Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > April 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13459 April 29, 1960 - DEOMEDES S. ROJAS v. ROSA PAPA, ET AL.

107 Phil 983:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13459. April 29, 1960.]

DEOMEDES S. ROJAS, in his capacity as legal administrator of the estate of the deceased MARIA SIPRIASO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROSA PAPA, as principal, CONSUELO PAPA VILLANUEVA, as attorney-in-fact and MARIANO B. VILLANUEVA, Defendants-Appellants.

Ovidio S. de la Rosa for Appellee.

Mariano B. Villanueva for appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. NOTICE, SERVICE OF; WHEN SERVICE BY MAIL IS COMPLETE. — The rule is that service by mail is complete upon expiration of five days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides (Section 8, Rule 27, Rules of Court).

2. DUE PROCESS OF LAW; JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS; REQUISITES. — As applied to judicial proceedings, due process of law signifies that there must be a court or tribunal clothed with power to hear and determine the matter before it; that the jurisdiction shall have been lawfully acquired; that the defendant shall have opportunity to be heard and that judgment shall be rendered upon lawful hearing.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


In the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Deomedes S. Rojas, legal administrator of the estate of the deceased Maria Sipriaso, sued Rosa Papa, Consuelo Papa Villanueva, and the latter’s husband, Mariano B. Villanueva, to collect the unpaid balance of a promissory note in favor of Maria Sipriaso, made by Consuelo Papa Villanueva as attorney- in-fact of Rosa Papa, the note being secured by a real estate mortgage on two parcels of land belonging to Rosa Papa. Upon petition of defendants, the court granted them a first extension of fifteen days and a second extension of twenty days within which to file their answer. Defendants having failed to file their answer, plaintiff, on April 21, 1956, moved to have them declared in default. This was opposed by defendants, but the court issued an order declaring them in default. Defendants’ two motions for reconsideration of this order were both denied by the court. On September 4, 1956, plaintiff presented his evidence. Two days later, defendants filed another motion for reconsideration, asking that they be given the chance to answer the complaint and to be present at the trial. This was likewise denied by the court. On September 7, 1956, the court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff and against defendants. The latter asked for reconsideration of the decision on the ground that it was violative of Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court and the constitutional provision against deprivation of property without due process of law. Opposition thereto was filed by plaintiff. On November 2, 1956, the court denied defendants’ motion.

So defendants appealed from the lower court’s decision of September 7, 1956 and from the order of November 2, 1956 denying their motion for reconsideration. They claim that the trial court erred (1) in declaring them in default; (2) in depriving them of their right to due process of law by denying them their day in court; and (3) in rendering a decision not supported by preponderant evidence and without considering appellants’ defense.

The principal issue herein is whether appellants were declared in default before the expiration of the period within which to file their answer. Resolution of the two other assigned errors are dependent on a determination of this main issue.

Within fifteen days after service of summons the defendant shall file his answer and serve a copy thereof to the plaintiff (Section 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court). But, upon motion and upon such terms as may be just, the court may extend the time to plead (Section 16, Rule 15, Rules of Court). If the defendant fails to answer within the original period, or if he had been so granted, within the period of extension, then the court shall, upon motion of the plaintiff, order judgment against the defendant by default (Section 6, Rule 35, Rules of Court).

The complaint was filed on January 17, 1956 and summons was duly served on defendants on January 19, 1956. On February 3, 1956, defendants asked for a fifteen day extension to answer which was duly granted by the court. On February 22, 1956, they filed another motion asking that their period to answer be extended up to April 15, 1956. Acting on this motion, the court issued an order on February 24, 1956 granting them an extension of only twenty days. The controversy centers on the time from which this extension of twenty days should be counted. The court’s order explicitly states that said period should run "from receipt of a copy of this order."

The record discloses that a copy of the court’s order was sent by ordinary mail to appellants on February 26, 1956. But appellants claim that they never received said copy and that it was only on April 28, 1956 that their counsel accidentally learned of the court’s order giving them an extension of 20 days from receipt thereof. According to appellants, on April 28, 1956, while their counsel was attending to his other cases in the lower court, he incidentally asked for information respecting his second motion for extension in this case, so he was furnished with a copy of the court’s order dated February 22, 1956; and that upon investigation, said counsel found out that a certain Mr. Madrid, court employee who was in charge of sending the copy of the order, could not state with any degree of positiveness whether he delivered the copy personally or he had mailed it, although it appears in the record book that it was sent by ordinary mail, but this notation had been crossed out. There is no proof to substantiate their contention that the copy of the order had not been mailed to them and that they were apprised of the court’s action only on April 28, 1956. If their contention were true, then they would have attached proof thereof to their motion for reconsideration of the court’s order declaring them in default. They would have insisted that said Mr. Marquez make an affidavit that he failed to mail said copy. Or they could have annexed to their motion proof that there had been a deletion of the notation in the lower court’s record book. This they failed to do, so we cannot give credence to their allegation that they did not receive the copy mailed to them.

The rule is that service by mail is complete upon expiration of five days after mailing, unless the court other wise provides (Section 8, Rule 27, Rules of Court). In Perez v. Isip (81 Phil., 218) it was held that notice sent by ordinary mail from one town to another town in Bulacan, was received by the addressee within 3, 4 or at the latest, 5 days, there being no proof that notice was returned by the post office to the court. In the present case, copy of the order was mailed on February 26, 1956, and there is no showing that said copy was returned to the lower court. Therefore, appellants received it at the latest on March 2, 1956, and the twenty days extension of time should be counted therefrom. Hence their period to file their answer expired on March 22, 1956. Having failed to file a responsive pleading within that period, they were properly declared in default.

Appellants insist that excusable negligence was the reason why they failed to file their answer. They were asking for "extension of time up to April 15, 1956, within which to file their answer, so as to give them sufficient time to raise the amount to pay their indebtedness, so as to have this case amicably settled." Yet, there is no showing that they tried to pay their indebtedness, or that they made any efforts towards amicable settlement. And worst of all, even on April 15, 1956, they were not yet ready to file their answer. On or before the last day of the period of extension they were praying for, they should have taken steps to find out what action the court had taken on their motion for extension and should have been prepared to file their answer. This was the least they could have done. But they neglected to do this, so there is absolutely no ground on which to excuse their lack of diligence.

There is nothing to appellants’ claim that they have been deprived of their right to due process of law. As applied to judicial proceedings, due process of law signifies that there must be a court or tribunal clothed with power to hear and determine the matter before it; that jurisdiction shall have been lawfully acquired; that the defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard and that judgment shall be rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921). The requisites of due process have been amply satisfied. The trial court had the power to try and determine the case and jurisdiction was lawfully acquired. Appellants were given the chance to be heard but they did not make use of their opportunity to present their side. They had the original fifteen days from summons within which to answer. This was extended for a period of fifteen days. They then again sought extension of the period, and this, too, was granted. But even when they were granted this second extension of twenty days they still neglected to file their answer.

The decision of the trial court was based on proof submitted by appellee during the hearing. This is only to be expected for once the defendant had been declared in default, the court shall proceed to receive the plaintiff’s evidence and render judgment granting him such relief as the complaint and the facts proven may warrant (Section 6, Rule 35, Rules of Court). The trial court could not have considered appellants’ defense of usury which they alleged for the first time in their brief. Having been declared in default, they lost their right to answer and to present evidence in support of their contentions.

For all the foregoing considerations, we find appellants’ appeal to be frivolous. The appealed decision and order are hereby affirmed with double costs against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Barrera, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



April-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12170 April 18, 1960 - PEOPLE’S SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. PAZ PUEY VDA. DE LIMCACO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO

    107 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14133 April 18, 1960 - INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA v. PHIL. PORTS TERMINAL, INC.

    107 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-14159 April 18, 1960 - DANILO CHANNIE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. L-13282 April 22, 1960 - LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. L-12973 April 25, 1960 - BARENG v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS., ET AL.

    107 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-13317 April 25, 1960 - R. S. PAÑGILINAN & CO. v. HON. JUDGE L. PASICOLAN, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. L-13557 April 25, 1960 - DONATO LAJOM v. HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO

    107 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-13981 April 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS RODRIGUEZ

    107 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-14224 April 25, 1960 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. LUCIO JAVILLONAR, ET AL.

    107 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-14889 April 25, 1960 - NORBERTO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. AMADO SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-14901 April 25, 1960 - VERONICA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., v. MANUEL SAGALES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. L-11797. 27 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO BELTRAN

    107 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-12058 April 27, 1960 - JOSE BERNABE & CO., INC. v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC.

    107 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-12410 April 27, 1960 - MIGUEL G. PACTOR v. LUCRECIA P. PESTAÑO

    107 Phil 685

  • G.R. No. L-12639 April 27, 1960 - PABLO A. VELEZ v. PAV WATCHMEN’S UNION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    107 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-12679 April 27, 1960 - MARIA C. VDA. DE LAPORE v. NATIVIDAD L. PASCUAL

    107 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-12917 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL LABATETE

    107 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. L-13222 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO ARAGON and RAMON LOPEZ

    107 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-13224 April 27, 1960 - PEDRO TAN CONA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-13315 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA BULING

    107 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-13496 April 27, 1960 - Dy Shui Sheng v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-13653 April 27, 1960 - MUN. TREASURER OF PILI, CAMARINES SUR, ET AL. v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ETC AND PALACIO

    107 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-13680 April 27, 1960 - MAURO LOZANA v. SERAFIN DEPAKAKIBO

    107 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-13708 April 27, 1960 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO., INC. v. GLOBE ASSURANCE CO., INC.

    107 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-14191 April 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE NARVAS

    107 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. L-14246 April 27, 1960 - TAN SENG PAO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

    107 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-14414 April 27, 1960 - SEVERINO SALEN and ELENA SALBANERA v. JOSE BALCE

    107 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-14576 April 27, 1960 - JOSE GONZALES, ET AL. v. BENIGNO ALDANA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-14967 April 27, 1960 - ORLANDO DE LEON v. HON. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. L-15435 April 27, 1960 - VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL. v. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-10831 28 April 28, 1960 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MARIANO GONZAGA

    107 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-12741 28 April 28, 1960 - DEMETRIA FLORES v. PHIL. ALIEN PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR

    107 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-13118 April 28, 1960 - MACONDRAY & COMPANY, INC. v. DELGADO BROS. INC.

    107 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. L-13172 April 28, 1960 - GILBERT RILLON v. FILEMON RILLON

    107 Phil 783

  • G.R. No. L-13313 April 28, 1960 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE ASSN. OF HINIGARAN v. ESTANISLAO YULO YUSAY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-13385 April 28, 1960 - SOCORRO KE. LADRERA v. SEC. OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

    107 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-13501 April 28, 1960 - JOSE V. VILLASIN v. SEVEN-UP BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHILS.

    107 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-13718 April 28, 1960 - DEOGRACIAS REMO and MUN. OF GOA, CAM. SUR v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO AND ANGEL ENCISO

    107 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-13911 April 28, 1960 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-14151 April 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENCARNACION JACOBO

    107 Phil 821

  • G.R. No. L-14248 April 28, 1960 - NEW MANILA LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14434 April 28, 1960 - EUSEBIO ESPINELI, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-14606 April 28, 1960 - LAGUNA TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

    107 Phil 833

  • G.R. No. L-14713 April 28, 1960 - MARIAN AFAN v. APOLINARIO S. DE GUZMAN

    107 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-15012 April 28, 1960 - ANTONIO DIMALIBOT v. ARSENIO N. SALCEDO

    107 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. L-15416 April 28, 1960 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 849

  • Adm. Case No. 275 April 29, 1960 - GERVACIO L. LIWAG v. GILBERTO NERI

    107 Phil 852

  • G.R. No. L-7133 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN LAROSA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. L-9532 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO CATAO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-10675 April 29, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. ERNESTA CABAGNOT VDA. DE HIO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. L-11754 April 29, 1960 - SATURNINO D. VILLORIA v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. L-11773 April 29, 1960 - JUAN T. CHUIDIAN v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    107 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-12089 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRIA E. YANZA

    107 Phil 888

  • G.R. No. L-12165 April 29, 1960 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. ANTONIO VILLARAMA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 891

  • G.R. No. L-2180 April 29, 1960 - SOLOMON A. MAGANA v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-12189 April 29, 1960 - FRANCISCA GALLARDO v. HERMENEGILDA S. MORALES

    107 Phil 903

  • G.R. No. L-12270 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO CANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-12256 April 29, 1960 - MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ETC. ET AL.

    107 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12503 April 29, 1960 - CONFEDERATED SONS OF LABOR v. ANAKAN LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-12538 April 29, 1960 - GAUDENCIO LACSON v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

    107 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12644 April 29, 1960 - KOPPEL (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. RUSTICO A. MAGALLANES

    107 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12817 April 29, 1960 - JULIO D. ENRIQUEZ, SR. v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ

    107 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-12872 April 29, 1960 - DELGADO BROS., INC. v. LI YAO & COMPANY, ET AL.

    107 Phil 939

  • G.R. No. L-12945 April 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARIANO R. LACSON

    107 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-12965 April 29, 1960 - CARMELINO MENDOZA v. JOSEFINA DE CASTRO

    107 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-13030 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MITRA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 951

  • G.R. Nos. L-13099 & L-13462 April 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO.

    107 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. L-13101 April 29, 1960 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. SILVERIO BLAQUERA

    107 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-13334 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO M. DURAN, JR.

    107 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-13459 April 29, 1960 - DEOMEDES S. ROJAS v. ROSA PAPA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. L-13500 April 29, 1960 - SUN BROTHERS & COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-13569 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO RESPECIA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-13667 April 29, 1960 - PRIMITIVO ANSAY, ETC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

    107 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-13753 April 29, 1960 - DOMINGO CUI, ET AL. v. LUCIO ORTIZ, ETC.

    107 Phil 1000

  • G.R. No. L-13778 April 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-13888 April 29, 1960 - NATIONAL SHIPYARD AND STEEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-14092 April 29, 1960 - SOLEDAD A. VERZOSA v. AUGUSTO BAYTAN, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-14271 April 29, 1960 - YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    107 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-14298 April 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BRICCIO INCIONG, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-14323 April 29, 1960 - ANTERO SORIANO, JR. v. EMILIO L. GALANG

    107 Phil 1026

  • G.R. No. L-14334 April 29, 1960 - CARLOS GOZON v. ISRAEL M. MALAPITAN, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-14347 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO LOPEZ

    107 Phil 1039

  • G.R. No. L-14487 April 29, 1960 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. DIEGO PEREZ

    107 Phil 1043

  • G.R. No. L-14548 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIO ANDRES

    107 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-14677 April 29, 1960 - MARGARITA LEYSON LAURENTE v. ELISEO CAUNCA

    107 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-14880 April 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS

    107 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-15048 April 29, 1960 - MARIANO QUITIQUIT v. SALVADOR VILLACORTA

    107 Phil 1060

  • G.R. No. L-15125 April 29, 1960 - FRANCISCA ROMASANTA v. FELIX SANCHEZ

    107 Phil 1065

  • G.R. No. L-15372 April 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE B. QUESADA

    107 Phil 1068

  • G.R. No. L-15609 April 29, 1960 - RAFAEL MARCELO v. EULOGIO MENCIAS ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 1071

  • G.R. No. L-15689 April 29, 1960 - MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, ET AL. v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1078

  • G.R. No. L-15838 April 29, 1960 - CAYETANO DANGUE v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1083

  • G.R. No. L-15966 April 29, 1960 - MAXIMA ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1088

  • G.R. No. L-12090 April 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1091

  • G.R. No. L-12716 April 30, 1960 - JOSE BALDIVIA, ET AL. v. FLAVIANO LOTA

    107 Phil 1099

  • G.R. No. L-12880 April 30, 1960 - FLORA A. DE DEL CASTILLO, ET AL. v. ISABEL S. DE SAMONTE

    107 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-12892 April 30, 1960 - CITY OF CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

    107 Phil 1112

  • G.R. No. L-13340 April 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUZMAN

    107 Phil 1122

  • G.R. No. L-13429 April 30, 1960 - LUIS SANCHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-13493 April 30, 1960 - LUCIANO DE LA ROSA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    107 Phil 1131

  • G.R. No. L-14117 April 30, 1960 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. JUANITO NASTOR

    107 Phil 1136

  • G.R. No. L-14277 April 30, 1960 - MANUEL L. FERNANDEZ v. ELOY B. BELLO

    107 Phil 1140

  • G.R. No. L-14580 April 39, 1960 - BEOFNATO ATAY, ET AL. v. DIEGO H. TY DELING, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1146

  • G.R. No. L-14714 April 30, 1960 - ARISTON ANDAYA, ET AL. v. MELENCIO MANANSALA

    107 Phil 1151

  • G.R. Nos. L-14881 & L-15001-7 April 30, 1960 - JOSE B. YUSAY v. HILARIO ALOJADO, ET. AL.

    107 Phil 1156

  • G.R. No. L-14925 April 30, 1960 - MARTA VDA. DE DE LA CRUZ v. GENARO TAN TORRES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1163