11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v.

ONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

May 1987 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1987 > May

1987 Decisions > G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS
ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT:

OFAC Removal Lawyer

Zarkesh Law Firm

Removal from OFAC SDN List Lawyer. We travel to meet y

ofacsanctionslawyers.com

OPEN

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 1/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-72873. May 28, 1987.]

CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA ALONZO, Petitioners,

v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and TECLA
PADUA, Respondents.

Perpetuo L.B. Alonzo, for Petitioners.

Luis R. Reyes for Private Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; STATUTES;

INTERPRETED AND APPLIED IN CONSONANCE WITH JUSTICE.
— As has been aptly observed, we test a law by its results;
and likewise, we may add, by its purposes. It is a cardinal
rule that, in seeking the meaning of the law, the first concern
of the judge should be to discover in its provisions the intent
of the lawmaker. Unquestionably, the law should never be
interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as this is never
within the legislative intent. An indispensable part of that
intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives of the

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 2/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

legislature, is to render justice. Thus, we interpret and apply

the law not independently of but in consonance with justice.
Law and justice are inseparable, and we must keep them so.
To be sure, there are some laws that, while generally valid,
may seem arbitrary when applied in a particular case because
of its peculiar circumstances. In such a situation, we are not
bound, because only of our nature and functions, to apply
them just the same, in slavish obedience to their language.
What we do instead is find a balance between the word and
the will, that justice may be done even as the law is obeyed.
Justice is always an essential ingredient of its decisions. Thus
when the facts warrants, we interpret the law in a way that
will render justice, presuming that it was the intention of the
lawmaker, to begin with, that the law be dispensed with
justice. So we have done in this case.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MUST BE READ ACCORDING TO ITS SPIRIT

AND INTENT. — While we admittedly may not legislate, we
nevertheless have the power to interpret the law in such a
way as to reflect the will of the legislature. While we may not
read into the law a purpose that is not there, we nevertheless
have the right to read out of it the reason for its enactment.
In doing so, we defer not to "the letter that killeth" but to
"the spirit that vivifieth," to give effect to the lawmaker’s will.
"The spirit, rather than the letter of a statute determines its
construction, hence, a statute must be read according to its
spirit or intent. For what is within the spirit is within the
statute although it is not within the letter thereof, and that
which is within the letter but not within the spirit is not within
the statute. Stated differently, a thing which is within the
intent of the lawmaker is as much within the statute as if
within the letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the
statute is not within the statute unless within the intent of the
lawmakers." cralaw virtua1aw library

3. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; PACTO DE RETRO SALE;

EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE ADOPTED IN CASE AT
BAR. — In arriving at our conclusion today, we are deviating
from the strict letter of the law, which the respondent court
understandably applied pursuant to existing jurisprudence.
The said court acted properly as it had no competence to
reverse the doctrines laid down by this Court in the above-

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 3/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

cited cases. In fact, and this should be clearly stressed, we

ourselves are not abandoning the De Conejero and Buttle
doctrines. What we are doing simply is adopting an exception
to the general rule, in view of the peculiar circumstances of
this case. The co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed
of the sales although no notice in writing was given them.
And there is no doubt either that the 30-day period began
and ended during the 14 years between the sales in question
and the filing of the complaint for redemption in 1977,
without the co-heirs exercising their right of redemption.
These are the justifications for this exception.

DECISION

CRUZ, J.:

The question is sometimes asked, in serious inquiry or in curious

conjecture, whether we are a court of law or a court of justice. Do
we apply the law even if it is unjust or do we administer justice
even against the law? Thus queried, we do not equivocate. The
answer is that we do neither because we are a court both of law
and of justice. We apply the law with justice for that is our
mission and purpose in the scheme of our Republic. This case is
an illustration.

Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a

parcel of land registered in the mane of their deceased parents
under OCT No. 10977 of the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac. 1

On March 15, 1963, one of them, Celestino Padua, transferred his

undivided share of the herein petitioners for the sum of P550.00
by way of absolute sale. 2 One year later, on April 22, 1964,
Eustaquia Padua, his sister, sold her own share to the same
vendees, in an instrument denominated "Con Pacto de Retro
Sale," for the sum of P440.00. 3

By virtue of such agreements, the petitioners occupied, after the

said sales, an area corresponding to two-fifths of the said lot,

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 4/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

representing the portions sold to them. The vendees subsequently

enclosed the same with a fence. In 1975, with their consent, their
son Eduardo Alonzo and his wife built a semi-concrete house on a
part of the enclosed area. 4

On February 25, 1976, Mariano Padua, one of the five co-heirs,

sought to redeem the area sold to the spouses Alonzo, but his
complaint was dismissed when it appeared that he was an
American citizen. 5 On May 27, 1977, however, Tecla Padua,
another co-heir, filed her own complaint invoking the same right
of redemption claimed by her brother. 6

The trial court * also dismiss this complaint, now on the ground
that the right had lapsed, not having been exercised within thirty
days from notice of the sales in 1963 and 1964. Although there
was no written notice, it was held that actual knowledge of the
sales by the co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law. 7

In truth, such actual notice as acquired by the co-heirs cannot be

plausibly denied. The other co-heirs, including Tecla Padua, lived
on the same lot, which consisted of only 604 square meters,
including the portions sold to the petitioners. 8 Eustaquia herself,
who had sold her portion, was staying in the same house with her
sister Tecla, who later claimed redemption. 9 Moreover, the
petitioners and the private respondents were close friends and
neighbors whose children went to school together. 10

It is highly improbable that the other co-heirs were unaware of

the sales and that they thought, as they alleged, that the area
occupied by the petitioners had merely been mortgaged by
Celestino and Eustaquia. In the circumstances just narrated, it
was impossible for Tecla not to know that the area occupied by
the petitioners had been purchased by them from the other co-
heirs. Especially significant was the erection thereon of the
permanent semi-concrete structure by the petitioners’ son, which
was done without objection on her part or of any of the other co-
heirs.

The only real question in this case, therefore, is the correct

interpretation and application of the pertinent law as invoked,
interestingly enough, by both the petitioners and the private
respondents. This is Article 1088 of the Civil Code, providing as

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 5/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a
stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be
subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for
the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one
month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by
the vendor." cralaw virtua1aw library

In reversing the trial court, the respondent court ** declared that

the notice required by the said article was written notice and that
actual notice would not suffice as a substitute. Citing the same
case of De Conejero v. Court of Appeals 11 applied by the trial
court, the respondent court held that decision, interpreting a like
rule in Article 1623, stressed the need for written notice although
no particular form was required.

Thus, according to Justice J.B.L. Reyes, who was the ponente of

the Court, furnishing the co-heirs with a copy of the deed of sale
of the property subject to redemption would satisfy the
requirement for written notice. "So long, therefore, as the latter
(i.e., the redemptioner) is informed in writing of the sale and the
particulars thereof," he declared, "the thirty days for redemption
start running." cralaw virtua1aw library

In the earlier decision of Butte v. Uy, 12 the Court, speaking

through the same learned jurist, emphasized that the written
notice should be given by the vendor and not the vendees,
conformably to a similar requirement under Article 1623, reading
as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 1623. The right of legal predemption or redemption shall not

be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing
by the prospective vendor, or by the vendors, as the case may be.
The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property,
unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has
given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.

"The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of the

adjoining owners." cralaw virtua1aw library

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 6/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

As "it is thus apparent that the Philippine legislature in Article

1623 deliberately selected a particular method of giving notice,
and that notice must be deemed exclusive," the Court held that
notice given by the vendees and not the vendor would not toll the
running of the 30-day period. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The petition before us appears to be an illustration of the Holmes

dictum that "hard cases make bad laws" as the petitioners
obviously cannot argue against the fact that there was really no
written notice given by the vendors to their co-heirs. Strictly
applied and interpreted, Article 1088 can lead to only one
conclusion, to wit, that in view of such deficiency, the 30-day
period for redemption had not begun to run, much less expired in
1977.

But as has also been aptly observed, we test a law by its results;
and likewise, we may add, by its purposes. It is a cardinal rule
that, in seeking the meaning of the law, the first concern of the
judge should be to discover in its provisions the intent of the
lawmaker. Unquestionably, the law should never be interpreted in
such a way as to cause injustice as this is never within the
legislative intent. An indispensable part of that intent, in fact, for
we presume the good motives of the legislature, is to render
justice.

Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but in

consonance with justice. Law and justice are inseparable, and we
must keep them so. To be sure, there are some laws that, while
generally valid, may seem arbitrary when applied in a particular
case because of its peculiar circumstances. In such a situation, we
are not bound, because only of our nature and functions, to apply
them just the same, in slavish obedience to their language. What
we do instead is find a balance between the word and the will,
that justice may be done even as the law is obeyed.

As judges, we are not automatons. We do not and must not

unfeelingly apply the law as it is worded, yielding like robots to
the literal command without regard to its cause and consequence.
"Courts are apt to err by sticking too closely to the words of a
law," so we are warned, by Justice Holmes again, "where these
words import a policy that goes beyond them." 13 While we
admittedly may not legislate, we nevertheless have the power to

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 7/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

interpret the law in such a way as to reflect the will of the

legislature. While we may not read into the law a purpose that is
not there, we nevertheless have the right to read out of it the
reason for its enactment. In doing so, we defer not to "the letter
that killeth" but to "the spirit that vivifieth," to give effect to the
lawmaker’s will.

"The spirit, rather than the letter of a statute determines its

construction, hence, a statute must be read according to its spirit
or intent. For what is within the spirit is within the statute
although it is not within the letter thereof, and that which is
within the letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute.
Stated differently, a thing which is within the intent of the
lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the letter; and
a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the
statute unless within the intent of the lawmakers." 14

In requiring written notice, Article 1088 seeks to ensure that the

redemptioner is properly notified of the sale and to indicate the
date of such notice as the starting time of the 30-day period of
redemption. Considering the shortness of the period, it is really
necessary, as a general rule, to pinpoint the precise date it is
supposed to begin, to obviate any problem of alleged delays,
sometimes consisting of only a day or two. chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The instant case presents no such problem because the right of

redemption was invoked not days but years after the sales were
made in 1963 and 1964. The complaint was filed by Tecla Padua
in 1977, thirteen years after the first sale and fourteen years after
the second sale. The delay invoked by the petitioners extends to
more than a decade, assuming of course that there was a valid
notice that tolled the running of the period of redemption.

Was there a valid notice? Granting that the law requires the notice
to be written, would such notice be necessary in this case?
Assuming there was a valid notice although it was not in writing,
would there be any question that the 30-day period for
redemption had expired long before the complaint was filed in
1977?

In the face of the established facts, we cannot accept the private

respondents’ pretense that they were unaware of the sales made

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 8/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

by their brother and sister in 1963 and 1964. By requiring written

proof of such notice, we would be closing our eyes to the obvious
truth in favor of their palpably false claim of ignorance, thus
exalting the letter of the law over its purpose. The purpose is
clear enough: to make sure that the redemptioners are duly
notified. We are satisfied that in this case the other brothers and
sisters were actually informed, although not in writing, of the
sales made in 1963 and 1964, and that such notice was sufficient.

Now, when did the 30-day period of redemption begin?

While we do not here declare that this period started from the
dates of such sales in 1963 and 1964, we do say that sometime
between those years and 1976, when the first complaint for
redemption was filed, the other co-heirs were actually informed of
the sale and that thereafter the 30-day period started running
and ultimately expired. This could have happened any time during
the interval of thirteen years, when none of the co-heirs made a
move to redeem the properties sold. By 1977, in other words,
when Tecla Padua filed her complaint, the right of redemption had
already been extinguished because the period for its exercise had
already expired.

The following doctrine is also worth noting: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"While the general rule is, that to charge a party with laches in
the assertion of an alleged right it is essential that he should have
knowledge of the facts upon which he bases his claim, yet if the
circumstances were such as should have induced inquiry, and the
means of ascertaining the truth were readily available upon
inquiry, but the party neglects to make it, he will be chargeable
with laches, the same as if he had known the facts." 15

It was the perfectly natural thing for the co-heirs to wonder why
the spouses Alonzo, who were not among them, should enclose a
portion of the inherited lot and build thereon a house of strong
materials. This definitely was not the act of a temporary
possessor or a mere mortgagee. This certainly looked like an act
of ownership. Yet, given this unseemly situation, none of the co-
heirs saw fit to object or at least inquire, to ascertain the facts,
which were readily available. It took all of thirteen years before
one of them chose to claim the right of redemption, but then it

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 9/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

was already too late. chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

We realize that in arriving at our conclusion today, we are

deviating from the strict letter of the law, which the respondent
court understandably applied pursuant to existing jurisprudence.
The said court acted properly as it had no competence to reverse
the doctrines laid down by this Court in the above-cited cases. In
fact, and this should be clearly stressed, we ourselves are not
abandoning the De Conejero and Buttle doctrines. What we are
doing simply is adopting an exception to the general rule, in view
of the peculiar circumstances of this case.

The co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed of the sales

although no notice in writing was given them. And there is no
doubt either that the 30-day period began and ended during the
14 years between the sales in question and the filing of the
complaint for redemption in 1977, without the co-heirs exercising
their right of redemption. These are the justifications for this
exception.

More than twenty centuries ago, Justinian defined justice "as the
constant and perpetual wish to render every one his due." 16
That wish continues to motivate this Court when it assesses the
facts and the law in every case brought to it for decision. Justice
is always an essential ingredient of its decisions. Thus when the
facts warrants, we interpret the law in a way that will render
justice, presuming that it was the intention of the lawmaker, to
begin with, that the law be dispensed with justice. So we have
done in this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision of the

respondent court is REVERSED and that of the trial court is
reinstated, without any pronouncement as to costs. It is so
ordered.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr.,

Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Fernan and Feliciano, JJ., on leave.

Endnotes:

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 10/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

1. Rollo, p. 5.

2. Ibid., p. 6.

3. Id., p. 64.

4. Id.

5. Id., p. 21.

6. Id., p. 21.

* Presided by Judge Cezar D. Francisco.

7. Id., p. 65.

8. Id., p. 5.

9. Id., p. 64.

10. Id., p. 26.

** Gaviola, Jr., P.J., ponente, Caguioa, Quetulio-Losa &

Luciano, JJ.,

11. 16 SCRA 775.

12. 4 SCRA 527.

13. Dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438.

14. Statutory Construction, Ruben E. Agpalo, pp. 64-

65, 1986, citing Manila Race Horse Trainers’ Assn. v.
De la Fuente, 88 Phil. 60; Go Chi v. Go Cho, 96 Phil.
622; Hidalgo v. Hidalgo, 33 SCRA 105; Roa v. Collector
of Customs, 23 Phil. 315; Villanueva v. City of Iloilo,
26 SCRA 578; People v. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542; US v.
Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128.

15. Ater v. Smith 245 Ill. 57, 19 Am. Cases 105.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 11/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

16. Institutes 1, 1, pr. as cited in Handbook for Roman

Law, Miravite, Lorenzo F., p. 39, 1981.

Back to Home | Back to Main

Search

ChanRobles
Professional Review,
Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line
Bar Review

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 12/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

ChanRobles CPA
Review Online

ChanRobles Special
Lecture Series

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 13/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 14/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

SPONSORED SEARCHES

alonzo boutique

ojos alonzo

lunette alonzo

civil appellate

letter of intent

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 15/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

SPONSORED SEARCHES

appellate court

criminal case

appellate law

alonzo boutique

ojos alonzo

SPONSORED SEARCHES

court cases today

nd law cases

civil law

criminal case

appellate court

May-1987
Jurisprudence

G.R. Nos. L-35668-72

& L-35683 May 7, 1987
- COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE v.
REPUBLIC CEMENT
CORPORATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-46956

May 7, 1987 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO
DECIERDO

G.R. No. L-47498

May 7, 1987 -
PETRONILO LIGTAS v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-47695

May 7, 1987 -
CERTIFIED CLUBS, INC.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 16/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. L-56504

May 7, 1987 -
POMPILLO VALERA, ET
AL. v. SANCHO Y.
INSERTO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-67220

May 7, 1987 - ILVINO
AGALO-OS, ET AL. v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 72746 May

7, 1987 - BERNARDA S.
CANONIZADO v.
REGINA ORDOÑEZ
BENITEZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. 75919 May

7, 1987 - MANCHESTER
DEV. CORP., ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-68635

May 14, 1987 - IN RE:
ATTY. WENCESLAO
LAURETA

G.R. No. L-41642-45

May 15, 1987 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO
DAVA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-48738

May 18, 1987 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO
P. SAAVEDRA

G.R. No. 73287 May

18, 1987 -
INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER MACLEOD,
INC. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-63558

May 19, 1987 - JOSE
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 17/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

ABEJO, ET AL. v. RAFAEL

DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-40648

May 20, 1987 -
MERCEDES S.
MARASIGAN v. AMADEO
H. CRUZ

G.R. No. L-47720

May 20, 1987 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v.
NEMESIO TUANDO

G.R. No. L-48664

May 20, 1987 -
GLICERIA C.
CASUMPANG v.
EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-56265

May 20, 1987 - JOSE T.
TOLENTINO v. COURT
OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-56568

May 20, 1987 -
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. E.L.
PERALTA

G.R. No. L-65831

May 20, 1987 - CELSO
DEFALOBOS v.
GREGORIO U.
AQUILIZAN

G.R. No. 73275 May

20, 1987 - FLOCERFINA
BARANDA v.
EVANGELINA G.
BARANDA

G.R. No. L-74848

May 20, 1987 -
HOUDINI IBABAO v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. L-55166

May 21, 1987 - ELISA R.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 18/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

MANOTOK v. NATIONAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY

G.R. No. L-55339

May 21, 1987 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v.
LEODEGARIO LADRERA

G.R. No. L-64334

May 21, 1987 - PHILAM
GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 74652 May

21, 1987 - LUCIO
DULPO v.
SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. L-54558

May 22, 1987 -
EDUARDO B. OLAGUER
v. MILITARY
COMMISSION NO. 34

G.R. No. 75885 May

27, 1987 - BATAAN
SHIPYARD & ENG’G CO.,
INC. v. PRES.
COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOV’T.

G.R. No. L-72873

May 28, 1987 - CARLOS
ALONZO v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

A.M. No. R-97-RTJ

May 28, 1987 - COURT
ADMINISTRATOR v.
RODOLFO G. HERMOSO

G.R. No. L-29771

May 29, 1987 -
CONSOLACION L. DE
APARICIO v. HIPOLITO
PARAGUYA

G.R. No. L-31890

May 29, 1987 -
PEOPLE’S HOMESITE
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 19/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

AND HOUSING CORP. v.

COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-35598

May 29, 1987 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v.
LEONARDO DE LOS
SANTOS

G.R. No. L-36790

May 29, 1987 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE
INOT

G.R. No. L-39805

May 29, 1987 - IFC-
SERVICE LEASING &
ACCEPTANCE CORP. v.
SARMIENTO
DISTRIBUTORS CORP.

G.R. No. L-40195

May 29, 1987 -
VICTORIA R. VALLARTA
v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-44993

May 29, 1987 -
ERIBERTO H. DECENA v.
THE ADMINISTRATOR,
PHIL. VETERANS
AFFAIRS OFFICE

G.R. Nos. L-45492 &

L-45493 May 29, 1987 -
ERNESTO ASUNCION v.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-46980

May 29, 1987 -
AUGUSTO BALDE v.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-49088

May 29, 1987 - JOSE V.
IGNACIO v.
BUENAVENTURA J.
GUERRERO

G.R. No. L-49223

May 29, 1987 -
PHILIPPINE
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 20/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL BANK v.
RODOLFO ORTIZ

G.R. No. L-50420

May 29, 1987 -
REMEDIOS FERRER-
LOPEZ v. COURT OF
APPEALS

G.R. No. L-51034

May 29, 1987 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v.
MARCELO M. VALDEZ

G.R. No. L-56249

May 29, 1987 - RAMONA
B. VDA. DE ARANAS v.
VICENTE B. ARANAS

G.R. No. L-58654

May 29, 1987 -
AGUSTIN GUTIERREZ,
JR. v. ANTONIA C.
MACANDOG

G.R. Nos. L-59711-12

May 29, 1987 -
PROGRESSIVE
WORKERS’ UNION v.
FLAVIO P. AGUAS

G.R. No. L-62741

May 29, 1987 -
FILIPINAS
MANUFACTURERS BANK
v. EASTERN RIZAL
FABRICATORS

G.R. No. L-68729

May 29, 1987 - RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS OF
THE PHIL. v. NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-69027

May 29, 1987 -
NARCISO R. LACUNA v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 21/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

G.R. No. L-69044

May 29, 1987 -
EASTERN SHIPPING
LINES, INC. v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. L-69422

May 29, 1987 -
DOMICIANO CABIGAO v.
SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. L-69477

May 29, 1987 - LETICIA
GONZALES v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. L-69494

May 29, 1987 - A.C.
RANSOM LABOR UNION-
CCLU v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION

G.R. No. 71049 May

29, 1987 -
BERNARDINO JIMENEZ
v. CITY OF MANILA

G.R. No. 72005 May

29, 1987 - PHILIPPINE
BRITISH ASSURANCE
CO., INC. v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 72119 May

29, 1987 - VALENTIN L.
LEGASPI v. CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-72370

May 29, 1987 - BF
NORTHWEST
HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 72405 May

29, 1987 - PACMAC,

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 22/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

INC. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 73140 May

29, 1987 - RIZAL
EMPIRE INSURANCE
GROUP v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION

G.R. No. 73804 May

29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. FELIPE
BRAVANTE

G.R. No. 73271 May

29, 1987 - TIRSO I.
VINTOLA v. INSULAR
BANK OF ASIA AND
AMERICA

G.R. No. 73349 May

29, 1987 - PHILSA
CONSTRUCTION AND
TRADING CO. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION

G.R. No. 73976 May

29, 1987 -
CONSOLIDATED BANK
and TRUST CORP. v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 74113 May

29, 1987 - GREAT
PACIFIC LIFE
ASSURANCE CORP. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION

G.R. No. 78492 May

29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. DICK
OCAPAN

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 23/24
11/6/2020 G.R. No. L-72873 May 28, 1987 - CARLOS ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT : May 1987 - Philipppine Supreme Court …

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987maydecisions.php?id=213 24/24