsequently dishonored; said
Court also erred when it divested the petitioner, a
buyer in good faith who paid valuable consideration
therefor, of his possession thereof. chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the

respondent Court of Appeals of 22 September 1988
and its Resolution of 12 December 1988 in C.A.-G.R.
CV No. 05955 are hereby SET ASIDE and the Decision
of the trial court of 3 September 1979 and its Final
Order of 26 June 1980 in Civil Case No. Q-24200 are
hereby REINSTATED, with costs against private
respondent Citiwide Motors, Inc.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Romero, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:

1. Per Associate Justice Oscar M. Herrera,

concurred in by Associate Justices Jorge S.
Imperial and Fernando A. Santiago.

2. Entitled Citiwide Motors, Inc., Plaintiff-

Appellant, v. Jaime Ledesma, Et Al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

3. Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo, 23-38, at

p. 28.

4. Id., 33; 40.

5. Id., 27.

6. Rollo, 42-43.
7. Rollo, 41-42.

8. Rollo, 45-46.

9. Annex "E" of Petition; Rollo, 59-60.

10. Id., 7-8.

11. TOLENTINO, A.M., Civil Code of the

Philippines, Vol. II, 1983 ed., 275-276,
citing 2-II Colin and Capitant 942; De
Buen; Ibid., 1009, 2 Salvat 165; 4
Manresa, 339.

12. 184 SCRA 614 [1990].

13. 184 SCRA 618 [1990].

14. 104 Phil. 110 [1958].

15. Article 559, Civil Code.

16. 104 Phil. 116-117 [1958].

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line
Bar Review

ChanRobles MCLE
On-line
September-1992
Jurisprudence

A.M. No. RTJ-88-22

September 1, 1992 -
JOEL GARGANERA v.
ENRIQUE JOCSON

G.R. No. 32075

September 1, 1992 -
SIAO TIAO HONG v.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE

G.R. No. 32657

September 1, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOSE S.
RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 70746-

47 September 1, 1992
- BIENVENIDO O.
MARCOS v.
FERNANDO S. RUIZ,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 86051
September 1, 1992 -
JAIME LEDESMA v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 86844

September 1, 1992 -
SPOUSES CESAR DE
RAMOS, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

A.M. No. 92-8-027-

SC September 2,
1992 - RE: JOSEFINA
V. PALON

G.R. No. 43747

September 2, 1992 -
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE OF
MANILA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 46025

September 2, 1992 -
FLORITA T. BAUTISTA
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 50618

September 2, 1992 -
LEOPOLDO FACINAL,
ET AL. v. AGAPITO I.
CRUZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. 51289

September 2, 1992 -
RODOLFO
ENCARNACION v.
DYNASTY
AMUSEMENT CENTER
CORPORATION, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 56865

September 2, 1992 -
IRENEO TOBIAS, ET
AL. v. TEMISTOCLES
B. DIEZ

G.R. No. 61043

September 2, 1992 -
DELTA MOTOR SALES
CORPORATION v. NIU
KIM DUAN, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 62554-

55 September 2, 1992
- REPUBLIC BANK v.
COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 70120

September 2, 1992 -
CIVIL AERONAUTICS
ADMINISTRATION, ET
AL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 73198

September 2, 1992 -
PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF
THE PHIL. v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 74618

September 2, 1992 -
ANA LIM KALAW v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 75242

September 2, 1992 -
MANILA RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 78777
September 2, 1992 -
MERLIN P. CAIÑA v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 80812

September 2, 1992 -
LUZ E. TAN v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 84256

September 2, 1992 -
ALEJANDRA RIVERA
OLAC, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 87318

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JAIME G. SERDAN

G.R. No. 91535

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EDUARDO L. DE
JESUS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92461

September 2, 1992 -
ESTATE DEVELOPERS
AND INVESTORS
CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 92789

September 2, 1992 -
SILLIMAN
UNIVERSITY v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92795-96

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FREDDIE B.
TANTIADO

G.R. No. 93141

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL
v. ESTANISLAO
GENERALAO, JR.

G.R. No. 93634

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MASALIM CASIM

G.R. No. 94918

September 2, 1992 -
DANILO I. SUAREZ,
ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 95249

September 2, 1992 -
REPUBLIC PLANTERS
BANK v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 95843

September 2, 1992 -
EDILBERTO C.
ABARQUEZ, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 95921

September 2, 1992 -
SPOUSES ROBERT
DINO, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 96333

September 2, 1992 -
EDUARDO C. DE VERA
v. ERNESTO L.
PINEDA

G.R. Nos. 96952-

56 September 2, 1992
- SMI FISH
INDUSTRIES, INC., ET
AL. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 97408-

09 September 2, 1992
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. TOMAS
MORENO, JR.

G.R. No. 97805

September 2, 1992 -
NILO H. RAYMUNDO v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 99050

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. CONWAY B.
OMAWENG

G.R. No. 99359

September 2, 1992 -
ORLANDO M.
ESCAREAL v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 100970

September 2, 1992 -
FINMAN GENERAL
ASSURANCE
CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 103269

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. REYNALDO
VALIENTE

A.M. No. P-90-418

September 3, 1992 -
EDILBERTO
NATIVIDAD v.
ALFONSO B. MELGAR

G.R. No. 86695

September 3, 1992 -
MARIA ELENA
MALAGA, ET AL. v.
MANUEL R.
PENACHOS, JR., ET
AL.

G.R. No. 90693

September 3, 1992 -
SPARTAN SECURITY &
DETECTIVE AGENCY,
INC. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91284

September 3, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. PEPITO T. PEÑERO

G.R. No. 92310

September 3, 1992 -
AGRICULTURAL AND
HOME EXTENSION
DEVELOPMENT
GROUP v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 77285

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. AMADEO ABUYEN

G.R. No. 83995

September 4, 1992 -
BENJAMIN EDAÑO v.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 88788

September 4, 1992 -
RESTITUTO DE LEON
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 89278
September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FERNANDITO S.
SICAT

G.R. No. 94375

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. SOTERO A. CRUZ

G.R. No. 94825

September 4, 1992 -
PHIL. FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97111-13

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MONICA P. PADILLA

G.R. No. 101469

September 4, 1992 -
MALAYAN
INTEGRATED
INDUSTRIES,
CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 101539

September 4, 1992 -
CECILE DE OCAMPO,
ET AL. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 102397

September 4, 1992 -
BAGUIO COUNTRY
CLUB CORPORATION
v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 105120
September 4, 1992 -
SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO,
ET AL. v.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105346

September 4, 1992 -
RAUL H. SESBREÑO v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 93842

September 7, 1992 -
ERNANDO C. LAYNO v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 92988

September 9, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. IRENEO TIWAKEN

G.R. No. 55741

September 11, 1992 -
LUZ LATAGAN v.
EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 73071

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. REYNALDO S.
ALVAREZ

G.R. No. 82586

September 11, 1992 -
SALVADOR M. MISON,
ET AL. v. ELI G.C.
NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91159

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. LARRY A.
FRANCISCO
 G.R. No. 91915
September 11, 1992 -
DIVINE WORD
UNIVERSITY OF
TACLOBAN v.
SECRETARY OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 97441

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. DOMINGO
CASINILLO

G.R. No. 98062

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. REGOBERTO YBEAS

G.R. No. 103903

September 11, 1992 -
MELANIO D.
SAMPAYAN, ET AL. v.
RAUL. A. DAZA, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 57475

September 14, 1992 -
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. RUFO NERI,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 74851

September 14, 1992 -
RIZAL COMMERCIAL
BANKING
CORPORATION v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

A.C. No. 3248

September 18, 1992 -
DOMINGO R.
MARCELO v. ADRIANO
S. JAVIER, SR.

G.R. No. 70890

September 18, 1992 -
CRESENCIO LIBI, ET
AL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 73919

September 18, 1992 -
NATIONAL
IRRIGATION
ADMINISTRATION, ET
AL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 75915-16

September 18, 1992 -
SPS. GO IT BUN, ET
AL. v. BALTAZAR R.
DIZON, ET AL.

G.R. No. 84917

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. QUEROBEN A.
POLIZON

G.R. No. 86218

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ELSIE B. BAGISTA

G.R. No. 91001

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. SILFERIO F. SILLO

G.R. No. 94511-13

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ALEJANDRO C.
VALENCIA

G.R. No. 94828

September 18, 1992 -
SPOUSES ROMULO DE
LA CRUZ, ET AL. v.
ASIAN CONSUMER
AND INDUSTRIAL
FINANCE CORP., ET
AL.

G.R. No. 95456

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MARIO A. BAÑEZ

G.R. No. 95540

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ARCHIE Q.
DISTRITO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96255

September 18, 1992 -
HERCULES
INDUSTRIES, INC. v.
SECRETARY OF
LABOR, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96329

September 18, 1992 -
MABUHAY VINYL
CORP. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97918

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. VICTOR E. JAPSAY

G.R. No. 102141

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. WILFREDO
SABORNIDO

G.R. No. 105227

September 18, 1992 -
LEANDRO I.
VERCELES v.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 61218

September 23, 1992 -
LIBERTAD SANTOS,
ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 81883

September 23, 1992 -
KNITJOY
MANUFACTURING,
INC. v. PURA FERRER-
CALLEJA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 83580

September 23, 1992 -
ENRICO SY v. ARTURO
A. ROMERO

G.R. Nos. 85403-

06 September 23,
1992 - ANTONIO T.
TIONGSON v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 101706

September 23, 1992 -
CONSOLIDATED
PLYWOOD
INDUSTRIES INC., ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 102693

September 23, 1992 -
SPOUSES AGOSTO
MUÑOZ, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 85086

September 24, 1991

ARSENIO P.
BUENAVENTURA
ENTERPRISES v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90254

September 24, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. CARLOS C.
FLORIDA

G.R. No. 97765

September 24, 1992 -
KHOSROW MINUCHER
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-44936

September 25, 1992 -
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91114

September 25, 1992 -
NELLY LIM v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91359

September 25, 1992 -
VETERANS
MANPOWER AND
PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, INC. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 58027

September 28, 1992 -
GOLDEN COUNTRY
FARMS, INC. v.
SANVAR
DEVELOPMENT CORP.

G.R. No. 97431

September 28, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JONATHAN J.
ALABAN

G.R. No. 99046

September 28, 1992 -
AQUALYN
CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 100574
September 28, 1992 -
SPS. MARINO
SAPUGAY, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 102381

September 29, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EDGARDO H.
LOPEZ

G.R. No. 53630

September 30, 1992 -
ENRIQUE KHO, ET AL.
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 82531

September 30, 1992 -
DOMINGO T.
MENDOZA v. MARIA
MENDOZA
NAVARETTE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 82630

September 30, 1992 -
MARIA GULANG v.
GENOVEVA NADAYAG,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 94461

September 30, 1992 -
INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATE BANK,
INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97356

September 30, 1992 -
ARTURO C. CORONA
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105017

September 30, 1992 -
PABLO NIDOY v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
Copyright © 1998 - 2025 Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions | ReDiaz
ChanRobles™ | Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™