[ G. R. No. 39438. May 03, 1934 ]
[ G. R. No. 39438. May 03, 1934 ]
G. R. No. 39438
[ G. R. No. 39438. May 03, 1934 ]
RUSTICO TALAVERA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. ENRICO CAPUMFUERZA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
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 ________16th________day of ________April________, 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 ___________Tarlac________, dated the __________12th__________ day of __________December____________, nineteen hundred and ___________thirty-wo____________, and from which the above-entitled appeal was taken, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed in all its parts, with costs against the appellants.
It is further ordered that ___________the appellee__________ recover from __________the appellants__________ the sum of P__40.00__, as costs.
More in SC Decisions
- [ G.R. No. 110581. September 21, 1994 ](306 Phil. 631)
- [ G.R. No. 180476. June 26, 2013 ](712 Phil. 354)
- [ G.R. No. 113028. November 14, 1994 ](308 Phil. 159)
- G.R. No. 103576, August 22, 1996
- [ G.R. No. 237277. November 27, 2019 ](866 Phil. 778)
- [ G.R. Nos. 211933 & 211960. April 15, 2015 ](758 Phil. 244)
- [ G.R. No. 3684. September 28, 1907 ](G.R. No. 3684)
- [ G.R. No. 245486. November 27, 2019 ](866 Phil. 908)
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.