[ G. R. No. 39390. June 16, 1934 ]
[ G. R. No. 39390. June 16, 1934 ]
G. R. No. 39390
[ G. R. No. 39390. June 16, 1934 ]
VICENTE SANTIAGO ETC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. SIXTO DE LOS ANGELES ETC., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
D E C I S I O N
J. STEVENS-ACTING CLERK OF COURT
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 ________31st________day of ________May________, 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 _________Rizal__________, dated the__________11th______________ day of __________November_________, nineteen hundred and ___________thirty-two____________, and from which the above-entitled appeal was taken, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with costs in this instance against the plaintiff-appellant.
It is further ordered that __________the defendant-appellee__________ recover from __________the plaintiff-appellant__________the sum of P__40.00__, as costs.
More in SC Decisions
- A.M. No. 06-6-340-RTC, October 17, 2007
- G.R. Nos. E-02002, E-02010, E-02142, & E-02276, November 11, 2025
- G.R. No. 184037, September 29, 2009
- G.R. No. 176061, July 04, 2011
- G.R. No. 121867, July 24, 1997
- G.R. No. 257982, February 22, 2023
- G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011
- [ G. R. No. L-17124. June 30, 1966 ]
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.