ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966
MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20687. April 30, 1966.]

MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Jose F. Aguirre for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General A.A. Narra & Solicitor O.R.
Ramirez for Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JURISDICTION OVER PERSON OF ACCUSED, HOW ACQUIRED; WAIVER OF

OBJECTION TO COURT’S JURISDICTION; CASE AT BAR. — Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is
acquired upon either his apprehension, with or without warrant. or his submission to the jurisdiction of
the court. In the case at bar, petitioner was brought before the bar of justice first, before the justice of
the peace court, then before the court of first instance, later before the Court of Appeals, thereafter back
before said court of first instance. and then, again, before the Court of Appeals, and never, within the
period of six years that had transpired until the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, had he questioned
the judicial authority of any of these three courts over his person. He is deemed, therefore, to have
DebtKollect Company, Inc. waived whatever objection he might have had to the jurisdiction over his person, and, hence, to have
submitted himself to the Court’s jurisdiction. What is more, his behavior and every single one of the
steps taken by him before said courts — particularly the motions therein filed by him — implied, not
merely a submission to the jurisdiction thereof, but, also, that he urged the courts to exercise the
authority thereof over his person.

2. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OVER CRIME OF ABDUCTION WITH CONSENT. — It is well settled that
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action — in this case the crime of abduction with consent — is
and may be conferred only by law; that the jurisdiction over a given crime, not vested by law upon a
particular court, may not be conferred thereto by the parties involved in the offense; and that, under an
information for forcible abduction, the accused may be convicted of abduction with consent.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; COMPLAINT NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION. —
The third paragraph of Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code does not determine the jurisdiction of the
courts over the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness. It could not affect said
jurisdiction, because the same is governed by the Judiciary Act of 1948, not by the Revised Penal Code,
which deals primarily with the definition of crimes and the factors pertinent to the punishment of the
culprits. The complaint required in said Art. 344 is merely a condition precedent to the exercise by the
proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties. And such condition has been imposed "out
ChanRobles Intellectual Property of consideration for the offended woman and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence
Division rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial" (Samilin v. Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan, 57 Phil., 298, 304.)

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; COMPLAINT FOR FORCIBLE ABDUCTION INCLUDES ABDUCTION WITH CONSENT. —
The complaint for forcible abduction includes abduction with consent. The spirit of Art. 344 of the Revised
Penal Code is that the assent of the offended party and her mother to undergo the scandal of the public
trial for forcible abduction necessarily connotes, also, their willingness to face the scandal attendant to a
public trial for abduction with consent.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; VIRGINITY AS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF ABDUCTION WITH CONSENT. — The
virginity mentioned in Art 343 of the Revised Penal Code as an essential ingredient of the crime of
abduction with consent, should not be understood in its material sense and does not exclude the idea of
abduction of a virtuous woman of good reputation (U.S. v. Casten, 34 Phil., 808, 811-812), because the
essence of the offense "is not the wrong done to the woman, but the outrage to the family and the alarm
produced in it by the disappearance of one of its members." (U. S. v. Alvarez, 1 Phil., 351; U. S. v. Reyes,
20 Phil., 510; U.S. v. Reyes, 28 Phil., 352.)

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE INCLUDES CHASTITY. — The presumption of
innocence includes also that of morality and decency, and, as a consequence, of chastity. (6 Moran, pp.
28-29. 1963 Edition, citing cases.)

DECISION

CONCEPCION, J.:

Appeal by petitioner Maximino Valdepenas from a decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming that of the
Court of First Instance of Cagayan, convicting him of the crime of abduction with consent, and sentencing
him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from three (3) months and twenty-five (25) days of arresto
mayor to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional, with the
accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify Ester Ulsano in the sum of P1,000 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
April-1966 Jurisprudence
The only question raised by petitioner is whether "the Court of Appeals erred in not reversing the decision
G.R. No. L-21752 April 25, 1966 SIMEON HIDALGO of the trial court, dated June 30, 1960, for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the
v. LA TONDEÑA, INC., ET AL. subject matter of the action for the offense of abduction with consent."

A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 CONCEPCION BOLIVAR The pertinent facts are: On January 25, 1956, Ester Ulsano, assisted by her mother, Consuelo Ulsano,
v. ABELARDO M. SIMBOL
filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Piat, Cagayan, a criminal complaint, 1 duly subscribed and
sworn to by both, charging petitioner Maximino Valdepenas with forcible abduction with rape of Ester
G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T.
Ulsano. After due preliminary investigation, the second stage of which was waived by Valdepenas, the
PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND
SEPARATION BOARD justice of the peace of Piat found that there was probable cause and forwarded the complaint to the court
of first instance of Cagayan 2 in which the corresponding information for forcible abduction with rape 3
G.R. No. L-18067 April 29, 1966 PEDRO F. was filed 4. In due course, said court of first instance rendered judgment 5 finding petitioner guilty as
NACIONALES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. charged and sentencing him accordingly. 6

G.R. No. L-18570 April 29, 1966 BARTOLOME On appeal taken by petitioner, the Court of Appeals 7 modified the decision of the court of first instance,
GUIRAO v. EVARISTO VER convicted him of abduction with consent and meted out to him the penalty set forth in the opening
paragraph of this decision.
G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 MLA. RAILROAD
CO. v. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, ET AL. A motion for reconsideration and new trial having been filed by petitioner contesting the finding, made by
the Court of Appeals, to the effect that complainant was below 18 years of age at the time of the
G.R. No. L-19327 April 29, 1966 AMADO BELLA
occurrence, said Court 8 granted the motion, set aside its aforementioned decision and remanded the
JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ET AL.
case to the court a quo for the reception of additional evidence on said issue. After a retrial, the court of
first instance rendered another decision 9 reiterating said finding of the Court of Appeals, as well as its
G.R. No. L-19558 April 29, 1966 LA MALLORCA, ET
AL. v. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA judgment 10 of conviction for abduction with consent and the penalty imposed therein. Petitioner
appealed again to the Court of Appeals 11 which 12 affirmed that of the court of first instance 13 with
G.R. No. L-19576 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE costs against the petitioner. Again petitioner filed 14 a motion for reconsideration based, for the first
PHIL. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC. time, upon the ground that "the lower court had no jurisdiction over the person of appellant and over the
subject matter of the action, with respect to the offense of abduction with consent." Upon denial of the
G.R. No. L-19609 April 29, 1966 JOSE NEGRE v. motion, 15 petitioner interposed the present appeal by certiorari.
CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO.
Petitioner’s theory is that no complaint for abduction with consent has been filed by either Ester Ulsano
G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE or her mother, Consuelo Ulsano, and that, accordingly, the lower court acquired no jurisdiction over his
PHIL. v. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL. person or over the crime of abduction with consent and had, therefore, no authority to convict him of
said crime. We find no merit in this pretense.
G.R. No. L-19647 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENEDICTO
TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired upon either his apprehension, with or without
warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction of the court. 16 In the case at bar, it is not claimed that
G.R. No. L-20480 April 29, 1966 CLARA SALAZAR,
ET AL. v. FILEMON Q. ORTIZANO petitioner had not been apprehended or had not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Indeed, although brought before the bar of justice as early as January 25,1 956, first, before the then
G.R. No. L-20709 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANDRONICO justice of the peace court of Piat, then before the court of first instance of Cagayan, later before the
AUGUSTO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. Court of Appeals, thereafter back before said court of first instance, and then, again, before the Court of
Appeals, never, within the period of six (6) years that had transpired until the Court of Appeals rendered
G.R. No. L-20710 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEREGRINA its last decision 17, had he questioned the judicial authority of any of these three (3) courts over his
TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. person. He is deemed, however, to have waived whatever objection he might have had to the jurisdiction
over his person, and, hence, to have submitted himself to the Court’s jurisdiction. What is more, his
G.R. No. L-21072 April 29, 1966 BRUNO TORRALBA, behaviour and every single one the steps taken by him before said courts — particularly the motions
ET AL. v. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL. therein filed by him — implied, not merely a submission to the jurisdiction thereof, but, also, that he
urged the courts to exercise the authority thereof over his person.
G.R. No. L-21194 April 29, 1966 HAW LIONG v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
Upon the other hand, it is well settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action — in this case
the crime of abduction with consent — is and may be conferred only by law 18, that jurisdiction over a
G.R. No. L-21285 April 29, 1966 MANUFACTURER’S
DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. YU SIU LIONG given crime, not vested by law upon a particular court, may not be conferred thereto by the parties
involved in the offense; and that, under an information for forcible abduction, the accused may be
G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. convicted of abduction with consent 19. It is true that, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 344 of
SECRETARY OF LABOR the Revised Penal Code,

G.R. No. L-19581 April 29, 1966 IN RE: SUSANO SY ". . . the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case,
if the offended has been expressly pardoned by the above- named persons, as the case may be."
G.R. No. L-19847 April 29, 1966 IN RE: GUADALUPE
UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. This provision does not determine, however, the jurisdiction of our courts over the offense therein
enumerated. It could not affect said jurisdiction, because the same is governed by the Judiciary Act of
G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO
1948, not by the Revised Penal Code, which deals primarily with the definition of crimes and the factors
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
pertinent to the punishment of the culprits. The complaint required in said Article 344 is merely a
condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties.
G.R. No. L-21907 April 29, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL
INS. CO., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. And such condition has been imposed "out of consideration for the offended woman and her family who
might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial." 20
G.R. Nos. L-21457 and L-21461 April 29, 1966
PAFLU v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS In the case at bar, the offended woman and her mother have negated such preference by filing the
complaint adverted to above and going through the trials and tribulation concomitant with the
G.R. No. L-23082 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. proceedings in this case, before several courts, for the last ten (10) years. Petitioner says that the
DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET complaint was for forcible abduction, not abduction with consent; but, as already adverted to, the latter
AL. is included in the former. Referring particularly to the spirit of said provisions of Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code, we believe that the assent of Ester Ulsano and her mother to undergo the scandal of a public
G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966 IN RE: CHAN PENG trial for forcible abduction necessarily connotes, also, their willingness to face the scandal attendant to a
HIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. public trial for abduction with consent.

G.R. No. L-21895 April 29, 1966 IN RE: AGUEDA GO

The gist of petitioner’s pretense is that there are some elements of the latter which are not included in
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
the former, and, not alleged, according to him, in the complaint filed herein, 21 namely: 1) that the
G.R. No. L-21762 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEON C. SO offended party is a virgin; and 2) that she is over 12 and under 18 years of age. The second element is
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. clearly set forth in said complaint, which states that Ester Ulsano is "a minor . . . 17 years of age . . .",
and, hence, over 12 and below 18 years of age.
G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO L.
CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. As regards the first element, it is settled that the virginity mentioned in Article 343 of the Revised Penal
Code, 22 as an essential ingredient of the crime of abduction with consent, should not be understood in
G.R. No. L-20715 April 29, 1966 IN RE: WAYNE its material sense and does not exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of good reputation 23
CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. because the essence of the offense "is not the wrong done to the woman, but the outrage to the family
and the alarm produced in it by the disappearance of one of its members." 24
G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966 FELICIDAD
TOLENTINO v. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS, ET The complaint in the case at bar 25 alleges not only that Ester Ulsano is a minor 17 years of age, but
AL.
also that petitioner "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously" took her by force and violence . . . against her
will and taking advantage of the absence of her mother" from their dwelling and carried "her to a
G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE
secluded spot to gain carnal intercourse with the offended party against her will, using force, intimidation
PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.
and violence, with lewd designs." This allegation implies that Ester is a minor living under patria
G.R. No. L-20188 April 29, 1966 PETER C. SANTOS protestas, and, hence, single, thus leading to the presumption that she is a virgin 26 apart from being
v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL. virtuous and having a good reputation, 27 for, as former Chief Justice Moran has aptly put it, the
presumption of innocence includes, also, that of morality and decency, and, as a consequence, of
G.R. No. L-20159 April 29, 1966 MIGUEL GERMANO, chastity. 28
ET AL. v. ERENEO SURITA, ET AL.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner Maximino
G.R. No. L-20016 April 29, 1966 IN RE: EMMANUEL Valdepenas. It is so ordered.
YU NAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-21446 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEE TIT v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. L-21452 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENITO KO
BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

1. Which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 195 of said court.

G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 April 29, 1966 FRANCISCA
VILUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
2. On May 31, 1956.
G.R. Nos. L-21493-94 April 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET 3. Reading: "The undersigned, upon complaint filed by the offended party Ester Ulsano,
assisted by her mother Mrs. Consuelo Ulsano before the Justice of the Peace Court of Piat,
G.R. No. L-21516 April 29, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, Cagayan, appearing on page 1 of the record of the case, forming an integral part of this
INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL. information, accuses, Maximino Valdepenas, of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape,
defined and penalized by Articles 342 and 335, of the Revised Penal Code, committed as
G.R. No. L-21555 April 29, 1966 DOROTEA BALMEO follows:
v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.
"That on or about January 5, 1956, in the Municipality of Piat, Province of Cagayan, and
G.R. No. L-21593 April 29, 1966 RAYMUNDA S. within the jurisdiction of this Court, the said accused, Maximino Valdepenas by means of
DIGRAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL. force, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, abduct the complaining
witness Ester Ulsano, a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of age, taking her away
G.R. No. L-21695 April 29, 1966 ILDEFONSO
against her will and lewd design, and detaining her in a vacant house wherein the said
AGREDA, ET AL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.
accused Maximino Valdepenas by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with the said complaining
G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 PAZ TORRES DE
witness Ester Ulsano against her will.
CONEJERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

"Contrary to law."
G.R. No. L-22117 April 29, 1966 PAMPANGA SUGAR
DEV. CO., INC. v. DONATO QUIROZ 4. And docketed as Criminal Case No. 1539 of said Court of First Instance.

G.R. No. L-22120 April 29, 1966 ILUMINADO

5. On December 3, 1956.
MOTUS, ET AL. v. CFI OF RIZAL, ET AL.

6. To an indeterminate penalty of from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prison mayor to
G.R. No. L-22220 April 29, 1966 A. D. SANTOS, INC.
v. CONCHITA VDA. DE SAPON, ET AL. eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessory penalties, to
indemnify the offended party in the sum of P500.00 to acknowledge and support the
G.R. No. L-22454 April 29, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND offspring, if any, and to pay the costs.
INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE CO., ET AL.
7. On May 21, 1958, in CA-G.R. No. 19448-R thereof.
G.R. No. L-22594 April 29, 1966 CECILIA RAPADAZ
VDA. DE RAPISURA v. NICANOR NICOLAS, ET AL. 8. By resolution dated September 20, 1958.

A.C. No. 241 April 30, 1966 REBECCA M. MIRANDA 9. Dated June 13, 1960 and promulgated on June 14, 1960.
v. FRANCISCO FUENTES
10. Dated May 21, 1958.
G.R. No. L-16969 April 30, 1966 R. MARINO
CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.
11. In which it was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 01306-CR.
G.R. No. L-17037 April 30, 1966 EAST ASIATIC CO.,
LTD., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, 12. On June 11, 1962.
ET AL.
13. Of June 13, 1960.
G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. GORGONIO SERDEÑA 14. On July 2, 1962.

G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE 15. By resolution of the Court of Appeals dated Nov. 23, 1962.
PHIL. v. LUIS TARUC, ET AL.
16. Banco Espanol v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Infante v. Toledo, 44 Phil. 834; Nilo v. Romero,
G.R. Nos. L-15823-26 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF L-15195, March 21, 1961.
THE PHIL. v. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL.

17. On June 11, 1962.

G.R. No. L-18867 April 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. CESARIO OCTOBRE, ET AL.
18. Manila Railroad v. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523; Perkins v. Roxas, 72 Phil. 514.
G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS
DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE 19. U.S. v. Mallari, 24 Phil., 366; U.S. v. Asuncion, 31 Phil., 614; U.S. v. Yumul, 34 Phil.,
MATIAS, ET AL. 169; See, also, Macondray Co. v. Yangtze Ins. Ass., 51 Phil., 789.

G.R. No. L-19613 April 30, 1966 ALFONSO G. LOPEZ 20. Samilin v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298, 304.
v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS
21. Although explicitly alleged in the information.
G.R. No. L-19869 April 30, 1966 PATRICIO M.
MIGUEL v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL. 22. Reading: ". . . The abduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age,
carried out with her consent and with lewd designs, shall be punished by the penalty of
G.R. No. L-20018 April 30, 1966 CHIU HAP CHIU v.
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods."
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
cralaw virtua1aw library

23. U.S. v. Casten, 34 Phil., 803, 811-812.

G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG
LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.
24. U.S. v. Alvarez, 1 Phil., 351; U.S. v. Reyes, 20 Phil., 510; U.S. v. Reyes, 28 Phil., 352.
G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966 MAXIMINO
VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 25. Reading: ". . . The undersigned ESTER ULSANO, complainant and offended party, being
a minor of 17 years of age, duly assisted by her mother MRS. CONSUELO ULSANO, both
G.R. No. L-20721 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE having sworn to according to law, hereby declares: That she accuses MAXIMINO
PHIL. v. MARTIN ALAGAO, ET AL. VALDEPENAS of the crime of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE, committed as follows:

G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966 IN RE: THOMAS "That on or about the 5th day of January, 1956, in the Municipality of Piat, Province of
FALLON v. EMILIO CAMON Cagayan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the said
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, take by force and with
G.R. No. L-21139 April 30, 1966 CENTRAL violence the body of the complainant and offended party against her will take advantage in
AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, the absence of her mother, use superior strength the same dwelling of the offended party
ET AL. and carry her to a secluded spot to gain carnal intercourse with the offended party against
her will, using force, intimidation and violence, with lewd designs.
G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS.
APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD "That the commission of the crime or felony charged, the aggravating circumstances of
Norturnity, use of superior strength and use of motor vehicle are present.
G.R. No. L-21460 April 30, 1966 AMERICAN
MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. "Contrary to Law."
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.
26. U.S. v. Alvarez, 1 Phil., 351, 353-354.
G.R. No. L-21471 April 30, 1966 VICENTE S. DY
REYES, ET AL. v. FRUCTUOSO ORTEGA, ET AL. 27. Section 5(a) Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court.

G.R. No. L-20875 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & 28. Moran, pp. 28-29 1863 Edition, citing In Re Mathew’s Estate, 47 N.E. 901; and Adong
INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL. v. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43.

G.R. No. L-21623 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY &

INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21760 April 30, 1966 SWITZERLAND

GEN. INS. CO., LTD. v. JAVA PACIFIC & HOEGH LINES, Back to Home | Back to Main
ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966 CLETO ASPREC v.

VICTORIANO ITCHON, ET AL. QUICK SEARCH

G.R. No. L-21693 April 30, 1966 PROCOPIO F.

ELEAZAR v. AUDITOR GENERAL
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. No. L-21810 April 30, 1966 ARMANDO 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
ESPERANZA v. ANDRES CASTILLO
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. L-22085 April 30, 1966 IN RE: SEGUNDA 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
VDA. DE GAMIR, ET AL. v. THELMA G. SAWAMOTO
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966 LAGUNA TAYABAS 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
BUS CO. v. ANTONIO TIONGSON, ET AL.
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
G.R. No. L-22192 April 30, 1966 IN RE: VIRGILIO 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
LIM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

G.R. No. L-22210 April 30, 1966 PILAR T. DEL 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
G.R. No. L-22305 April 30, 1966 PRAXEDES
GABRIEL, ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO
EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
TABIGNE, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO,

ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21191 April 30, 1966 EVERETT Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
STEAMSHIP CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEDINA, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-20022 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. GLICERIO SALVACION

G.R. No. L-20905 April 30, 1966 MARTA A. VDA. DE

CUIZON v. EMILIANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. L-20028 & L-20029 April 30, 1966

GREGORIO ATIENZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN
RELATIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-18514 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. ORLANDO TANIA, ET AL.

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