Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > April 1948 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1220 April 21, 1948 - MATEA RESTAURO v. DOMINGO FABRICA

080 Phil 762:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-1220. April 21, 1948.]

MATEA RESTAURO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINGO FABRICA, Defendant-Appellant.

C. de la Victoria, for Appellant.

Zosa & Zosa, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


APPEAL; INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, UNAPPEALABLE. — As interlocutory orders or resolutions do not finally dispose of a case, they are unappealable pending decision. Whatever errors the lower court may have committed in issuing an interlocutory order or resolution, cannot be revised by an appellate court before appeal against the decision is given due course.


D E C I S I O N


PERFECTO, J.:


On April 1, 1946, Matea Restauro filed a complaint against Domingo Fabrica, claiming ownership of lot No. 2584 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Estate, by inheritance from her uncle Anacleto Restauro.

On April 16, 1946, defendant answered denying the allegations of the complaint and alleging that when Anacleto Restauro died he left a widow, Dalmacia C. de Restauro and two children, Luis and Urbana, who are entitled as forced heirs to inherit the properties of the deceased to the exclusion of collaterals.

On August 7, 1946, the lower court issued an order directing the plaintiff to amend her complaint within ten days from notice by including the Director of Lands, Dalmacia Cauba de Restauro, Luis Restauro and Urbana Restauro, as parties-defendant.

On September 17, 1946, upon defendant’s motion, dated September 11, because plaintiff failed to amend the complaint, the court dismissed the complaint and allowed defendant to present in due time his evidence.

On September 23, 1946, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. On September 28, 1946, the court issued an order setting aside the order of dismissal and permitting plaintiff to amend the complaint within five days from receipt of the order.

On October 8, 1946, plaintiff filed, accordingly, an amended complaint. On October 12, 1946, the lower court overruled defendant’s written opposition to the admission of the amended complaint.

Defendant appealed against the orders of September 28 and October 12, 1946, the first granting plaintiff five days from notice to amend her complaint, and the second, overruling defendant’s opposition to the admission of plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Defendant advances the theory that the order of August 24, 1946, granting plaintiff ten days from notice within which to amend her complaint, has become final, unappealable and unmodifiable; that the lower court erred in setting aside the order of September 17, 1946, dismissing the complaint, and in granting the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff on September 23, 1946.

There should not be any question that the order of September 28, 1946, setting aside the dismissal of the complaint and granting plaintiff five days within which to amend the complaint, and the order of October 12, 1946, overruling defendant’s written opposition to the admission of the amended complaint filed in accordance with the order of September 12, 1946, are interlocutory in nature. As interlocutory orders or resolutions do not finally dispose of a case, they are unappealable pending decision. Whatever errors the lower court may have committed in issuing an interlocutory order or resolution, cannot be revised by an appellate court before appeal against the decision is given due course. Of course, excess of jurisdiction can, before the decision, be corrected by special remedy, the same as with grave abuse of discretion when its nature, the circumstances of the case, and the interests of justice demand a prompt remedy. The questions raised by the defendant-appellant do not come under the above exceptions.

The lower court should not have given due course to the premature appeal filed by defendant-appellant.

The appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Feria, Pablo and Bengzon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1948 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1762 April 1, 1948 - JOSE FUENTEBELLA v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO

    080 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. L-1584 April 2, 1948 - EMILIA TEOXON contra. FELIX B. PANIS

    080 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. L-612 April 3, 1948 - JOSEFA AGUSTINES v. JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN

    080 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-1213 April 6, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO LABITAN VINDUA

    080 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-2092 April 6, 1948 - JUSTO CAMAT v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    080 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-301 April 7, 1948 - CARLOS PALANCA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    080 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-554 April 9, 1948 - HAW PIA v. CHINA BANKING CORP.

    080 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-2010 April 9, 1948 - CIPRIANO RAYMUNDO v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    080 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-1882 April 10, 1948 - MATEO RAMOS v. COMELEC

    080 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1414 April 16, 1948 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS contra. JOSE DE JESUS

    080 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-1904 April 16, 1948 - C. N. HODGES v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    080 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-1598 April 19, 1948 - NICOLASA SALVO DE PERNIA v. MEYNARDO M. FAROL

    080 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-1939 April 19, 1948 - SIXTO CASIN v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    080 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1220 April 21, 1948 - MATEA RESTAURO v. DOMINGO FABRICA

    080 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-1493 April 21, 1948 - ANTONIA ESPINA v. CATALINA COLINA, ET AL.

    080 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1664 April 21, 1948 - MARIA BONGALA, ET AL. v. JOSE BARBAZA

    080 Phil 767

  • G.R. No. L-1486 April 26, 1948 - ARIAS MAGONCIA contra. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    080 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-770 April 27, 1948 - ANGEL T. LIMJOCO v. PEDRO O. FRAGANTE

    080 Phil 776

  • G.R. No. L-254 April 30, 1948 - Carlos Gil v. ROBERTO TOLEDO Y GIL III

    080 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-348 April 30, 1948 - FLORENTINO PASCUA v. JOSE TALENS

    080 Phil 792

  • G.R. No. L-416 April 30, 1948 - GREGORIO MIGUEL v. VICENTE TOSE

    080 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-578 April 30, 1948 - PRIMITIVO RIVERO v. VICTORIANO RIVERO, ET AL.

    080 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. L-1115 April 30, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. FRANCISCO SEPILLO

    080 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-1248 April 30, 1948 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS contra. DATU ALIMPANG MANTAWAR

    080 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-1276 April 30, 1948 - ROSARIO VALERA v. MARIANO TUASON

    080 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-1543 April 30, 1948 - JULIAN SOGUECO v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    080 Phil 829