Machado v. Gatdula

7/24/2019 Machado v. Gatdula

1/15

Acilles Ade V Realado II suspeded om seice fo oe

(1) yea itout pay fo coduct pejudicial to te best iteest ofsevice it ste ai aaist epetitio ofsame oese.

Note.-Th ac f a shi in failing and rsing mmdialy v cmplaina gishd amn csis gav

mscnduc av dishnsy, as wll as f cnduc gsslypjudicial h bs ns f sric ad gss nglc f

duy, wing his dismissal m h svic Onasa, J Vllaa 246 SCA 127 [1995])

O

GR. No. 156287 . Feb 16 200

FELICITAS M MACHDO and MARCELO P MACHDO,

pins, vs CDO L GATDULA, COSSO O TSELEMET OF L PROBLEMS, and IEO S PAZ

Shri , Oc f h Pvincial Shr San Pd, Laguna,spndns

Adminirai Law; Commiion on he Selen of Land Probl

(COP); Jurdicion; e m of he law clearly do no on he

Commiion on he Selen of and Probl (COSP) he gal

pow o ume juridicion y land dipue or problem-TCOSL wo die acng on a ld disue o oblem

odged bee i eg, COS c assume jision oly f e m s

one of hose maed aah 2(a) o (e) of he aw se, ishod ef e ce o he agency havng aoae jsion

stlemen o esoluion. In esolvng hehe o assme isdicon ove a

case o o ef i e cl agcy coned, e COS consdes:

(a) he ne o classicaon of e ld nvolv; (b) e es

ECOD DMIO


2/15

7

VO. 612, F 16, 2010 547

Machado Gadula

cs; (c) natr of qustions raisd; d (d) n r

imdiat d rgt on hn o pvnt njry o prsons d dmag

or dscon pop. h ts of h law cly do no vt on h

COSAP h gnra powr assum isdicon ov any d disput or

problm Thus, nd EO 56, h nscs whn COSAP may olv

ld dispu im ony o hos involvng public lds o hos

cov y a spc cs om h govn, such s ps lasams, imb concssions, o ion s Undisputably,

prr nvovd n h prs disput priae lds ond y prie

ps, non of whom is a squa, a pat las amnt holdr, a

gov vaon t, a pulc d clam o a mmb of ycultr noriy.

Same Same Same Righ of W Sauo Conrucion Ejd

Gs A dipue beween wo paris concning he righ of w o

priae lans canno be characer imilar o hoe umaed undSecion parah 2(a) o (d) of Exui r (EO) ; e auo

conrucion principle of ejm gen prscribs ha where gal

wors follow an umeraion of peron or hing wors of a paricular

and pecc meaning uch gal wors are no o be conru in heir

wid en bu are o be held applng only o pon or hing of heame hoe peccally .-Th disput btn ptisc hrdy clss as cric or xposv n n woud gat

soc tnson or nt, or a siaon woud ru imdiat

nd g acon Th ssus sd n h prsn cs pmy nvolv h

plicaon of Civ Cod povsions on Prry d h Easmn of

R of Way hld n Lonino al 356 SCR 66 (200)

"dispu no spci sll o thnc xpis of saiv

ody ha coud olv by pying pnn provisons of h Civil

Cod wn clsiv risdicon of rg cots. h

Ms cno nvok Son 3, pah 2() of EO 56, whichprovids at th COSAP may assum jrisdicion ovr compants

involvng o smil d proms of av gcy, jusi

COSAP's nvnon n is cas. Th satory conscon pncipl of

ejdem gi pcibs at wh g words ow n aon

of psos o hngs, by words of a pclr d spic mng, su

gal words no o b consd in hr wids tt bu o hld

as pyng oly psos or hngs of


3/15

8

548 SPREME COURT REPORTS OTATED

Machado . dula

se n as hose siclly mon. A ise bewe wo ies

cong he of way o ae ls cno be chz as

sil hose ma n Son 3, aah 2a) o ) of EO

56

Same Same Same oppel Juridicion o a ub maer i

coerred by law and no he paris' acion or conduc oppel

generaly dos no conf uridicion or a cae of acion o a ribunal

where none law i-B eason of e Machaos' ie

caon n he maon confnc he COSLAP icaon

sys he CA cl he Mhos eso om qong heboys isicon on by s isos os esolos Wedsag wt ts ng Jisicion oe a sbj mae s cofr ylaw no y e ies acion o conc Esoel gay oes notcofe isicon o a case of acion a b whe none by law

iss. I Lozon NC, 0 SCRA 1 1995) we l : La of

isicion o e sj of he s is ye o ma.

Whn i ps ha he co no jisicon o e sjec

mae e acon shl be isiss. Ths fese may e nos ny

me, ng e o een a jen Sch is nsnle, asis n of jisicion is cofre y law no win e cos e

one e ies o hsel eeine o coniy se ase

Same Same Same Judm A udmen ued a qusiudicial

bo wihou ursdicion i ii canno be he ource of any righ or

eae any obligaion and he id ud can ne become nal and any

wri of ion bsed on i s likie id-I is ce e COSLP

i no hae sicon oe he sbj ma of e comln le y

Gla ye oc o assme jscion o he case e

iss is of exon emolon gans he Macos The l of

isicion cno be c by e ciaion n he gs

befoe he COSLAP. Un he ccsnc, e Mchaos ly

qon is jscion yme e ng pe o

A jen ss y a qasi-jica oy wo jscon s

o cno e e soce of ny igh o eae y obligaon. ll cs

s i l cls ng om i hae no leg e The oi

ne ecome f y wi of exon s on s

likese oi


4/15

9

VOL 12 b , 2010 549

Macado vs tdula

PEO vw n cr f dcsn and rslun f

h f Aalsh cs sad n nn f h

Roleto T Ace nrs

O J.: hs s Pin Rviw n Cetioai ld

by ns lcas M Machad d Mcn P Machad teMacados assaling h dcsn f h f Aals CAdad Jar 1, 2002 and h slun3 dad Dcmb , 2002

n AGR SP 871 h A dcsn dismssd

Machads' n cetioai and h min cnsdan ad uhd h jsdicn f h issn nSmn f Lad Pblms COS nd udgmn v a

va land and ssu csndng ws f xcun d

dmlin

e Factual Atecede

h dsu nvlvs adjng acls f ld lcad n

Baaay S Vcn San Pd, Laga n blnging h

Machads and h h blngng rsndn cd LGadula atdula

On b 2, 1999, Gadula w a l OSLAP

qusng asssac bcaus Machads allgdy bckd h

igh f way hs iva y by cnscng a wd

aan n h

1 U Re 5 o he Re Cot; oo 529.

2 enned by Aate e ota Hoaeo od n by

Aate e Errto Roao r Aate Jte Maano C De

Cao (now a membe of th Co I, at253

3 I., at 5558.

I., at p.59

0 SUPEME OUR REPORS OAED


5/15

Macado vs. Gatdula

Acng n Gadula l, h COSLAP cnducd a eaon

conerence n bay 25, 1999; h pai hn ad hav avicain uvy cnducd n h ppi and ha

and xpn Tha, COSLAP iud Od dad

Mach 16, 1999 dicng h Cif f Svy Diviin f h

Cmmniy Envinmn d aual Ruc OcDpan f Envnmn d aal Rc CENRODENR cnduc a vicain uy n May 9, 1999 Th dlwi ad ha n h vn ha n y i availabl,

pai may u h vic f a piva y, whm

CEODER Sury Diviin wuld dpuz

A chduld, a piva uy, uni Gdic Engn Ab

All E. Aellao cnducd a vicain y f ppi in pnc f b pi En Allan ubmid a

p COSAP nding ha h c buil by Machad ncachd upn an ally nd wiin Gadulappy En All' nding cbad paa p

f Engn l V Squc f CERO, B, agunaa had a bn ubmid h COSLAP

Th Machad cnd p in hi pin pap

dad Augu 26 1999 Thy allgd a Gadula had n igh f

acin inc y did n vila Gadula' igh teassailed te juisdictio of te COSLP stati tat te popefoum fo te peset case as te Reioal Tial Cout of Sa

Pedo LaaThe COS uling

Ocb 25, 1999, h COSAP iud a luin Octobe25 1999 COSLP Resolutio dicng h Machad pn high f way in v f Gadula ng, h COSAP lid n

vicain y mad by Eng

I a 6067.

6I a 6873.

VO 612, b 16, 200

Macado vs. Gatdula

551

All, which ablihd a Machad had ncachd n


6/15

the existing alle in Gatdula's proper.The COSLAP declaed e Machados estopped om quesioning

its jisdiction to decide e case, snce e actvel picipaed in

the mediation conferences and e vericaon ses withou

raisng jrsdiconal objection. It rled hat s jrsdicon does

not depend on e convenence of the Machados.

The Machados led a motion r reconsideration which e

COSLAP denied n a resoution dated Juar , 000.On Febr 8, 000, the Machados led a notice of appeal

wi he Oce of the President OPWhile his appeal was pendng, e COSLP, upon Gatdulas

moton, issued a wri of execuion eforcing the erms of the

October 5, 999 COSLAP Resolution. The Machados opposed thewrit b lng a moon to quash on Mach 0, 00. The guedthat e Octobe 5, 999 COSLAP Resolution was not et ripe rexecution n view of the pending appea bere the OP

Snce the Machados persistentl resed reopen e ight of

wa the closed, he povncial sheri recomended to COSLPthe issuace of a writ of demolion. The COSLAP issued e wit of

demolition on Jul , 00The CA uling

On Jul , 00, he Machados wen o the CA r reliefrough a Petition r Cetioai d Pohibition, clamng that theCOSLAP issued e writs of execuion d demoliton with ave

abuse of disceon.

7 I a 782.

8 I a 8-86.

9 a 889.

10I at 99.

11 Re 6 o the Re of Co; I at 9103

55 SPREME CORT REPORTS OTATED

Macado v. tdula

The CA und the Machados' claim ufoded ad,

accodingl, dismissed ther peition n its decision of anua ,00. decled tha the COSLAP corectl issued the assaiedwrits because e Octobe 5, 999 COSLAP Resouion hadalread become nal d executor r ilre of e Machados to

aval of the proper remed aganst he COSLP orders ad


7/15

resolutions. nder Secon () of Executive

12 Sranoe2

13 Secti 3. owes Ftio. Comissio sa av he

owi wers a cios:

2. Refe low- for mmeiate acti by e ay avig aatejurisiton any and bem ispe d o the Comission Prid, That

te Ciss may, in te lowig cases, asse isct a resolve ad

blems ispes wic ciical exi i at csidei nstae, te ae r of te ies ioved, te sece emeence of sa

tesio st or ote siiar citica satis q imeiae acti

(a) Beween ocupas/sqaers s ease aement hoders

tmr cess;

) Beween unts/sqatte and goeent seat ees

(c) Beeen cunts/sqatte a pbic ad caimas aicas

( Petits for classicato ease a suiision of las of hepic ain; and

(e) Oter slar bems of ave gcymai

Te Comission shall ule such es and cedes as wil esu

exeiios resoi actio on te ae cases The resoluon, order or

decision he Commission on any of he regoing cases shall he e rce d

eect o a regular adminisave resoluon, order or decisionad sha binig

te ies teen the agey aig jurisition oe te same Said

resuon, order or decision shal become nal and execuory wihin hir (3)

days om

3

VOL. , Feb , 00 553

Macado vs tdula

Order No 5 ( ), e resolutons, orders d decisions ofthe COSLAP become nal and executor 0 ds aer

promulgation and are appealable b certiorari on to the SupremeCor. In S v Commissio o te Settlemet of ad Problems4 it

was held t der the doce of judicial hierach, the orders,

resolutions ad decisons of e CO SLAP, a quasiudicia

agenc e directl appealable to the CA nder Rule of the 997Rules of Civi Procedure, d not o the Supreme Cor. Thus, the

CA rued that e Machados appea e OP was no he proper

remed ad dd not suspend the rning of the period r alit of

the October 5, 999 COSLAP Resolution.On he issue of jrsdicon, the CA d that e COSLP was


8/15

reaed to provide a more eetve mehism r e expeditious

settement of and poblems general; the present ase eere

falls within its isdiion Moreover e Mahados aive

ptipation in e mediaton onrene d e onsent to brng

abou the veiaton srve bound them e COSAP's

desions orders and resoutions.

From is CA deision e Mahados led a moton r

reonsideration

whih the CA subsequent denied in itsResolution of Deember 5, 2002.

The Mahados thus led e present Rule 5 petion wi thisCor raisng two vital issues:

. Wheher e COSAP has jisdtion over Gadula'sompant r right of wa against the Mahados; and

promulgon d shll be ppelble by ceror only t he Supreme

Cour.

[empss sed]

17 . 378; 365 SC 9 (2).

15C Bi Commission on the ttlement of L oblems GR No66386 30 0 81 SC 599.

16 ollo 120126

1 ne 3

55 SPREME CORT REPORTS OTATED

Macado v. tdula

554

2. Wheher the COSAP an validl issue the of

exeuion d demolition aganst e Mahados.

The Court's Ruling

We fmd he peon eriorious.The COSLP does not have jurdicon

over the present case

resolvng the issue of whether the COSAP jurisdition

over e present ase a eview of e hisor of the CO SAP and an

aont of the laws reatng he COSAP and its predeessor e

Pesidenal Aton Committee on d Polems PACP is norde.

The COSAP's rer e PACAP was reaed on Jul


9/15

, 90 pursuant to Execuve Order No 5 As orignallconceived, the coitee was tasked o expedite and coordinate the

investigaon d resolution of and disputes, seamline d shorten

adminisative procedues, adopt bod and decisive measures to

solve land problems, o recommend other solutions.

On Mch 9, 9, Executive Order No 05 was issuedreconstittng the PACLAP The comittee was given exclusive

jsdiction over all cases invovng public lds d oer lds ofthe public doman,18 d was lkewise vested with adjudicator

powers phased n boad tes:

"1 To ivsiga coodiat d olve pitiously anddsput, sl sv proegs ad g to adoptbod ad disive msures to sove prob-

18 Te Unied R ofDominican Hi Inc.v.

Commion on he See

ofLndPbe, 406 354, 366 353 S 782, 791 (2001)

VO 612 F 16 2010 555

Machado s tdula

lems nvolvg pubc ands and lands of he publc doman."19[pass suli]

Thereaer, Presidential Decee No 8 PD 8320 was issuedon November , 95 reorgizng he PACLAP and enlgng isncions d duies The decree aso ted PACAP quasi

judicial ncions. Secon 2 of PD 8 staes:

"So 2 Fuctio a duti of the .T PCP

sal av llowg cos d du:

1. Dict d coordat acivs priculy vgatio

wok o vros govt agcis d agcs ivolv ld

pos or dspus d sl sav pocs to elevesma sete and landhode ad membe of cultural mores ofthe pense ad tmnsumng delay attenda to he soluon of suchprobems o disput;

2. R mmiat aco y d pom dsput rout o atio o PCP o y m agcy avig jsdco

: ro Tha when the Execuve Commtt ddes to ac ona case ts oluton ode o deson then sha have he adet of a ular admstrave roluon ode o dsion and shal


10/15

be bndng upon the pa heen nvov and upon the membeagency havng jusdcton theeof;

4 Evv d mpt a y pc r py

nvgan nd utin d dipu r prl prncil l,

pbl ha uli]

he PACLP was aboished b EO 5 eective on September, 979, d was eplaced b e COSLAP. nlke e laws, EO 5 speccall enumerated the -

1 New Ton Develoent Coorat . Commsson on the ttlement

ofProblems,48 l. 30 4; 4 SC 1 08 (2.

20Rez te el Aco Ctee L blem

556

55 SPRME COR REPORS OAED

Macado tdula

stnces when the COSLAP can exercise its adjudicator nctons:

"Sn 3. Pow d Futio- Cmin h hav

llwng pw d ncn

xx xx2. R d w up mmdiat acin by agcy havng

pr juricin y ld prblm diput rfrr h

Cmin Proid, Tthe Commsson may n the ong sesassume jusdcon and ove and pobems o dsput hch

critic and os in nature nsdeg nsan the agenumbe of the pates nvov the pence o emegence of soatenson o unt o othe sma cca stuaons equgmmate acon:

(a) Ben ocpants/squaes ad pastue se

amen hodes o mbe concsonaes;() Betn occupants/squate ad

eseaon ant;govemen

(c) Ben occupantssquattes and pubc and camantso appcants;

(d) Petons f casscaton ease and/o subdvson ofads of he pubc doman; and

(e) Ohe sma and pbems of gave uen andmagntude


11/15

The Coission sh romugae such ules d ocures wllensure eiious roluon d on on he bove caes The resoluon

ord or dson of e Commsson on y of e regong cases shll

have he rce d e of a reg save oluon ode or

dsion nd sh be bndng uon he ries hein d uon he ag

havng jsdicon ov e se. Sd resoluon ord o dson shll

be d exuoy win (30) days om s romulgaon

d shll be aealbe by ctiorari only o e Sueme Cou

[hssued]

Under these terms, the COS has two dierent les n acngon a ld dispute or probem lodged bere it, e

557

VO. , Febr 00 557

Macado vs atdula

COS c assume jrisdcion only if he matter s one of oseenumerated in paraaph (a) to (e) of the aw. Oherwise it should

rer e case to the agency having appropiate risdicion rsetlement or resoluton.21 In resolving whether to assumejisdiction ove a case or to refer i to he particul agencyconceed, the COS considers: (a) the natre or classicaion ofe ld involved; (b) the parties to he case; ( c) the nate of thequestions raised; and (d) the need r immediate and urgent acion

ereon to prevent injry to persons d damage desction toproperty. The tes o the law clely do not vest on the COSe general power to assume jrsdiction over ay ld dispute orpoblem.22 Thus, under EO 5, e instaces when the COSmay resolve ld dispues ae imited only to those involving publiclads or those covered by a specic license om the govent,such as pastre lease agreements, timbe concessions, or reseration

ts2Undsputably, he properties involved in e present dispute e

pivate lads owned bypivateparties, none of whom is a squaer, apaent lease aeement holde, a goveent reseaon tee, apublic lad claimant or a member of ay cultral minority.24

Moreover, e dspute between e pies c hdly beclassied as critical or explosive in nate at would gener-

21 Ga. es Tngan G.R. N. 18285 p 18 29 R 739

Lonno. At Genera 491 . 600, 62; 1 R 23 2 (200).


12/15

3 Baco Cmission on the ttement oL Probems G.R. N 80J 6 6 41 SC , 3-36

ASC Bk N Tle Ce 1 Sec 3 es:

Sec 3 Te Cmss e Seleme L blem sll

l be seleme blem mll

l mem cl me

558 SPREE CORT REPORTS OTATED

Macado vs atdula

558

ate social tesio o unest, o a cical situao at would equieimmediate d uget aco. The issues aised e peset case

pimily ivove the applicaio of the Civil Code povisios oPopety ad e Easemet of Right of Way As hed i Loio v

eeral25 "dispues equg o special skill o techical expetiseof adminisative body at could be esolved by applyg

petiet povisos of e Civl Code ae withi the exclusivejisdictio of e egul couts.

The achados co ivoke Sectio , paaaph (e) of EO561, whch povides a e COSAP may assume jsdico ovecomplaits ivolvig othe smila ld poblems of ave

gecy to justi the COSAP's itevetio i this case. Thestatuo cosctio picple of ejusdem eeris pescibes that

whee geeal wods llow a eumeatio of pesons o gs, bywods of a paicul ad specc meag, such geeal wods aeot to be cosed i the widest extet but ae to be held asappyg oly to pesos o gs of the same kd as osespecically meoed 26 A dispute betwee two paies cocg

the ight of way ove pivae lds cot be chacteized as similto ose eumeated ude Sectio , paaph (a) to (d) of EO561.

Davao N To Developmet Corporatio v Commissioo te Settlemet of Lad Problems1whee we led at the

COSAP does ot have blaket auoity to assume evey matteeed to itwe made it cle hat its jisdictio is coed olyto dsputes ove lds i which e govet has a popiet oegulatoy eest.

Srae 6 c Court o Aeas 08 l 36 SC ()

6I p. 6 c United esints oDominican Hl I Commission


13/15

o th Sttlmt of L roblms Pl. 3 3; 33 SC 82 -9

(2)

2 Sae 19 8

O. Fb 00 559

Machado vs. Gatdula

h CA apparntly msrad and misapplid Corts rlngn Baaga . Cour of Appeals 28 Baaga nvolvd two contndngpais who ld pant appications r a pcl of public landwh th Ba of ds. Bcas of Bra of ds failrto act win a rasonabl tim on th applcations d to condct annvstigaton h COSA dcidd assm jisdiction ovr cas. Sinc h disp invovd a public land on a patnt iss,

COSA ndniably had jrisdicon ovr Banaga cas.Jsdiction is confe"ed by law and a

jdgment sed by a qasi-jdicial

body withotjrdicon oid

By rason of th Machados' activ paicipaton n th eiaonconerences d COSA vricaon svys, CA dcld Machados stoppd om qsioning bodys jisdiction andbond y its dcisions ordrs and rsoltions. We isagree wihhis ring

Jrisdiction ovr a sbjct mattr is confd by law d not by pts action or condct29 Estoppl gnrally dos no confjrisdicon ovr a cas of acon o a inal whr non, by law,ists. Lozo NLRC,30 w dcld hat:

"Lk o riicon ov e uje to he ui i ye o maer.

Wenever i pe ha he cor no riicon over e u

mae he l be imi. Thi ene may e ino y

me ng pe or even a ug-

28 GR No 66386 Jau 30 1990 181 CR 59929 Spous Va'as v. Spou Camins GR No 137839-40 e 12 2008 55 CR

305 317; Memedia T Cooion . Pr, GR No 154295 July 29 2005 465CR 320 335 v. Nanal Lbor Relaons Con, 229 P 234 242 145 S211 221 (1986).

30 310 Pil 1 2-13 240 CR 1 11-12 (1995 citg Naval g Cooon v.

Cout ofAppea 236 CR 78 (1994)

6


14/15

0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS OTATED

Mahado s dula

m. Suc s undesdae as s nd of juisdicion s cofred y law

d no win e cos one e ies mselv dmne o

convenly se aside In People Csano, is Co on e issue of

esel eld:

e eaion of he ncie of esoel on he ueson of

isdicon sengly dds uon we e owe co acly

h jisdicion o no If t had o sdcto b he case wasted ad dd po the thy hat had sdcto thepat o baed o appeal fom assag schsdcto fo the same 'ms exst as a matte of aw ad mayo be cofered by cose of the pat or by esoppelHowe f he lowe cou h jusdcon d he case ws ed

d did uon a vn e such fo nsnc as a e coh no jisdicion, he y wo nduced ad s hy will

no e emi on peal assme nconsisen os

e ow co h jisdicion He he ncle of esoel

alies he le ha jusdcon in conf y aw d do no

dend uon e will of he as no eing hn."

[ss suli]

ths ase the COSL dd not have jursdton over esubjet matter o the omplant led by Gatdula yet t proeeded to

assme jrsdon over e ase and even ssued wrts o exeutond demolton aganst the Mahados The lak o jursdtonannot be red by e pates ppaton n the proeedngsbere e COSL.31 Under the rstanes the Mahados anrghtlly queston ts sdton at ytme, even dng appeal oraer na judgment judgment ssued by a quas-juda bodywhout jsdton s vod32 not be the soure o any rght orreate y oblgaton. Al as pursut to t d al lamsemanatng

31 earer menoned, Machados, n ct, quetoned he COSL'

jscon a arly a the tthey l qstng th COSL R;

oo p 63

32 aiona Hoin Ahori v. Cmiion on he emen ofLProbe,GR No 142601, Octor ,26, 505 SCRA 38 43

561


15/15

VO 612, Febr 16, 200 561

Machado vs. Gatdula

om it have no legal eec The void judgment can never become

nal d any wrt of execution based on it is likewise void33EEOE preses considered we GNT he petiion r

review on certiorari he assailed Cou of Appeals decision daedJanuary 31, 2002 and resolution daed December 5, 2002 in CA

GR SP No 65871 e REVERSED d SET ASE The Decision

of the Commisson on he Setlement of Ld Problems dated

October 25, 1999 in COSP Case No 99-59, as well as e writ of

execuon dated Mach 21, 2001 and the writ of demolition dated

July 12, 2001, ae decled NU and VO r having been issued

whout jursdiction

SO ODEED

Carpio (Chairperso) Caio-Morales

ad and Perez Jconcur

Peio ate judmet ad resolutio reversed ad set aside.

NAppeals om the CO SLAP may not be brought directly

bere he Supreme Court but must be elevated to the Cour of

Appeals but where e assailed Resolution is void, e Supreme

Cour may enterain he petiton r certiorari notwihstding hefalure of he petioner appeal the Resolution to he Cot of

Appeals Davao N Tow Developmet Cooratio vs.Commissio o the Settlemet o ad Prolems [COSP} 459SCA 9 [2005])

If anoer case pending bere other court of jusce does no

ba an independent scase r ejecen like

33 anot 21

** Datd a atal r of th Scond Dvon vc Aat

Jt ano C D Catoa atd F 3, 200.

Copyght 2015 Cenrl Book Suppy Ic A gs seed

Date post:	21-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	james-evan-i-obnamia
View:	236 times
Download:	0 times

Machado v. Gatdula

Documents