9/24/2019 G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

ET AL. : DECEMBER 1998 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JUR…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > December 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 124862 December
22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124862. December 22, 1998.]

FE D. QUITA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and BLANDINA DANDAN, * respondents.

DECISION

BELLOSILLO, J.:

FE D. QUITA and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. They
were not however blessed with children. Somewhere along the way their relationship soured. Eventually
Fe sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. She submitted in the divorce proceedings a
private writing dated 19 July 1950 evidencing their agreement to live separately from each other and a
settlement of their conjugal properties. On 23 July 1954 she obtained a final judgment of divorce. Three
(3) weeks thereafter she married a certain Felix Tupaz in the same locality but their relationship also
ended in a divorce. Still in the U.S.A., she married for the third time, to a certain Wernimont. chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On 16 April 1972 Arturo died. He left no will. On 31 August 1972 Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for issuance of letters of administration concerning the estate of
Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust Company. Respondent Blandina Dandan (also referred to as
Blandina Padlan), claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan, and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo,
Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan, named in the petition as surviving children of
Arturo Padlan, opposed the petition and prayed for the appointment instead of Atty. Leonardo Cabasal,
which was resolved in favor of the latter. Upon motion of the oppositors themselves, Atty. Cabasal was
later replaced by Higino Castillon. On 30 April 1973 the oppositors (Blandina and the Padlan children)
submitted certified photocopies of the 19 July 1950 private writing and the final judgment of divorce
between petitioner and Arturo. Later Ruperto T. Padlan, claiming to be the sole surviving brother of the
deceased Arturo, intervened.

On 7 October 1987 petitioner moved for the immediate declaration of heirs of the decedent and the
distribution of his estate. At the scheduled hearing on 23 October 1987, private respondent as well as the
six (6) Padlan children and Ruperto failed to appear despite due notice. On the same day, the trial court
required the submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children within ten (10) days from receipt
thereof, after which, with or without the documents, the issue on the declaration of heirs would be
considered submitted for resolution. The prescribed period lapsed without the required documents being
submitted.

The trial court invoking Tenchavez v. Escaño 1 which held that "a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens
sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386) was not entitled to
recognition as valid in this jurisdiction," 2 disregarded the divorce between petitioner and Arturo.
Consequently, it expressed the view that their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo in 1972.
Neither did it consider valid their extrajudicial settlement of conjugal properties due to lack of judicial
approval. 3 On the other hand, it opined that there was no showing that marriage existed between
ChanRobles Intellectual Property private respondent and Arturo, much less was it shown that the alleged Padlan children had been
Division acknowledged by the deceased as his children with her. As regards Ruperto, it found that he was a
brother of Arturo. On 27 November 1987 4 only petitioner and Ruperto were declared the intestate heirs

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1998decemberdecisions.php?id=1127 1/6
9/24/2019 G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : DECEMBER 1998 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JUR…
December-1998 Jurisprudence               petitioner herself even recognizes them as heirs of Arturo Padlan; 10 nor as to their respective hereditary
  
[G.R. No. 126518 : December 02, 1998] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
RODELIO BUGAYONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 122629 : December 02, 1998] PEPSI
COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., PETITIONER, VS.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SIXTO MARELLA, JR., SPS.
EDGARDO DE VERA AND SALVACION LOCSIN DE VERA
AND ANNA A. LOCSIN, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 80849 : December 02, 1998] STA. INES
MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR.,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT;
HON. SAMILO N. BARLONGAY, ACTING DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT;
HON. SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES; HON.
DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT;
AGUSAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. ANDÂ KALILID
WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO.
81114 : DECEMBER 2, 1998] STA. INES MELALE
FOREST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
HON. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
AGUSAN DEL NORTE BUTUAN CITY, BRANCH V, THE
PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE
BUTUAN CITY AND KALILID WOOD INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 129079 : December 02, 1998] REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY,
PETITIONER, VS. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE,
PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, IMUS, CAVITE, BRANCH
20; AND HELENA Z. BENITEZ, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 129584 : December 03, 1998] TRIPLE
EIGHT INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER,
VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
HON. LABOR ARBITER POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES,
JR. AND ERLINDA R. OSDANA, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 127276 : December 03, 1998]
DASMARIÑAS VILLAGE ASSOCIATION,INC.,
BERNARDO LICHAYTOO, ANTONIO P. TAMBUNTING,
EMIL A. ANDRES AND CAPT. JERRY CODILLA,
PETITIONERS VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI (FORMERLY
BRANCH 66 NOW BRANCH 147) AND COLEGIO SAN
AGUSTIN, INC., RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 123979 : December 03, 1998] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS., ALIPIO
SANTIANO, JOSE SANDIGAN, ARMENIA PILLUETA
AND JOSE VICENTE (JOVY) CHANCO ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
[G.R. Nos. 117166-67 : December 03, 1998]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. RANDY MANTES, JEROME GARCIA, JOVY
VELASCO, AND DOMINGO FRANCISCO, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
[A.M. MTJ-98-1166 : December 04, 1998] ANDRES
GUILLEN, EULALIO GUILLEN, VICENTE CID, AND
JIMMY BAYAG, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE
APRONIANO B. NICOLAS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1998decemberdecisions.php?id=1127
of Arturo. Accordingly, equal adjudication of the net hereditary estate was ordered in favor of the two
intestate heirs. 5
On motion for reconsideration, Blandina and the Padlan children were allowed to present proofs that the
recognition of the children by the deceased as his legitimate children, except Alexis who was recognized
as his illegitimate child, had been made in their respective records of birth. Thus on 15 February 1988 6
partial reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children, with the exception of Alexis, entitled to
one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and petitioner to the other half. 7 Private
respondent was not declared an heir. Although it was stated in the aforementioned records of birth that
she and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947, their marriage was clearly void since it was celebrated
during the existence of his previous marriage to petitioner.
In their appeal to the Court of Appeals, Blandina and her children assigned as one of the errors allegedly
committed by the trial court the circumstance that the case was decided without a hearing; in violation of
Sec. 1, Rule 90, of the Rules of Court, which provides that if there is a controversy before the court as to
who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is
entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
Respondent appellate court found this ground alone sufficient to sustain the appeal; hence, on 11
September 1995 it declared null and void the 27 November 1987 decision and 15 February 1988 order of
the trial court, and directed the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 8 On 18
April 1996 it denied reconsideration. 9
Should this case be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings? Petitioner insists that there is
no need because, first, no legal or factual issue obtains for resolution either as to the heirship of the
Padlan children or as to their respective shares in the intestate estate of the decedent; and, second, the
issue as to who between petitioner and private respondent is the proper heir of the decedent is one of
law which can be resolved in the present petition based on established facts and admissions of the
parties.
We cannot sustain petitioner. The provision relied upon by respondent courts is clear: If there is a
controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the
distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and
decided as in ordinary cases. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
We agree with petitioner that no dispute exists either as to the right of the six (6) Padlan children to
inherit from the decedent because there are proofs that they have been duly acknowledged by him and
shares. But controversy remains as to who is the legitimate surviving spouse of Arturo. The trial court,
after the parties other than petitioner failed to appear during the scheduled hearing on 23 October 1987
of the motion for immediate declaration of heirs and distribution of estate, simply issued an order
requiring the submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children within ten (10) days from receipt
thereof, after which, with or without the documents, the issue on declaration of heirs would be deemed
submitted for resolution.
We note that in her comment to petitioner’s motion private respondent raised, among others, the issue
as to whether petitioner was still entitled to inherit from the decedent considering that she had secured a
divorce in the U.S.A. and in fact had twice remarried. She also invoked the above quoted procedural rule.
11 To this, petitioner replied that Arturo was a Filipino and as such remained legally married to her in
spite of the divorce they obtained. 12 Reading between the lines, the implication is that petitioner was no
longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her divorce from Arturo. This should have prompted the trial court
to conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship. The purpose of a hearing is to ascertain the truth of the
matters in issue with the aid of documentary and testimonial evidence as well as the arguments of the
parties either supporting or opposing the evidence. Instead, the lower court perfunctorily settled her
claim in her favor by merely applying the ruling in Tenchavez v. Escaño.
Then in private respondent’s motion to set aside and/or reconsider the lower court’s decision she
stressed that the citizenship of petitioner was relevant in the light of the ruling in Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr.
13 that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are
valid according to their national law. She prayed therefore that the case be set for hearing. 14 Petitioner
opposed the motion but failed to squarely address the issue on her citizenship. 15 The trial court did not
grant private respondent’s prayer for a hearing but proceeded to resolve her motion with the finding that
both petitioner and Arturo were "Filipino citizens and were married in the Philippines." 16 It maintained
that their divorce obtained in 1954 in San Francisco, California, U.S.A., was not valid in Philippine
jurisdiction. We deduce that the finding on their citizenship pertained solely to the time of their marriage
as the trial court was not supplied with a basis to determine petitioner’s citizenship at the time of their
divorce. The doubt persisted as to whether she was still a Filipino citizen when their divorce was decreed.
The trial court must have overlooked the materiality of this aspect. Once proved that she was no longer a
Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce, Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very
well lose her right to inherit from Arturo.
Respondent again raised in her appeal the issue on petitioner’s citizenship; 17 it did not merit
enlightenment however from petitioner. 18 In the present proceeding, petitioner’s citizenship is brought
anew to the fore by private Respondent. She even furnishes the Court with the transcript of stenographic
notes taken on 5 May 1995 during the hearing for the reconstitution of the original of a certain transfer
certificate title as well as the issuance of new owner’s duplicate copy thereof before another trial court.
When asked whether she was an American citizen petitioner answered that she was since 1954. 19
Significantly, the decree of divorce of petitioner and Arturo was obtained in the same year. Petitioner
however did not bother to file a reply memorandum to erase the uncertainty about her citizenship at the
time of their divorce, a factual issue requiring hearings to be conducted by the trial court. Consequently,
respondent appellate court did not err in ordering the case returned to the trial court for further
proceedings.
cralawnad
We emphasize however that the question to be determined by the trial court should be limited only to the
right of petitioner to inherit from Arturo as his surviving spouse. Private respondent’s claim to heirship
was already resolved by the trial court. She and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 while the prior
marriage of petitioner and Arturo was subsisting thereby resulting in a bigamous marriage considered
void from the beginning under Arts. 80 and 83 of the Civil Code. Consequently, she is not a surviving
spouse that can inherit from him as this status presupposes a legitimate relationship. 20
As regards the motion of private respondent for petitioner and her counsel to be declared in contempt of
court and that the present petition be dismissed for forum shopping, 21 the same lacks merit. For forum
shopping to exist the actions must involve the same transactions and same essential facts and
circumstances. There must also be identical causes of action, subject matter and issue. 22 The present
petition deals with declaration of heirship while the subsequent petitions filed before the three (3) trial
courts concern the issuance of new owner’s duplicate copies of titles of certain properties belonging to
the estate of Arturo. Obviously, there is no reason to declare the existence of forum shopping.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals ordering the remand of
the case to the court of origin for further proceedings and declaring null and void its decision holding
petitioner Fe D. Quita and Ruperto T. Padlan as intestate heirs is AFFIRMED. The order of the appellate
court modifying its previous decision by granting one-half (½) of the net hereditary estate to the Padlan
children, namely, Claro, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, with the exception of Alexis, all
2/6
9/24/2019 G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : DECEMBER 1998 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JUR…
COURT OF PIDDIG-SOLSONA-CARASI, ILOCOS surnamed Padlan, instead of Arturo’s brother Ruperto Padlan, is likewise AFFIRMED. The Court however
NORTE, RESPONDENT. emphasizes that the reception of evidence by the trial court should be limited to the hereditary rights of
petitioner as the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan.
[G.R. No. 130401 : December 04, 1998] LEONARDO
ARCENAS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
The motion to declare petitioner and her counsel in contempt of court and to dismiss the present petition
CARMELITA ARCENAS VILLANUEVA, PETITIONERS,
for forum shopping is DENIED.
VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARMIE E. ELMA,
PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 153, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF PASIG CITY, AND JOSE DELA RIVA, SO ORDERED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

RESPONDENTS.
Puno, Mendoza and Martinez, JJ., concur.
[G.R. No. 127393 : December 04, 1998] SPOUSES
VALENTINO ORTIZ AND CAMILLA MILAN ORTIZ,
PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES Endnotes:
FRANCISCO AND BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ,
RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 129567 : December 04, 1998] JOCELYN

* The name of private respondent Blandina Dandan appears as Blandina Padlan in the
LABARO, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, EVELYN proceedings before the lower courts.
LABARO, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE VINCENT
EDEN C. PANAY AND ALFREDO AVIADOR, 1. No. L-19671, 29 November 1965, 15 SCRA 355.
RESPONDENTS.
2. Id., p. 367.
[G.R. No. 126444 : December 04, 1998] ALFONSO
QUIJADA, CRESENTE QUIJADA, REYNELDA QUIJADA, 3. Then Art. 190 of the Civil Code provided that in the absence of an express declaration in
DEMETRIO QUIJADA, ELIUTERIA QUIJADA, EULALIO the marriage settlement, the separation of property between spouses during the marriage
QUIJADA, AND WARLITO QUIJADA, PETITIONERS, shall not take place save in virtue of a judicial order. Quite in relation thereto, then Art.
VS. COURT OF APPEALS, REGALADO MONDEJAR,
191, par. 4 of the same Code provided that the husband and the wife may agree upon the
RODULFO GOLORAN, ALBERTO ASIS, SEGUNDINO
dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the marriage, subject to judicial approval.
RAS, ERNESTO GOLORAN, CELSO ABISO, FERNANDO
BAUTISTA, ANTONIO MACASERO, AND NESTOR
MAGUINSAY, RESPONDENTS. 4. Decision penned by Judge Tomas V. Tadeo Jr. of RTC-Br. 105, Quezon City; Appendix
"A" of Brief for the Oppositors-Appellants; CA Rollo, p. 15.
[G.R. No. 124500 : December 04, 1998]
PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY AND 5. Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides that should brothers and sisters or their children
INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., RICARDO BONA AND survive with the widow or widower, the later shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance
SEVERO SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSI0N AND FLORENTINO
LAMSEN, RESPONDENTS. 6. Appendix "B" of Brief for the Oppositors-Appellants; See Note 4.
[G.R. No. 118438 : December 04, 1998] ALLIED
7. Article 998 of the Civil Code provides that if a widow or widower survives with
AGRI-BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., VS. COURT
illegitimate children, such widow or widower shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance,
OF APPEALS AND CHERRY VALLEY FARMS LIMITED,
RESPONDENTS.
and the illegitimate children or their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to the
other half.
[G.R. No. 111257 : December 04, 1998] MERCEDES
DEIPARINE, RUFINA DEIPARINE, POLICARPIO 8. Decision penned by Justice Pacita Cañizares-Nye with the concurrence of Justices
DEIPARINE, NICHOLAS DEIPARINE, FRANCISCO Romeo J. Callejo Jr. and Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis; Rollo, p. 39.
DEIPARINE, JR., ARESENIO DEIPARINE, DINA
CANADA, THERESA DEIPARINE, SOLITA DEIPARINE, 9. Id., p. 42.
JULIO DEIPARINE, TEOFILO DEIPARINE, ELEUTERIO
DEIPARINE, DANTE DEIPARINE, ESTRELLA 10. Id., p. 180.
DEIPARINE AND NICHOLAS DEIPARINE
PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
11. Rollo, p. 196.
(FIRSTDIVISION), VICENTA DEIPARINE, FORTUNATO
DEIPARINE, FELICISIMA DEIPARINE, SALVADOR
DEIPARINE, JR., RESTITUTA DEIPARINE, CHILDREN
12. CA Rollo, p. 29.
AND HEIRS OF DECEASED SALVADOR DEIPARINE,
JR., IRENEO LAROA, DOMINGO LAROA, AND 13. G.R. No. 68470, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 139.
CONCEPCION LAROA, CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF
DECEASED FILOMENA DEIPARINE; FROILAN 14. CA Rollo, p. 30.
SEGUERRA, ONLY SON AND HEIRS OF LATE
SUPRIANA DEIPARINE; IGNACIA DEIPARINE, ANA 15. Record on Appeal, pp. 24-26.
DEIPARINE, AND PEDRO DEIPARINE, CHILDREN AND
HEIRS OF DECEASED SEGUNDO DEIPARINE, RUFO 16. Rollo, p. 206.
ABALO, AURELIA ABALAO AND MAGDALENA ABALAO,
CHILDREN AND HEIRS OF DECEASED MACARIA
17. Brief of Oppositors-Appellants, p. 13; CA Rollo, p. 15.
DEIPARINE, LEO D. BACUS, PEDRO D. BACUS,
DORICA D. BACUS, DIONISIOÂ D. BACUS, AND
PRUDY D. BACUS, HEIRS OF DECEASED JUSTINIANI
18. Brief of Appellee; Id., p. 17.
DEIPARINE. RESPONDENTS.
19. Rollo, pp. 225-226.
[G.R. No. 77865 : December 04, 1998] PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL OLIVAREZ, 20. Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the
JR., AND DANILO ARELLANO, APPELLANTS. Philippines, 1979 Ed., Vol. III, p. 264.

[G.R. No. 109148 : December 04, 1998] PEOPLE OF 21. Rollo, pp. 129-132.
THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
ERNESTO BELO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. 22. Professional Regulation Commission v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117817, 9 July 1998.
[G.R. No. 130716 : December 09, 1998]
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT (PCGG) AND MAGTANGGOL
GUNIGUNDO, (IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF
THE PCGG), RESPONDENTS. GLORIA A. JOPSON,
Back to Home | Back to Main
CELNAN A. JOPSON, SCARLET A. JOPSON, AND
TERESA A. JOPSON, PETITIONERS-IN-
INTERVENTION.
QUICK SEARCH
[G.R. No. 127529 : December 10, 1998] PEPSI
COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING CO.), PETITIONER, VS.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
RENE ESTILO, RESPONDENTS.
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
[G.R. No. 119092 : December 10, 1998] SANITARY 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
STEAM LAUNDRY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT
OF APPEALS, NICANOR BERNABE III, JOSEFINA 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
BERNABE, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
AS HEIRS OF JASON BERNABE, JOHN JOSEPH
BERNABE, VICTOR IGNACIO, JULIETA ENRIQUEZ AND 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
RAMON ENRIQUEZ, RENE TABLANTE, LEOMAR 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
MACASPAC, JR., CHARITO ESTOLANO, NENITA
SALUNOY, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
AS HEIRS OF DALMACIO SALUNOY, RESPONDENTS. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

[G.R. NO. 90301 : December 10, 1998] THE PEOPLE 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
JUANCHO GATCHALIAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1998decemberdecisions.php?id=1127 3/6
9/24/2019 G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : DECEMBER 1998 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JUR…
G.R. No. 126518 December 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
THE PHIL. v. RODELIO BUGAYONG
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. Nos. 80849 & 81114 December 2, 1998 - STA. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
INES MELALE FOREST PRODUCTS, CORP. v. CATALINO
MACARAIG, JR. ET AL.

G.R. No. 129079 December 2, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF

THE PHIL. v. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 122629 December 2, 1998 - PCPPI v. Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 117166-67 December 3, 1998 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHILS. v. RANDY MANTES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 129584 December 3, 1998 - TRIPLE EIGHT

INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 127276 December 3, 1998 - DASMARIÑAS

VILL. ASSN., INC. ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 123979 December 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ALIPIO SANTIANO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 111257 December 4, 1998 - MERCEDES

DEIPARINE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

A.M. MTJ No. 98-1166 December 4, 1998 - ANDRES

GUILLEN, ET AL. v. APRONIANO B. NICOLAS

G.R. No. 109148 December 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILS. v. ERNESTO BELO

G.R. No. 129567 December 4, 1998 - JOCELYN

LABARO v. VINCENT EDEN C. PANAY, ET AL.

G.R. No. 118438 December 4, 1998 - ALLIED AGRI-

BUSINESS DEV. CO., INC., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 124500 December 4, 1998 - PSVSIA, ET

AL. v. NLRC and FLORENTINO LAMSEN

G.R. No. 126444 December 4, 1998 - ALFONSO

QUIJADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 130401 December 4, 1998 - LEONARDO

ARCENAS v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 77865 December 4, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. RAFAEL OLIVAREZ, JR., ET AL.

G.R. No. 127393 December 4, 1998 - VALENTIN

ORTIZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 130716 December 9, 1998 - FRANCISCO I.

CHAVEZ, v. PCGG. ET AL.

G.R. No. 90301 December 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. JUANCHO GATCHALIAN

G.R. No. 119092 December 10, 1998 - SANITARY

STEAM LAUNDRY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 127395 December 10, 1998 - PHIL.

TOBACCO FLUE-CURING & REDRYING CORP. v. NLRC,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 127529 December 10, 1998 - PEPSI COLA

PRODUCTS PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 121071 December 11, 1998 - PHIL.

FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES v. NLRC, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 125894 December 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. NARITO ARANETA

G.R. No. 126575 December 11, 1998 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. OMAR MEDINA

G.R. No. 131248 December 11, 1998 - DUNLOP

SLAZENGER (PHILS.) v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

G.R. No. 124329 December 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. CESAR MASALIHIT

G.R. No. 88202 December 14, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILS. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

ADM. CASE No. 1037 December 14, 1998 -

VICTORIANO P. RESURRECCION v. CIRIACO C.
SAYSON

A.M. No. MTJ-98-1173 December 15, 1998 -

CARLITOS D. LAZO v. ANTONIO V. TIONG

G.R. No. 103533 December 15, 1998 - MJCI, ET AL.

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 120575 December 16, 1998 - OLIVIA S.

PASCUAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

A.M. No. SDC-98-3 December 16, 1998 - ERLINDA

ALONTO-FRAYNA v. ABDULMAJID J. ASTIH

G.R. No. 101240 December 16, 1998 - QUEZON

DEV. BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1998decemberdecisions.php?id=1127 4/6
9/24/2019 G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : DECEMBER 1998 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JUR…
G.R. No. 127906 December 16, 1998 - VIOLETA
BATARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 128619-21 December 17, 1998 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHILS. v. ELEUTERIO DIMAPILIS

G.R. Nos. 123191 & 123442 December 17, 1998 -

OSCAR L. GOZOS, ET AL. v. PATERNO C. TAC-AN, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 116155 December 17, 1998 - FRANCISCO

GULANG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

A.M. No. P-95-1167 December 21, 1998 -

CARMELITA L. LLEDO v. CESAR V. LLEDO

G.R. No. 115452 December 21, 1998 - INTL.

CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 134307 December 21, 1998 - EDUARDO M.

COJUANGCO, JR., v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 118464 December 21, 1998 - HEIRS OF

IGNACIO CONTI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 120677 December 21, 1998 - FOOD

TRADERS HOUSE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 83106 December 21, 1998 - ADELAIDA

KALUBIRAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128907 December 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO TIRONA

G.R. No. 130057 December 22, 1998 - HERMOGINA

U. BULILAN v. COA

G.R. No. 130339 December 22, 1998 - OMANFIL

INT’L. MANPOWER DEV. CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 111455 December 23, 1998 - MARISSA A.

MOSSESGELD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 121791 December 23, 1998 - ENRIQUE

SALAFRANCA v. PHILAMLIFE VILL. HOMEOWNERS
ASSN., ET AL.

G.R. No. 123421 December 28, 1998 - DANILO J.

MAGOS v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 134495 December 28, 1998 - PERFECTO R.

YASAY, JR. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 113445 December 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. NICANDRO ABRIA

G.R. No. 124957 December 29, 1998 - MASTER

SHIRT CO. INC. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 121171 December 29, 1998 - ASSET

PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 126442 December 29, 1998 - FELICITO

BAGUIO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO B. BANDAL, ET AL.

G.R. No. 125715 December 29, 1998 - RICARDO F.

MARQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128395 December 29, 1998 - STOLT-

NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 129774 December 29, 1998 - NARCISO A.

TADEO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

G.R. No. 129998 December 29, 1998 - NAPOCOR v.

LOURDES HENSON, ET AL.

G.R. No. 129760 December 29, 1998 - RICARDO

CHENG v. RAMON B. GENATO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 108580 December 29, 1998 - CLARITA P.

HERMOSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 125948 December 29, 1998 - FIRST PHIL.

INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 117609 December 29, 1998 - HEIRS OF

SEVERA P. GREGORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 126703 December 29, 1998 - GANDARA

MILL SUPPLY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 110029-30 December 29, 1998 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO GARGAR, ET AL.

G.R. No. 132524 December 29, 1998 - FEDERICO C.

SUNTAY v. ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY, ET AL.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1998decemberdecisions.php?id=1127 5/6
9/24/2019 G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 - FE D. QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : DECEMBER 1998 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JUR…
| chanrobles.com™
 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™
RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1998decemberdecisions.php?id=1127 6/6