[ G. R. No. 40756. August 11, 1934 ]
[ G. R. No. 40756. August 11, 1934 ]
G. R. No. 40756
[ G. R. No. 40756. August 11, 1934 ]
BALDOMERO DE LA SEÑA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. LAURENCIA BARSANALINA ET AL.,, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
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 ________26th________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 __________Iloilo_________, dated the _________31st__________ day of __________July_________, nineteen hundred and ___________thirty-three____________, and from which the above-entitled appeal was taken, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed without special pronouncement as to costs.
It is further ordered that __________xx__________xx__________xx__________xx__________ recover from __________xx__________xx__________xx__________ the sum of P__xx__, as costs.
More in SC Decisions
- [ G.R. No. 111385. January 30, 1997 ](334 Phil. 848; 93 OG No. 51, 8593 (December 22, 1997))
- G.R. No. 144400, September 19, 2001
- G.R. No. 171736, July 05, 2010
- G.R. No. 110668, February 06, 1997
- [ G.R. No. 75860. September 17, 1987 ](238 Phil. 77)
- G.R. No. 235725, September 28, 2022
- [ G.R. NO. 149102. February 15, 2007 ](544 Phil. 709)
- [ G.R. No. 130507. July 28, 1999 ](370 Phil. 577)
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.