Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > May 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13858 May 31, 1960 - CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

108 Phil 590:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13858. May 31, 1960.]

CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL., Respondents.

Candido P. Gutierrez for Petitioner.

Nora G. Nostratis and Reynold S. Fajardo for respondent CAR.

Nicanor B. Serrano for the other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; THRESHING OF CROPS; MEANING OF SECTION 39 OF REPUBLIC ACT 1199. — Section 39 of Republic Act 1199, which provides that "it shall be unlawful for either the tenant or the landholder, without mutual consent to reap or thresh a portion of the crop at any time previous to the date set for its threshing", refers only to the reaping of a portion of the crop prior to the reaping of the whole harvest.

2. ID.; ID.; AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PLACE OF STACKING OF HARVESTS; DOUBTS RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF TENANT. — Under section 37 of Republic Act 1199, the landholder, by himself or through his representatives, may determine the site for the stacking of the harvest. The same section, however, contains the proviso that the site shall not be farther than one kilometer from the center of the area cultivated by a majority of the tenants and that in case of disagreement by the tenant, the "court shall determine whatever may be in the interest of both parties." From the above legal provision, it is apparent that the landholder is not given absolute authority to determine the place of the stacking of the harvests. As to who should seek the intervention of the court in case of disagreement, the law is silent. But where it does not appear that the landholder was prejudiced by the act of the tenants in stacking their harvests at a place other than his own choosing, a decree of ejectment is not warranted. The new Tenancy Law was enacted as a remedial legislation and in its interpretation and enforcement all grave doubts must be resolved in favor of the tenant.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; TENANCY CONTRACT TO BE READ WITH TENANCY LAW. — The stipulation in a tenancy contract that the landholder has the right to choose where the harvest should be stacked must be read together with the limitations provided for in the Tenancy Law, since said law is part of said contracts. Otherwise, the law could easily be circumvented and the purpose thereof defeated in that the landholder could choose a site not only too far but also too difficult for the tenants, thereby enabling him to create at will a cause for the ejectment of his tenants.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; REFUSAL OF TENANT TO SIGN CONTRACT NOT GROUND FOR DISPOSSESSION. — The refusal of a tenant to sign a tenancy contract with his landholder is not among those enumerated in section 50 of Republic Act 11999 as grounds for a tenant’s dispossession. That enumeration is exclusive in nature.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


This is a petition filed by landholder Canuto Pagdañganan with the Court of Agrarian Relations for the ejectment of 15 of his tenants at Barrio San Miguel, Guimba, Nueva Ecija on the ground of violation of or failure to comply with, the provisions of the Tenancy Law.

The petition alleges, among other things, that during the harvesting season for the agricultural year 1955-56, the respondents tenants, without just cause, reaped their palay crops without the knowledge and permission of the petitioner landholder or his authorized representatives; that said respondents stacked their harvest in a place other than that designated by the petitioner; and that they appropriated the loose grains for their own use and advantage and did not even inform petitioner or his authorized representatives of the amount thereof.

In their answer, the respondent tenants denied the material averments contained in the petition and, by way of counterclaim, alleged that as a result of the filing of the petition they suffered actual and moral damages. For relief, respondents pray that the petition be dismissed, and that they be awarded the sum of P2,300.00 by way of damages.

After trial — during which petitioner also tried to show that some of the respondent tenants refused to sign tenancy contracts prepared by him — the court below rendered a decision, dismissing the petition as well as respondents’ counterclaim for lack of merit and insufficiency of evidence, respectively. Reconsideration of this decision having been denied, petitioner brought the case to this Court through the present petition for review.

On the charge that the respondent tenants reaped their harvest without petitioner’s knowledge and permission, the decision complained of states that the latter’s evidence merely show that the reaping was without his permission, not that he was not notified thereof. Section 36 of Rep. Act 1199 provides that the tenant shall have the right to determine when to reap the harvest provided it "shall be in accordance with proven farm practices and after due notice to the landholder", and there being no claim that the reaping, or the date thereof, was not in accordance with proven farm practices, the court below discounted the charge as ground for ejectment. Petitioner in this petition for review insists that there has been a violation of the law which is ground for ejectment. He cites section 39 of Rep. Act 1199, which provides that "it shall be unlawful for either the tenant or the landholder, without mutual consent to reap or thresh a portion of the crop at any time previous to the date set for its threshing." The section cited by petitioner, however, is not here applicable for the obvious reason that it refers only to the reaping of a portion of the crop prior to the reaping of the whole harvest.

As to the charge that the respondent tenants, during the agricultural year in question, stacked their harvest at a place other than that designated by the petitioner landholder, the lower court found that the said tenants objected to the choice of site on the grounds that such choice would entail great difficulties on their part and possibly result in damage to or loss of their harvest because of the muddy pathway. And as neither of the parties sought the intervention of the court for the determination of the site in the interest of both parties, as provided in sec. 37 of Rep. Act 1199, the court ruled that the charge was not sufficient ground for dispossession. Petitioner now argues that as the landholder, he has the right to determine the site for the stacking of the harvest to which the tenant may disagree, in which case, he, the tenant, and not the landholder, should seek the intervention of the court. It is further argued that the tenants, or some of them, signed tenancy contracts containing the stipulation that the right to choose the site for the stacking of the harvest rests upon the landholder so that the tenants’ act was also in breach of contract.

It is true that under sec. 37 of Rep. Act 1199, the landholder, by himself or through his representatives, may determine the site for the stacking of the harvest. The same section, however, contains the proviso that the site shall not be farther than one kilometer from the center of the area cultivated by a majority of the tenants and that in case of disagreement by the tenant, the "court shall determine whatever may be in the interest of both parties." From the above legal provision, it is apparent that the landholder is not given absolute authority to determine the place of the stacking of the harvests. As to who should seek the intervention of the court in case of disagreement, the law is silent. On the other hand, the lower court found that the petitioner failed to show that he was prejudiced by the act of the respondent tenants in stacking their harvests at a place other than his own choosing. In the circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the said court that a decree of ejectment is not warranted. The new Tenancy Law was enacted as a remedial legislation and in its interpretation and enforcement all grave doubts must be resolved in favor of the tenant. (Primero v. CAR Et. Al., 101 Phil., 675; 54 Off. Gaz. [20] 5504; sec. 56, Rep. Act 1199.)

With respect to the tenants who signed tenancy contracts with petitioner, the ruling cannot be any different. The stipulation in those contracts that the landholder has the right to choose where the harvest should be stacked must be read together with the limitations provided for in the Tenancy Law, since said law is part of said contracts. Otherwise, the law could easily be circumvented and the purpose thereof defeated in that the landholder could choose a site not only too far, but also too difficult for the tenants, thereby enabling him to create at will a cause for the ejectment of his tenants.

As regards the loose grains alleged by petitioner to be part of the harvest which the respondent tenants brought home without his consent or notice to him, it would appear, as stated in the decision complained of, that the tenants did so because petitioner’s overseer refused to liquidate the same, and they feared that if said loose grains were left in the field they would be lost or destroyed. The court also found that the tenants brought home the loose grains only after the barrio lieutenant had determined and noted their amount or quantity and that petitioner did not suffer any damage as a result thereof. These findings are factual and are not now disputed. Under the circumstances, we do not think the lower court erred in finding that the tenants were justified in bringing home the loose grains and that such act should not bring about the last and drastic step of ejectment.

It is contended that the acts of the tenants amounted to pre- threshing in violation of sec. 39 of Rep. Act 1199. The loose grains involved in these proceedings, however, are not disputed to be the palay stalks which fell or were left in the field during the harvest and stacking of the reaped crops. There is, obviously, no threshing involved and consequently sec. 39 of the Tenancy Law has no application.

Finally, as to the refusal of some of the respondent tenants to enter into any kind of written tenancy contract, it would appear that such refusal was due to disagreement as to what sharing basis should be followed by the parties in the division of the crops. At any rate, the refusal of a tenant to sign a tenancy contract with his landholder is not among those enumerated in sec. 50 of Rep. Act 1199 as grounds for a tenant’s dispossession. That enumeration, as held by this Court in several cases, is exclusive in nature. (Primero v. CAR Et. Al., supra; Lao Oh Kim v. Judge Reyes Et. Al., G. R. No. L-11391, May 14, 1958; Joson Et. Al., v. Lapuz Et. Al., G. R. No. L-10739, May 30, 1958.) .

Finding no error in the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations sought to be reviewed, we hereby affirm it, with costs against the petitioner.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



May-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12007 May 16, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    108 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13831 May 16, 1960 - DIOSDADO CHAVEZ v. BUENAVENTURA GANZON

    108 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-13092 May 18, 1960 - EMILIA MENDOZA v. CAMILO BULANADI

    108 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-13208 May 18, 1960 - OREN IGO v. NATIONAL ABACA CORP.

    108 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-13783 May 18, 1960 - FRANCISCO CAPALUNGAN v. FULGENCIO MEDRANO

    108 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-15300 May 18, 1960 - MANUEL REGALADO v. PROVINCIAL CONSTABULARY COMMANDER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

    108 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-10948 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO MORTERO

    108 Phil 31

  • G.R. Nos. L-11795-96 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RECARIDO JARDENIL

    108 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-12446 May 20, 1960 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

    108 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-12546 May 20, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS P. PAREDES

    108 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-12726 May 20, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. VISITACION CONSUNTO

    108 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-13046 May 20, 1960 - EGMIDIO T. PASCUA v. PEDRO TUASON

    108 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13372 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO SABUERO

    108 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-13484 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR CAMERINO

    108 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13836 May 20, 1960 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-13846 May 20, 1960 - PANGASINAN EMPLOYEES, LABORERS AND TENANTS ASSN. v. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ

    108 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-14332 May 20, 1960 - KAPISANAN SA MRR CO. v. CREDIT UNION

    108 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-14355 May 20, 1960 - JOSE D. DACUDAO v. AGUSTIN D. DUEÑAS

    108 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-14388 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO DAYRIT

    108 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-14426 May 20, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN BAYONA

    108 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-9651 May 23, 1960 - POLICARPIO MENDEZ v. SENG KIAM

    108 Phil 109

  • G.R. Nos. L-10046-47 May 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON RODRIGUEZ

    108 Phil 118

  • G.R. Nos. L-13803 & L-13400 May 23, 1960 - JOSE DE LA PAZ v. MD TRANSIT AND TAXICAB CO., INC.

    108 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-13806 May 23, 1960 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-13965 May 23, 1960 - CONSTANTINO LEDUNA, ET., AL. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ

    108 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-14981 May 23, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. MARCELINO SARMIENTO

    108 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15339 May 23, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-15485 May 23, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-16445 May 23, 1960 - VICENTE ACAIN v. BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARMEN

    108 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-12624 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GANTANG KASIM

    108 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-12690 May 25, 1960 - ARCADIO M. QUIAMBAO v. ANICETO MORA

    108 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-12766 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. S. JACALA, ET., AL.

    108 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-12916 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO AQUIDADO

    108 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-13296 May 25, 1960 - SOFRONIO T. UNTALAN v. VICENTE G. GELLA

    108 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-13391 May 25, 1960 - AUREA MATIAS v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    108 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-13464 May 25, 1960 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-13651 May 25, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF JARO v. HIGINO MILITAR

    108 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-13711 May 25, 1960 - GREGORIO SALAZAR v. JUSTINIANA DE TORRES

    108 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-13819 May 25, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BLAS GUTIERREZ

    108 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-13933 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    108 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-14115 May 25, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SUPERIOR GAS AND EQUIPMENT CO.

    108 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-14134 May 25, 1960 - BISHOP OF LEGASPI v. MANUEL CALLEJA

    108 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-14214 May 25, 1960 - RICHARD VELASCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-14500 May 25, 1960 - QUIRINA PACHOCO v. AGRIPINA TUMANGDAY

    108 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-14515 May 25, 1960 - ENRIQUE ZOBEL v. GUILLERMO MERCADO

    108 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-14590 May 25, 1960 - FERNANDO DATU v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON

    108 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-14619 May 25, 1960 - MIGUEL YUVIENGCO v. PRIMITIVO GONZALES

    108 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-14722 May 25, 1960 - IGNACIO MESINA v. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA

    108 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-15132 May 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO B. CRUZ

    108 Phil 255

  • G.R. Nos. L-16341 & L-16470 May 25, 1960 - ADRIANO RABE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12150 May 26, 1960 - BENJAMIN CO., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12876 May 26, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BOHOL UNITED WORKERS, INC.

    108 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-13847 May 26, 1960 - DOMINADOR BORDA v. ENRIQUE TABALON

    108 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. L-14319 May 26, 1960 - EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. SUSANO R. NEGADO

    108 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-15073 May 26, 1960 - OPERATOR’S INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    108 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-15144 May 26, 1960 - ALFREDO A. AZUELO v. RAMON ARNALDO

    108 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-15777 May 26, 1960 - ANTONIO NIPAY v. JOSE M. MANGULAT

    108 Phil 297

  • G.R. Nos. L-14254 & L-14255 May 27, 1960 - STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 300

  • G.R. Nos. L-10371 & L-10409 May 30, 1960 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. DANIEL RAYALA

    108 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-11551 May 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALFONSO FAVIS

    108 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-12260 May 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. FARM IMPLEMENT

    108 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-12627 May 30, 1960 - ALFONSO TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-12798 May 30, 1960 - VISAYAN CEBU TERMINAL CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    108 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-12907 May 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO AMBAHANG

    108 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960 - FAUSTINO IGNACIO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    108 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-12963 May 30, 1960 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. ALFONSO YUCHENGCO

    108 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-13034 May 30, 1960 - GREGORIO ARONG v. VICTOR WAJING

    108 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-13153 May 30, 1960 - GLICERIO ROMULO v. ESTEBAN DASALLA

    108 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-13223 May 30, 1960 - OSCAR MENDOZA ESPUELAS v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF BOHOL

    108 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. L-13412 May 30, 1960 - DESTILLERIA LIM TUACO & COMPANY, INC. v. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    108 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-13419 May 30, 1960 - CASIANO SALADAS v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY

    108 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-13662 May 30, 1960 - CEFERINO ESTEBAN v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    108 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. L-13793 May 30, 1960 - PACIFIC LINE, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-13845 May 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

    108 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-13910 May 30, 1960 - MANILA YELLOW TAXI-CAB, INC. v. EDMUNDO L. CASTELO

    108 Phil 394

  • G.R. Nos. L-14069 & L-14149 May 30, 1960 - UY HA v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

    108 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-14280 May 30, 1960 - JUAN YSMAEL & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-14342 May 30, 1960 - CIRIACO L. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-14391 May 30, 1960 - GENARO SENEN v. MAXIMA A. DE PICHAY

    108 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14392 May 30, 1960 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PABLO CUNETA

    108 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-14459 May 30, 1960 - AGRINELDA N. MICLAT v. ELVIRA GANADEN

    108 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-14681 May 30, 1960 - ROSARIO PO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    108 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-14691 May 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO N. TEVES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14700 May 30, 1960 - BENITO R. GUINTO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14800 May 30, 1960 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. CITY OF MANILA

    108 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-14949 May 30, 1960 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    108 Phil 469

  • G.R. Nos. L-14991-94 May 30, 1960 - JAIME T. BUENAFLOR v. CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORP.

    108 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-15044 May 30, 1960 - BELMAN COMPAÑIA INCORPORADA v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15198 May 30, 1960 - EDUARDO J. JALANDONI v. NARRA

    108 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. L-15344 May 30, 1960 - JOSE R. VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-15550 May 30, 1960 - AMADO TAGULAO v. FORTUNATA PADLAN- MUNDOK

    108 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15614 May 30, 1960 - GSISEA v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA

    108 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15696 May 30, 1960 - ELPIDIO LLARENA v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    108 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-15792 May 30, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. ANDRES REYES

    108 Phil 513

  • G.R. Nos. L-16837-40 May 30, 1960 - EUSTAQUIO R. CAWA v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO

    108 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-10843 May 31, 1960 - EVANGELINE WENZEL v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC.

    108 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-11555 May 31, 1960 - DELFIN CUETO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    108 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-11805 May 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC.

    108 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-12068 May 31, 1960 - EUFROCINA TAMISIN v. AMBROCIO ODEJAR

    108 Phil 560

  • G.R. Nos. L-13033 & L-13701 May 31, 1960 - LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-13295 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MARIO

    108 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13523 May 31, 1960 - ANICETO MADRID v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-13578 May 31, 1960 - MARCIANO A. ROXAS v. FLORENCIO GALINDO

    108 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. L-13858 May 31, 1960 - CANUTO PAGDAÑGANAN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    108 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 13946 May 31, 1960 - MARSMAN AND COMPANY, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-14015 May 31, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

    108 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-14020 May 31, 1960 - MANILA LETTER CARRIER’S ASSN. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    108 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-14201 May 31, 1960 - OLEGARIO BRITO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    108 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GREGORIO MONTEJO

    108 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14749 May 31, 1960 - SILVESTRE PINGOL v. AMADO C. TIGNO

    108 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-14885 May 31, 1960 - MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MARCELINO S. MANALO

    108 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-14907 May 31, 1960 - PURA M. DE LA TORRE v. VENANCIO TRINIDAD

    108 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-15074 May 31, 1960 - CARMEN FUENTES v. CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA

    108 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-15122 May 31, 1960 - PAQUITO SALABSALO v. FRANCISCO ANGCOY

    108 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-15130 May 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLIMACO DEMIAR

    108 Phil 651