Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions > G.R. No. 98920 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. IGNACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 98920. July 14, 1995.]

JESUS F. IGNACIO, Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Former First Division), RENATO G. YALUNG and MARINA T. YALUNG, Respondent.

Arnold V . Guerrero & Asso. Law Offices for Petitioner.

Manuel Y . Fausto for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; REGIONAL TRIAL COURT; JURISDICTION IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS; WHEN PARTIES ARE PLACED IN ESTOPPEL. — Generally an issue properly ligitable in an ordinary civil action under the general jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court should not be resolved in a land registration proceeding. However in this jurisdiction, the Regional Trial Court also functions as a land registration court. If the parties acquiesced in submitting the issue for determination in the land registration proceeding and they were given full opportunity to present their respective sides and evidence, then the defendants are placed in estoppel to question the jurisdiction of the said court to pass upon the issue (Zuniga v. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA 740 [1980]. Indeed, a Regional Trial Court is a court of general jurisdiction, and whether a particular issue should be resolved by it in its limited jurisdiction as a land registration court is not a jurisdictional question. It is a procedural question involving a mode of practice which may be waived (Santos v. Ganayo, 116 SCRA 431 [1982].

2. ID.; ID.; GENERAL AND LIMITED JURISDICTION; WHEN DISTINCTION ELIMINATED; RATIONALE. — The distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the Regional Trial Court and its limited jurisdiction when acting as a land registration court, has been eliminated by P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree of 1979 (Quiroz v. Manalo, 210 SCRA 60 [1992], and other cases cited. This amendment was aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits and at expediting the disposition of cases. Regional Trial Courts now have the authority to act not only on applications for original registration but also over all petitions filed after the original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising from such applications or petitions. Indeed, the land registration court can now hear and decide controversial and contentious cases and those involving substantial issues (Quiroz v. Manalo, 210 SCRA 67 (1992), and other cases cited.

3. CIVIL LAW; "PACTO DE RETRO SALE", CONSTRUED; CASE AT BAR. — The "Deed of Sale Under Pacto de Retro" cannot be considered as an equitable mortgage. The mere fact that the price in a pacto de retro sale is not the true value of the property does not justify the conclusion that the contract is one of equitable mortgage (Belonio v. Novella, 105 Phil. 756 [1959], and other cases cited). In a pacto de retro sale, the practice is to fix a relatively reduced price to afford the vendor a retro every facility to redeem the property (Vda. de Lacson v. Granada, 1 SCRA 876 [1961]). Moreover, private respondents have not been in actual possession of the subject property. They had been leasing it out at the time the deed was executed. Private respondent Renato Yalung, a college degree holder and a businessman for more than 15 years, admitted on cross-examination that he fully understood the terms of the" ‘Deed of Sale Under Pacto De Retro." When the terms of a contract clearly show that it is one of sale with right of repurchase, it must be interpreted according to its literal sense, and held to be such a contract (Ordonez v. Villaroman, 78 Phil. 116 [1947]; Paguio v. Manlapid, 52 Phil. 534 [1928]).


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the Decision dated March 4, 1991 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 19047, and its Resolution dated April 29, 1991 denying reconsideration of the decision.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

I


On December 24, 1987, Petitioner, in consideration of P1,000,000.00, purchased under a pacto de retro contract from private respondents a house and lot of 624 square meters located at No. 13 Narra Street, Valle Verde III, Pasig, Metro Manila. The property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 64873 and registered in the name of Renato G. Yalung . . . married to Marina Toledano" issued by the Acting Register of Deeds for Metro Manila District II (Province of Rizal) on December 24, 1987, the very same day the agreement was entered into (Exhs. A and A-1, Records, p. 20).

The agreement was evidenced by a public instrument entitled "Deed of Sale Under Pacto do Retro" executed and duly signed by petitioner and respondent Renato G. Yalung, with the marital consent of his wife, respondent Marina T. Yalung (Exhs. B and B-l, Records, pp. 21-22). Therein, the parties agreed that private respondents be granted the right to repurchase the property sold within 90 days from December 24, 1987, for the same consideration of P1,000,000.00 plus 5% interest thereon. The deed, in pertinent part, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the VENDOR, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, to him in hand paid and receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby SELL, TRANSFER, and CONVEY, under PACTO DE RETRO unto the said VENDEE, his heirs and assigns, the above-described property with all the buildings and improvements thereon, free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"That the VENDOR, in executing this conveyance hereby reserves the right to REPURCHASE, and the VENDEE, in accepting same hereby obligates himself to RESELL the property herein conveyed within a period of ninety (90) days from and after the date of this instrument for the same price of ONE MILLION PESOS (Pl,000,000.00), Philippine Currency; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if the VENDOR shall fail to exercise his right to repurchase as herein granted within the period stipulated, then this conveyance shall become absolute and irrevocable, without the necessity of drawing up a new deed of absolute sale, subject to the requirements of the law regarding consolidation of ownership of real property" (Rollo, p. 69; Exh. B-l, Records, p. 22).

Private respondents failed to repurchase the property within the 90-day period despite an extension of five days granted them (Exh. C, Records, p. 24).

On April 19, 1988, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 151, Pasig a petition for consolidation of ownership, entitled "In Re: Petition to Consolidate Ownership Under Pacto de Retro Sale, Jesus F. Ignacio, Petitioner versus Renato Yalung and Marina T. Yalung, Respondents." The petition was filed as a land registration case and docketed as LRC Case No. R-3936.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Private respondents filed a Manifestation admitting the execution of the "Deed of Sale under Pacto de Retro." They claimed, however, that the parties only intended to enter into an equitable mortgage to secure prompt payment of the loan given them by petitioner. They alleged that the interest rate of the loan was "unconscionable, excessive and unreasonable" and that notwithstanding the sale, they had remained in actual possession of the property. These circumstances according to them qualified the agreement as one of equitable mortgage under Articles 1602 (1) and (2) and 1603 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Rollo, pp. 37-38). They prayed for the dismissal of the petition or, in the alternative, for the declaration of the deed of sale as an equitable mortgage (Rollo, p. 38).

After trial, the court a quo rendered on August 9, 1988 a decision granting the petition and upholding the "Deed of Sale Under Pacto de Retro." It found that both parties clearly and unquestionably intended a sale under pacto de retro, not an equitable mortgage. It thus ordered the Register of Deeds of Rizal to cancel TCT No. 64873 and issue another transfer certificate of title in the name of petitioner. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents, consolidating the title to that real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 64873 of the Register of Deeds for Metro Manila II (Pasig, Metro Manila) in the name of petitioner Jesus F. Ignacio; declaring null and void said TCT No. 64873; and ordering the Register of Deeds of Rizal to cancel said TCT No. 64873 and to issue, in lieu thereof, another transfer certificate of title in favor and in the name of Jesus F. Ignacio" (Rollo, p. 174).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the land registration court over the case.

On March 4, 1991, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and reversed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court declared that the Regional Trial Court sitting as a land registration court had no jurisdiction over the petition for consolidation of title, which is an ordinary civil action pursuant to Article 1607 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals dismissed the land registration case "without prejudice to the filing of another action with the proper court" (Rollo, p. 29).

Hence, this petition.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

II


There is no dispute that an action for consolidation of ownership for failure of the vendor to redeem the mortgaged property must be filed as an ordinary civil action, not as a land registration case (Rollo, p. 23).

Generally, an issue properly litigable in an ordinary civil action under the general jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court should not be resolved in a land registration proceeding. However in this jurisdiction, the Regional Trial Court also functions as a land registration court. If the parties acquiesced in submitting the issue for determination in the land registration proceeding and they were given full opportunity to present their respective sides and evidence, then the defendants are placed in estoppel to question the jurisdiction of the said court to pass upon the issue (Zuniga v. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA 740 [1980]; Florentino v. Encarnacion, Sr., 79 SCRA 192 [1977]; Manalo v. Mariano, 69 SCRA 80 [1976]).

Indeed, a Regional Trial Court is a court of general jurisdiction, and whether a particular issue should be resolved by it in its limited jurisdiction as a land registration court is not a jurisdictional question. It is a procedural question involving a mode of practice which may be waived (Santos v. Ganayo, 116 SCRA 431 [1982]; Manalo v. Mariano, supra, at 89).chanrobles law library : red

In the case at bench, private respondents did not move to dismiss the petition before the land registration court. They, in fact, filed a Manifestation admitting the due execution and genuineness of the "Deed of Sale Under Pacto de Retro" and invoking the jurisdiction of the court to declare the said deed as one of equitable mortgage. They went to trial and presented evidence consisting of documents and the testimony of respondent Renato Yalung (Records, pp. 30-31; TSN, July 14, 1988, pp. 1-17). It was only after the decision of the land registration court and in their appeal before the Court of Appeals that they challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court. They are now deemed to have waived their right to question the jurisdiction of said court.

Moreover, the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the Regional Trial Court and its limited jurisdiction when acting as a land registration court, has been eliminated by P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree of 1979 (Quiroz v. Manalo, 210 SCRA 60 [1992]; Philippine National Bank v. International Corporate Bank, 199 SCRA 508 [1991]; Averia, Jr. v. Caguioa, 146 SCRA 459 [1986]). This amendment was aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits and at expediting the disposition of cases. Regional Trial Courts now have the authority to act not only on applications for original registration but also over all petitions filed after the original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising from such applications or petitions. Indeed, the land registration court can now hear and decide controversial and contentious cases and those involving substantial issues (Quiroz v. Manalo, supra, at 67; Philippine National Bank v. International Corporate Bank, supra, at 514-515; Vda. de Arceo v. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 489 [1990]).

In the instant case, the trial court, although sitting as a land registration Court, took cognizance of the petition as an ordinary civil action under its general jurisdiction. The court did not decide the case summarily, but afforded both petitioner and private respondents the opportunity to present their respective documentary and testimonial evidence. Ordinary pleadings and memoranda were likewise filed. The decision of the trial court squarely addressed all the issues raised by the parties and applied substantive law and jurisprudence.chanrobles law library : red

Reviewing the records, we agree with the trial court that the "Deed of Sale Under Pacto de Retro" cannot be considered as an equitable mortgage. The mere fact that the price in a pacto de retro sale is not the true value of the property does not justify the conclusion that the contract is one of equitable mortgage (Belonio v. Novella, 105 Phil. 756 [1959]; Feliciano v. Limjuco, 41 Phil. 147 [1920]; De Ocampo Lim, 38 Phil. 579 [1918]). In a pacto de retro sale, the practice is to fix a relatively reduced price to afford the vendor a retro every facility to redeem the property (Vda. de Lacson v. Granada, 1 SCRA 876 [1961]; Belonio v. Novella, supra). Moreover, private respondents have not been in actual possession of the subject property. They had been leasing it out at the time the deed was executed (Exh. 6, Records, p. 39; TSN, July 14, 1988, p. 12).

Private respondent Renato Yalung, a college degree holder and a businessman for more than 15 years, admitted on cross-examination that he fully understood the terms of the "Deed of Sale Under Pacto de Retro" (TSN, July 14, 1988, pp. 10-11). When the terms of a contract clearly show that it is one of sale with right of repurchase, it must be interpreted according to its literal sense, and held to be such a contract (Ordonez v. Villaroman, 78 Phil. 116 [1947]; Paguio v. Manlapid, 52 Phil. 534 [1928]).

The records do not show that private respondents have exercised their right to repurchase or at least tendered the redemption price for the property (cf. State Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 734 [1992]).chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the Decision dated March 4, 1991 and the Resolution dated April 29, 1991 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 19047 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated August 9, 1988 in LRC Case No. R-3936 is REINSTATED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr. and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., is on leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-835 July 3, 1995 - GERARDO C. ALVARADO v. LILY A. LAQUINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 107748 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO SAPURCO

  • G.R. No. 109248 July 3, 1995 - GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110558 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELEDONIO B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112279 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT ALBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114698 July 3, 1995 - WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115304 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND L. MELOSANTOS

  • G.R. No. 110240 July 4, 1995 - ENJAY INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109036 July 5, 1995 - BARTOLOME F. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2747 July 6, 1995 - GODOFREDO A. VILLALON v. JIMENEZ B. BUENDIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1008 July 6, 1995 - FLORENTINA BILAG-RIVERA v. CRISANTO FLORA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1026 July 6, 1995 - VICTOR BASCO v. DAMASO GREGORIO

  • G.R. No. 100912 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY A. CRISTOBAL

  • G.R. Nos. 103560 & 103599 July 6, 1995 - GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109166 July 6, 1995 - HERNAN R. LOPEZ, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112973-76 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PAGCU, JR.

  • G.R. No. 110321 July 7, 1995 - HILARIO VALLENDE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112629 July 7, 1995 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118644 July 7, 1995 - EPIMACO A. VELASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102930 July 10, 1995 - BONIFACIO MONTILLA PEÑA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119055 July 10, 1995 - ROY RODILLAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • CBD Case No. 251 July 11, 1995 - ADELINA T. VILLANUEVA v. TERESITA STA. ANA

  • G.R. No. 109370 July 11, 1995 - ROGELIO PARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 July 11, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112046 July 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ONG CO

  • G.R. No. 115245 July 11, 1995 - JUANITO C. PILAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION

  • G.R. No. 116008 July 11, 1995 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79896 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114167 July 12, 1995 - COASTWISE LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114186 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR R. ERNI

  • Adm. Case No. 3283 July 13, 1995 - RODOLFO MILLARE v. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-93-806 & MTJ-93-863 July 13, 1995 - ERLINO LITIGIO, ET AL. v. CELESTINO V. DICON

  • Bar Matter No. 712 July 13, 1995 - IN RE: AL C. ARGOSINO

  • G.R. No. 106769 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO WEDING

  • G.R. No. 109573 July 13, 1995 - SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110580 July 13, 1995 - MANUEL BANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110930 July 13, 1995 - OSCAR LEDESMA AND COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116049 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1048 July 14, 1995 - WELLINGTON REYES v. SALVADOR M. GAA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-90-400 July 14, 1995 - SUSIMO MOROÑO v. AURELIO J.V. LOMEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-818 July 14, 1995 - ENRIQUITO CABILAO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-932 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. MANGALINDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-963 July 14, 1995 - MARILOU NAMA MORENO v. JOSE C. BERNABE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1012 July 14, 1995 - ERNESTO G. OÑASA, JR. v. EUSEBIO J. VILLARAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1030 July 14, 1995 - GABRIEL C. ARISTORENAS, ET AL. v. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1075 July 14, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LOLITA A. GRECIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1086 July 14, 1995 - ALFERO C. BAGANO v. ARTURO A. PANINSORO

  • G.R. Nos. L-66211 & L-70528-35 July 14, 1995 - ARTURO Q. SALIENTES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82220, 82251 & 83059 July 14, 1995 - PABLITO MENESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88384 July 14, 1995 - FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91494 July 14, 1995 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92167-68 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92660 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO MORICO

  • G.R. No. 96489 July 14, 1995 - NICOLAS G. SINTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97251-52 July 14, 1995 - JOVENCIO MINA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 97435 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TEVES

  • G.R. No. 98920 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. IGNACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101135 July 14, 1995 - TEODORO RANCES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101286 July 14, 1995 - GIL RUBIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101875 July 14, 1995 - CASIANO A. NAVARRO III v. ISRAEL D. DAMASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102297 July 14, 1995 - NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH OF GOD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102993 July 14, 1995 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104639 July 14, 1995 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104682 July 14, 1995 - CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. v. VICENTE S. BATE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105763 July 14, 1995 - LORENDO QUINONES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106279 July 14, 1995 - SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108870 July 14, 1995 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109680 July 14, 1995 - DIEGO RAPANUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111515 July 14, 1995 - JACKSON BUILDING CONDOMINIUM CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112399 July 14, 1995 - AMADO S. BAGATSING v. COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112679 July 14, 1995 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113448 July 14, 1995 - DANILO Q. MILITANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113578 July 14, 1995 - SUPLICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118597 July 14, 1995 - JOKER P. ARROYO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-997 July 17, 1995 - CHRISTOPHER CORDOVA, ET AL. v. RICARDO F. TORNILLA

  • G.R. No. 53877 July 17, 1995 - GREGORIO LABITAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91987 July 17, 1995 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 108891 July 17, 1995 - JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109613 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MAHINAY

  • G.R. No. 109809 July 17, 1995 - VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110910 July 17, 1995 - NATIONAL SUGAR TRADING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111797 July 17, 1995 - CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112060 July 17, 1995 - NORBI H. EDDING v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112127 July 17, 1995 - CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112230 July 17, 1995 - NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113917 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIA M. CABACANG

  • G.R. No. 118910 July 17, 1995 - KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL L. MORATO

  • G.R. No. 119326 July 17, 1995 - NARCISO CANSINO v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. No. 106539 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORTILLANO NAMAYAN

  • G.R. No. 108789 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABE ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114681 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 115115 July 18, 1995 - CONRAD AND COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107439 July 20, 1995 - MICHAEL T. UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-114382 July 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ACOB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115884 July 20, 1995 - CJC TRADING, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117932 July 20, 1995 - AVON DALE GARMENTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106425 & 106431-32 July 21, 1995 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110591 July 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBURCIO E. BACULI

  • G.R. No. 107495 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO Y. UYCOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110106 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO R. MONTIERO

  • G.R. No. 111905 July 31, 1995 - ORIENTAL MINDORO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.