JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

1/10

Law Against Court Marriage Marriage Divorces Divorce Lawfirm

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

2/10

9/11/13 G.R. No. 131286 - JOSE LAM v. ADRIANA CHUA

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2004/mar2004/gr_131286_2004.php 2

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 131286 - March 18, 2004]

JOSE LAM,Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorariassailing the Decision1 dated June11, 1997 and the Resolution dated October 27, 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.CV. No. 51107, entitled, "Adriana Chua, Petitioner-Appellee v. Jose Lam, Respondent-Appellant."c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l l a w l i b r a r y

The case commenced on March 11, 1994 upon the filing of a petition for declaration ofnullity of marriage by Adriana Chua against Jose Lam in the Regional Trial Court ofPasay City (Branch 109). Adriana alleged in the petition that: she and Jose were marriedon January 13, 1984; out of said marriage, they begot one son, John Paul Chua Lam;Jose was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligationsof marriage but said incapacity was not then apparent; such psychological incapacity ofJose became manifest only after the celebration of the marriage when he frequentlyfailed to go home, indulged in womanizing and irresponsible activities, such as,mismanaging the conjugal partnership of gains; in order to save what was left of theconjugal properties, she was forced to agree with Jose on the dissolution of theirconjugal partnership of gains and the separation of present and future properties; saidagreement was approved by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 149) in aDecision dated February 28, 1994; they had long been separated in bed and board; theyhave agreed that the custody of their child will be with her, subject to visitation rightsof Jose. Adriana prayed that the marriage between her and Jose be declared null and

void but she fai led to claim and pray for the support of their child, John Paul.

Summons was duly served on Jose Lam on March 22, 1994. Despite the lapse of fifteendays after service of summons, no responsive pleading was filed by him. Hence, the trialcourt issued an Order dated April 13, 1994, directing Asst. City Prosecutor BonifacioBarrera to conduct an investigation for determination whether or not there was collusionbetween the parties and to submit his report thereon. On April 28, 1994, Asst. CityProsecutor Barrera filed his Report stating that "there seems to be no collusion between

the parties".2

The trial court then set the case for hearing. The lone witness was Adriana herself. Shetestified that her marriage with Jose was arranged by her parents in the traditionalChinese way; that her married life was abnormal because Jose very seldom came home,never worked for a living and instead kept asking for money from her to buy his sportscars; that she was also the one spending for all the expenses of their only child, John

Paul.3 After her testimony, counsel for Adriana formally offered the documentary

evidence. No evidence was presented regarding the amount of support needed by JohnPaul or the capacity of Jose to give support.

On June 23, 1994, Adriana filed an Urgent Motion to Re-Open4 on the ground that shewas able to secure additional new evidence which were significant, material andindispensable. On July 6, 1994, the trial court granted the motion to re-open the caseand held a hearing for the reception of additional evidence. The Pasay RTC admitted intoevidence the Marriage Contract dated May 25, 1977 between Jose and one CeliaSantiago, and another Marriage Contract dated May 6, 1982 between Jose and one Evan

Lock,5 showing that Jose had been married twice before he married Adriana in 1984.

On August 4, 1994, the Pasay RTC rendered its Decision6 the dispositive portion ofwhich reads as follows: r b l r l l l b r r

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

3/10

9/11/13 G.R. No. 131286 - JOSE LAM v. ADRIANA CHUA

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2004/mar2004/gr_131286_2004.php 3

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby declares the marriage betweenpetitioner Adriana Chua and respondent Jose Lam null and void for being bigamous bynature. The Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and the Office of the Civil RegistrarGeneral are hereby ordered to cancel the marriage between Adriana Chua and Jose Lamcelebrated on January 13, 1984 by Hon. Guillermo L. Loja of the Metropolitan Trial Court,Quezon City.

Likewise, respondent Jose Lam is hereby ordered to give a monthly support to his sonJohn Paul Chua Lam in the amount of P20,000.00.

SO ORDERED.7

On November 3, 1994, Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration8 thereof but only insofaras the decision awarded monthly support to his son in the amount of P20,000.00. Heargued that there was already a provision for support of the child as embodied in the

decision9 dated February 28, 1994 of the Makati RTC wherein he and Adriana agreed tocontribute P250,000.00 each to a common fund for the benefit of the child, to wit: r b l r l l l b r r

8. Nothing herein shall diminish the rights and obligations of both parties with respectto their son. In the best interest of the child, the Second Party shall retain care and

custody, subject to visitation rights by the First Party to be exercised through mutualarrangements.

9. It is hereby agreed by the First Party and the Second Party that the First Party and

the Second Party shall initially contribute P250,000.00 each to a common fund, to beincreased as required, to be used solely and exclusively for the benefit of their son.Said common fund shall be managed and administered by the Second Party, subject to

periodic accounting, until the son reaches majority age.10

Jose further alleged in his motion that his contribution to the common fund had evenamounted to P500,000.00.

On August 22, 1995, the Pasay RTC issued an Order denying Jose Lams motion forreconsideration ruling that the compromise agreement entered into by the parties andapproved by the Makati RTC before the marriage was declared null and void ab initio bythe Pasay RTC, is of no moment and cannot limit and/or affect the support ordered bythe latter court.

Jose then appealed the Pasay RTCs decision to the Court of Appeals, assigning only asingle error of the trial court: r b l r l l l b r r

THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ORDERING APPELLANT TO GIVE A MONTHLYSUPPORT OF P20,000.00 TO HIS SON BECAUSE THIS WOULD, IN EFFECT, REQUIREAPPELLANT TO PAY TWICE THE MONTHLY SUPPORT FOR HIS CHILD. BESIDES, THELOWER COURT HAS DULY ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A DECISION ISSUEDBY ANOTHER COURT REQUIRING APPELLANT TO CONTRIBUTE THE AMOUNT OFP250,000.00 AS THE LATTERS SHARE IN THE COMMON FUND FOR SUPPORT OF THE

CHILD, SUBJECT TO PERIODIC ACCOUNTING AND TO BE MANAGED BY APPELLEE.11

On June 11, 1997, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming the PasayRTCs decision in all respects. Jose filed a motion for reconsideration of the Decision butin a Resolution dated October 27, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied the same.

Hence, Jose fi led the present Petition for Review on Certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rulesof Court, likewise raising a single error of the appellate court, to wit: r b l r l l l b r r

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECIDING LEGAL QUESTIONS OFSUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE IN FINDING THATTHE TRIAL COURTS RULING THAT THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONERAND RESPONDENT WHERE THEY BOUND THEMSELVES TO CONTRIBUTE THE AMOUNT OFTWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P250,000.00) TO A COMMON FUND FOR THEBENEFIT OF THEIR CHILD DOES NOT BAR THE TRIAL COURT IN ANNULMENT CASE TOAGAIN AWARD SUPPORT IN FAVOR OF THE CHILD.

The Pasay RTC and the Court of Appeals are both correct insofar as they ruled that the

amount of support is by no means permanent. InAdvincula v. Advincula,12 we held that

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

4/10

9/11/13 G.R. No. 131286 - JOSE LAM v. ADRIANA CHUA

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2004/mar2004/gr_131286_2004.php 4

another action for support could be filed again by the same plaintiff notwithstanding thefact that the previous case for support filed against the same defendant was dismissed.We further held in said case that: r b l r l l l b r r

.. . Judgment for support does not become final. The right to support is of such nature

that its allowance is essentially provisional; for during the entire period that a needyparty is entitled to support, his or her alimony may be modified or altered, in accordancewith his increased or decreased needs, and with the means of the giver. It cannot be

regarded as subject to final determination.13

Thus, there is no merit to the claim of Jose that the compromise agreement betweenhim and Adriana, as approved by the Makati RTC and embodied in its decision datedFebruary 28, 1994 in the case for voluntary dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains,is a bar to any further award of support in favor of their child John Paul. The provision fora common fund for the benefit of their child John Paul, as embodied in the compromiseagreement between herein parties which had been approved by the Makati RTC, cannotbe considered final and res judicatasince any judgment for support is always subject tomodification, depending upon the needs of the child and the capabilities of the parentsto give support.

Having settled the issue on the authority of the trial court to award support for the childin an action for declaration of nullity of marriage of the childs parents, this Court willnow discuss the propriety of the proceedings conducted by the Pasay RTC and thedecision it rendered, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The Court notes four circumstances that taint the regularity of the proceedings and thedecision rendered by the trial court.

First, the only ground alleged in the petition for declaration of nulli ty of marriage filed byAdriana with the Pasay RTC is the psychological incapacity of Jose without any prayer forthe support of her child. Adriana presented, formally offered her evidence in support of

the petition and submitted the case for decision as of May 12, 1994.14 But on a motionto re-open filed by her on June 23, 1994, the trial court set the case for reception ofevidence on July 6, 1994 and subsequently allowed Adriana to present evidence of twoprevious marriages contracted by Jose with other women to prove that the marriagebetween Adriana and Jose was null and void for being bigamous. It is only at the July 6,1994 hearing that respondent Adriana first claimed support for John Paul when shetestified in open court.

The petition of Adriana was, in effect, substantially changed by the admission of theadditional evidence. The ground relied on for nullity of the marriage was changed fromthe psychological incapacity of Jose to that of existence of previous marriages of Josewith two different women with an additional claim for support of the child. Suchsubstantial changes were not reflected in the petition filed with the trial court, as noformal amendment was ever made by Adriana except the insertion of the handwrittenphrase "And for respondent to support the child of petitioner in an amount this

Honorable Court may deem just and reasonable"15 found at the ultimate paragraph ofthe petition, as allowed by the Pasay RTC. There is nothing on record to show thatpetitioner Jose was notified of the substantial changes in the petition of Adriana.

Second, the Pasay RTC did not give Jose an opportunity to be present on July 6, 1994 forthe presentation of evidence by Adriana and to refute the same. Although copy of themotion filed on June 23, 1994 with a notice of hearing on June 27, 1994 was sent toJose, the record does not show that he received the notice in due time; neither does therecord show that he was notified of the subsequent hearing held on July 6, 1994 where

Adriana presented the marriage certificates and claimed for the support of their childsans the presence of Jose.

Third, the records do not show that petitioner was sent a copy of the Order dated July 6,1994 wherein the trial court granted the Urgent Motion to Re-Open of respondentAdriana and forthwith allowed her to present her evidence to prove that petitioner hereincontracted previous marriages with different women.

Fourth, the evidence presented by respondent regarding her claim for support for JohnPaul is glaringly insufficient and cannot be made a valid basis upon which the Pasay RTC

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

5/10

9/11/13 G.R. No. 131286 - JOSE LAM v. ADRIANA CHUA

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2004/mar2004/gr_131286_2004.php 5

cou ave etermine t e mont y amount o P20,000.00 or t e support to e given toJohn Paul by petitioner Jose.

A party who has been declared in default is entitled to service of substantially amended

or supplemental pleadings.16 Considering that in cases of declaration of nullity ofmarriage or annulment of marriage, there can be no default pursuant to Section 6, Rule

18 of the Revised Rules of Court17 in relation to Article 48 of the Family Code,18 it iswith more reason that petitioner should likewise be entitled to notice of all proceedings.

Furthermore, the lower courts are reminded of the ruling of the Court in Asian

Transmission Corporation v. Canlubang Sugar Estates,19

to wit: r b l r l l l b r r

It is also a general principle of law that a court cannot set itself in motion, nor has itpower to decide questions except as presented by the parties in their pleadings.Anything that is decided beyond them is coram non-judice and void. Therefore where acourt enters a judgment or awards relief beyond the prayer of the complaint or thescope of its allegations the excessive relief is not merely irregular but is void forwant of jurisdiction, and is open to collateral attack.

The appellate court also ruled that a judgment of a court upon a subject within itsgeneral jurisdiction, but which is not brought before it by any statement or claim of theparties, and is foreign to the issues submitted for its determination, is a nullity.(Emphasis supplied) r l l b r r

Pursuant to the foregoing principle, it is a serious error for the trial court to haverendered judgment on issues not presented in the pleadings as it was beyond itsjurisdiction to do so. The amendment of the petition to reflect the new issues andclaims against Jose was, therefore, indispensable so as to authorize the court to act onthe issue of whether the marriage of Jose and Adriana was bigamous and thedetermination of the amount that should have been awarded for the support of JohnPaul. When the trial court rendered judgment beyond the allegations contained in thecopy of the petition served upon Jose, the Pasay RTC had acted in excess of its

jurisdiction and deprived petitioner Lam of due process.

Insofar as the declaration of nullity of the marriage between Adriana and Jose for beingbigamous is concerned, the decision rendered by the Pasay RTC could be declared asinvalid for having been issued beyond its jurisdiction. Nonetheless, considering thatJose, did not assail the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Adriana in his motion

for reconsideration which he filed with the Pasay RTC. In the petitions he filed in theCourt of Appeals and with us, he likewise did not raise the issue of jurisdiction of thePasay RTC to receive evidence and render judgment on his previous marriages with other

woman which were not alleged in the petition filed by Adriana. Petitioner Jose isestopped from questioning the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Adriana andtherefore, the Court will not undo the judgment of the Pasay RTC declaring the marriageof Adriana and Jose null and void for being bigamous. It is an axiomatic rule that while a

jurisdictional question may be raised at any time, this, however, admits of an exception

where estoppel has supervened.20

Consequently, the Court will only resolve the lone issue raised by Jose in the presentPetition for Review on Certiorariwhich is the award of support for his child, John Paul.

The Pasay RTC should have been aware that in determining the amount of support to be

awarded, such amount should be in proportion to the resources or means of the giverand the necessities of the recipient, pursuant to Articles 194, 201 and 202 of the FamilyCode, to wit: r b l r l l l b r r

Art. 194. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing,medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacityof the family.

The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the precedingparagraph shall include his schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation,even beyond the age of majority. Transportation shall include expenses in going to andfrom school, or to and from place of work.

Art. 201. The amount of support, in the cases referred to in Articles 19521 and 196,22

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

6/10

9/11/13 G.R. No. 131286 - JOSE LAM v. ADRIANA CHUA

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2004/mar2004/gr_131286_2004.php 6

s a e n propor on o e resources or means o e g ver an o e necess es othe recipient.

Art. 202. Support in the cases referred to in the preceding article shall be reduced orincreased proportionately, according to the reduction or increase of the necessities ofthe recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to furnish the same.

It is incumbent upon the trial court to base its award of support on the evidencepresented before it. The evidence must prove the capacity or resources of both parentswho are jointly obliged to support their children as provided for under Article 195 of theFamily Code; and the monthly expenses incurred for the sustenance, dwelling, clothing,

medical attendance, education and transportation of the child.

In this case, the only evidence presented by respondent Adriana regarding her claim forsupport of the child is her testimony, which is quoted below in verbatim:

Atty. Lorbes: r b l r l l l b r r

Q - After discovering that your husband had contracted two valid marriagesprior to your marriage, how do you feel about it? c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y

A - I felt it is unfair to my life.

Q - Considering the bigamous marriage contract by your husband with you,what do you want to request to the Honorable Court?c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y

A - I want to request the Court that the respondent be ordered to support mylittle boy.

Court: r b l r l l l b r r

Q - How much support do you want? c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y

A - P20,000.00 to P25,000.00

Q - Is there a prayer for support? c h a n r o b l e s v i r t u a l a w l i b r a r y

Atty. Lorbes: r b l r l l l b r r

A - None, Your Honor.

Court: r b l r l l l b r r

Get the original copy of the complaint, add and sign it for the support of theboy.

A - Yes, Your Honor.23

Evidently, such testimony does not establish the amount needed by the child nor theamount that the parents are reasonably able to give.

We take note of the Compromise Agreement, approved by and embodied in the decisionof the Makati RTC, portions of which read as fol lows: r b l r l l l b r r

8. Nothing herein shall diminish the rights and obligations of both parties with respectto their son. In the best interest of the child, the Second Party shall retain care andcustody, subject to visitation rights by the First Party to be exercised through mutualarrangements.

9. It is hereby agreed by the First Party and the Second Party that the First Party andthe Second Party shall initially contribute P250,000.00 each to a common fund, to beincreased as required, to be used solely and exclusively for the benefit of their son. Saidcommon fund shall be managed and administered by the Second Party, subject toperiodic accounting, until the son reaches majority age.

WHEREFORE, finding the aforequoted agreement to be in order, and not being contraryto law, morals or public policy, the same is hereby APPROVED. Accordingly, the conjugal

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

7/10

9/11/13 G.R. No. 131286 - JOSE LAM v. ADRIANA CHUA

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2004/mar2004/gr_131286_2004.php 7

complete separation is established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6 of theFamily Code of the Philippines. The parties are hereby enjoined to faithfully comply withthe conditions of their Agreement as embodied in this petition and the same shall, asbetween the parties, be deemed to be a decision and/or award in the matters treated inthe aforesaid settlement.

Let a copy of this petition as well as the foregoing Decision be recorded in the properlocal civil registries and registries of property at the expense of the herein petitionerspursuant to Article 139 of the Family Code.

SO ORDERED.

GIVEN this 28th day of February, 1994 at Makati, Metro Manila.24

The matter of support is a question that may be raised and threshed out before theMakati RTC as it was the court that approved the Compromise Agreement, orbefore the Pasay RTC where the petition for declaration of nullity or annulment ofmarriage is filed. In the interest of orderly administration of justice, the Courtdeems it proper that the issue on support should be resolved by the Pasay RTCwhere the claim for support of the child was initiated by Adriana.

The trial courts action of merely ordering in open court during the July 6, 1994hearing that a prayer for support be written and inserted in the petition filed byrespondent Adriana does not constitute proper amendment and notice upon

petitioner Jose. Consequently, herein petitioner Jose was deprived of due processwhen the trial court proceeded to hear the case on a motion to re-open and render

judgment without giving Jose the requisite notice and the opportunity to refute thenew claim against him.

Verily, the manner by which the trial court arrived at the amount of supportawarded to John Paul was whimsical, arbitrary and without any basis.

Such being the case, the Court has no other recourse but to reverse the decision ofthe Court of Appeals and Pasay RTC insofar as the award of support is concernedand order the remand of the case to Pasay RTC for further proceedings as to theissue regarding support.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorariis GRANTED. The Decision and

Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 51107, dated June 11, 1997and October 27, 1997, dismissing the appeal and denying the motion forreconsideration, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE but only insofar as the awardof support in favor of John Paul Chua Lam is concerned. The Decision dated August4, 1994 and the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City (Branch 109), datedAugust 22, 1995, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE for being null and void, likewiseonly insofar as the matter on support is concerned.

Let the records of Civil Case No. 94-0331 be remanded to the Regional Trial Courtof Pasay City (Branch 109) which is DIRECTED to reopen the trial of Civil Case No.94-0331 with respect to the claim of Adriana Chua against Jose Lam for the supportof John Paul Chua Lam and conduct hearings for further reception of evidence forthe proper determination of the proper amount of support to be awarded to thechild John Paul Chua Lam.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing, (Acting Chairman), Callejo, Sr., and TINGA,JJ., concur.Puno,J.,(Chairman), on leave.

Endnotes:

1 Penned by Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by Justices Salome A.Montoya and Omar U. Amin.

2 Records, p. 9.

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

8/10

9/11/13 G.R. No. 131286 - JOSE LAM v. ADRIANA CHUA

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2004/mar2004/gr_131286_2004.php 8

3 TSN, May 12, 1994, pp. 5-14.

4 Record, p. 52.

5 Order dated July 6, 1994, Record, pp. 70-71.

6 Penned by Judge Lilia C. Lopez, Record, pp. 93-97.

7Id. at p. 97.

8 Records, p. 101.

9 Penned by Judge Josefina Guevara Salonga (now Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals) in SP. Proc. No. M-3699, entitled, "In the matter of theVoluntary Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Separation ofProperties, Jose Lam and Adriana Chua, Petitioners;"Records, p. 105.

10Id. at p. 109.

11 Appellants Brief, CA Rollo, pp. 13-14.

12 10 SCRA 189 (1964)

13Id. at p. 191

14 TSN, May 12, 1994, p. 15; Records, p. 68.

15 Record, p. 3.

16 Section 9, Rule 13, Revised Rules of Court, which provides:

Sec. 9. Service upon party in default. - No service of papers otherthan substantially amended or supplemental pleadings and finalorders or judgments shall be necessary on a party in default unlesshe files a motion to set aside the order of default, in which event heshall be entitled to notice of all further proceedings regardless of

whether the order of default is set aside or not.

[17 Section 6, Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Court, the rules then applicableto the present case, provides thus:

Sec. 6. No defaults in actions for annulment of marriage or legalseparation. If the defendant in an action for annulment of marriageor for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the

prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not collusion betweenthe parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for theState in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is notfabricated.

[18 Article 48 of the Family Code provides thus:

Article 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of nullity ofmarriage, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscalassigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps toprevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidenceis not fabricated or suppressed.

In all cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shallbe based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.

[19 G.R. No. 142383. August 29, 2003, citing Branz v. Hylton, 265 N.W. 16(1936) and Lincoln National Bank v. Virgin, 55 N.W. 218 (1893).

20TGL Sales Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 35 (2001).

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

9/10

7/29/2019 JOSE LAM, Petitioner, v. ADRIANA CHUA, Respondent.

10/10

9/11/13 G.R. No. 131286 - JOSE LAM v. ADRIANA CHUA

h bl / d i i /j i d 2004/ 2004/ 131286 2004 h 10

Search

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Copyright 1998 - 2013ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer|E-mailRestrictions ChanRoblesVirtual Law Library | chanrobles.com