[ G. R. No. 40636. August 10, 1934 ]
[ G. R. No. 40636. August 10, 1934 ]
G. R. No. 40636
[ G. R. No. 40636. August 10, 1934 ]
OCEJO POMAR Y CIA. , PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RAMON CHAVEZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
D E C I S I O N
V. ALBERT, CLERK, SUPREME COURT, P.I.
This court having regularly acquired jurisdiction for the trial of the above-entitled cause submitted by both parties for decision,after consideration thereof by the Court upon the record, its decision and order for the judgment having been filed on the ________25th________day of ________July________, A. D. nineteen hundred and _________thirty-four________;
By virtue thereof it is hereby adjudged and decreed that the order of the Court of the First Instance of ___________Manila________, dated the _________28th__________ day of __________April_________, nineteen hundred and ___________thirty-three____________, and from which the above-entitled appeal was taken, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with costs of this instance against the defendants-appellants
It is further ordered that __________the plaintiffs-appellees__________ recover from _________the defendants-appellants__________ the sum of P__40.00__, as costs.
More in SC Decisions
- [ G.R. No. 126480. August 10, 2001 ](415 Phil. 1)
- [ G.R. No. L-33406. May 30, 1973 ](151-A Phil. 614)
- G.R. No. 161718, December 14, 2011
- [ G.R. No. 3180. March 25, 1907 ](G.R. No. 3180)
- [ G. R. No. 11435. December 27, 1957 ]
- [ G.R. Nos. 206844-45. July 23, 2013 ](714 Phil. 606)
- [ G.R. No. 1855. January 22, 1905 ](G.R. No. 1855)
- [ G.R. No. 167708. August 22, 2008 ](585 Phil. 106)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.