Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > October 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25461 October 4, 1968 - DY CHUN, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25461. October 4, 1968.]

DY CHUN, DY SUAT HONG, DY BEE, DY SEKO, TAN HO, JOSE KOO DY, Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Nolasco Dycothay, "AGUSAN COMMERCIAL" EAST MINDANAO LUMBER CO., HIAP BEE, and EAST MINDANAO LUMBER CO., INC., Petitioners, v. HON. JOSE M. MENDOZA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI, and VICENTE MIRANDA, Administrator of the Intestate Estate of HILARION DYDONGCO, Respondents.

Jose W. Diokno, Cipriano Alvizo, Ramon Duterte and Alfredo Marigonen, for Petitioners.

Pelaez, Pelaez and Pelaez for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; APPEALABLE DECISIONS; DECISION TO RENDER ACCOUNTING IS INTERLOCUTORY. — The decision of a Court of First Instance in an action to recover property, requiring the defendant, among others, to render a "full, accurate and complete accounting of all the fruits and proceeds" of the property in question, is interlocutory and not appealable, as it does not dispose of the action in its entirety but leaves something to be done to complete the relief sought.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction to annul an order of respondent Hon. Jose M. Mendoza, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, dismissing the appeal sought to be taken by petitioners herein from a decision and an order of said respondent in Civil Case No. R-7793 of said Court.

It appears that as administrator of the Intestate Estate of Hilarion Dydongco, deceased, the settlement of which is the subject matter of Special Proceedings No. 2250-R of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, its Clerk of Court, Vicente Miranda — hereinafter referred to as the Administrator — commenced Civil Case No. R-7793 of the same Court against most of the petitioners herein, namely, Dy Chun, Dy Suat Hong, Dy Bee, Dy Seko, Tan Ho, Nolasco Dycothay, 1 Agusan Commercial Company, New Agusan Commercial, East Mindanao Lumber Company, Hiap Bee and East Mindanao Lumber Company, Hiap Bee and East Mindanao Lumber Company, Inc.

In his amended complaint, Miranda alleged that prior to and at the time of his death in China sometime in 1941, Hilarion Dydongco, who resided in the Philippines since the beginning of the century, had, in Butuan, Agusan and Cebu City, well-developed and established business and commercial enterprises with substantial bank deposits and about 127 parcels of land or property; that Hilarion Dydongco went to China, in 1934, and, thereafter, became seriously ill; that, at that time, his children, Dy Chu and Dy Suat Hong 2 as well as Dy Siok Lee 3 and his protegees in the aforementioned business establishments; that taking advantage of the absence and bad condition of the health of Hilarion Dydongco, particularly of his subsequent death, the defendants therein (petitioners herein) took over said business, including its assets, goods, merchandise, chattels, machinery, stock-in-trade, cash on hand and in banks, amounts receivable and other properties of the deceased, as well as his store known as "Dydongco Store", and its branches, and organized first, a fake partnership with the business name of "Agusan Commercial Company", and then the East Mindanao Lumber Co., which operated and did business with the capital, assets, stocks-in-trade, merchandise, funds and other property of said deceased; that with funds belonging to the latter, the defendants therein (petitioners herein) moreover purchased several parcels of land, on one of which a 20-door apartment building was constructed, with funds of the same nature, and let to Chinese tenants and other lessees; that the defendants therein (petitioners herein) had received and are receiving the rentals, earnings and profits derived from said business and property of the deceased; and that said defendants (petitioners herein) hold, manage and operate the aforementioned business, properties and income in trust for the Intestate Estate of Hilarion Dydongco, but have not rendered any accounting thereof.

The Administrator prayed, therefore, that judgment be rendered declaring that said business, assets, income and other property, are in the possession and under the management and control of said defendants (petitioners herein) as mere trustees thereof, and sentencing them to turn over and deliver the same to him, as Administrator of the Intestate of Hilarion Dydongco, as well as to render accounts and to execute the corresponding deeds of conveyance, in addition to paying damages and the costs. After appropriate proceedings, said Court, presided over by respondent Judge, rendered a decision finding that most of the allegations of the Administrator had been duly proven and accordingly, sentenced the defendants therein (petitioners herein):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. (To) Deliver all properties found by the Court (in the body of its decision) to belong to the estate of Hilarion Dydongco, to plaintiff as administrator of the Estate of Hilarion Dydongco;

"2. To render full, accurate and correct accounting of all the fruits and proceeds of the properties which each of the defendants had possessed and which has been found by the Court as properties belonging to the estate of Hilarion Dydongco, from 1935 until the present date;

"3. To render full, accurate and correct accounting of all the fruits, interest, profits and assets as well as properties acquired by the Agusan Commercial Company, New Agusan Commercial Company, East Mindanao Lumber Company, East Mindanao Lumber Company, Inc., from 1935 up to the present date;

"4. To pay by way of exemplary damages, jointly and severally, the sum of P60,000.00 to Dy Sio Pong and Dy Suat Ngo;

"5. To pay to counsel for plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees, including the cost of this suit.

SO ORDERED.

Copy of this decision was, on July 30, 1965, served upon the defendants. On August 9, they filed their notice of appeal and appeal bond and the next day, they submitted their record on appeal. On August 16, 1965, they filed, however, a motion for reconsideration and new trial, which was denied on October 18, 1965. Copy of the order to this effect was served upon them on October 18, 1965. Copy of the order to this effect was served upon them on October 19. On October 26, they filed a notice to the effect that, on October 30, 1965, they would submit for consideration the record on appeal filed on August 10. On November 13, defendants filed additional pages to be attached to said record on appeal, whereas the administrator objected to the approval thereof, upon the ground that the decision was already final and executory. On November 29, respondent Judge issued an order declaring that "the defendants (petitioners herein) have not perfected their appeal on time" and that the aforementioned decision had, consequently, become final and executory.

A reconsideration of this order was denied on December 15, 1965, whereupon said defendants — petitioners herein — instituted the present original action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, against the administrator and respondent Judge, alleging that the latter had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing said orders of November 29 and December 15, 1965, and praying, accordingly, that said orders be declared null and void, and that respondent Judge be directed to give due course to the aforementioned appeal of petitioners herein as defendants in said case No. R-7793. Soon after the commencement of these proceedings, or on December 24, 1965, we issued a writ restraining respondents therein, until January 4, 1966, from implementing, enforcing and executing the orders of respondent Judge dated November 29 and December 15, 1965. On January 18, 1966, said writ was incorporated into a writ of preliminary injunction, upon the posting and approval of a bond, filed by the petitioners, in the sum of P5,000.00.

The petition herein and the answer thereto filed by respondents discuss rather extensively the question whether or not petitioners had perfected their appeal in the lower court within the reglementary period. We find it, however, unnecessary to pass upon said question, for the reason presently to be stated.

Although declaring that most of the properties involved in the litigation belong to the estate of Hilarion Dydongo, the decision of respondent Judge, dated July 30, 1965, moreover, required petitioners herein to render a "full, accurate and complete accounting of all the fruits and proceeds" of said properties. After analyzing previous rulings thereon, this Court declared, in Fuentebella v. Carrascoso 4 that a decision of such nature is interlocutory in character, because it does not dispose of the action in its entirety and leaves something to be done to complete the relief sought, and that, accordingly, it is not appealable, until after the adjudications necessary for the completion of said relief shall have been made. Indeed, the very counsel for petitioners herein now accept this view and concede that petitioners’ appeal had been taken prematurely.

WHEREFORE, this case should be as it is hereby dismissed and the writ prayed for denied, with costs against petitioners herein. The writ of preliminary injunction issued in this case on January 18, 1966, is, accordingly, dissolved. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Dizon and Zaldivar, JJ., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Who died later and was substituted by the Administrator of his estate, Jose Khoe Dy.

2. Both defendants in raid case R-7793.

3. Who died subsequently and is not a defendant in case No. R- 7793.

4. G.R. No. 48102, May 27, 1942. See, also, Salazar v. Torres, L- 13711, May 25, 1960; Zaldarriaga v. Zaldarriaga, L-13424, May 31, 1961.




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






October-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25153 October 4, 1968 - ANTONIO CLEMENTE v. BERNARDINO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. L-25461 October 4, 1968 - DY CHUN, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23319 October 7, 1968 - LUZON GLASS FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24680 October 7, 1968 - JESUSA VDA. DE MURGA v. JUANITO CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-24797 October 8, 1968 - SOUTHWEST AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CORP. v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25724 October 8, 1968 - FILIPRO, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-25573 October 11, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MINERVA I. PIGUING

  • G.R. No. L-18793 October 11, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO PANTOJA

  • G.R. No. L-25328 October 11, 1968 - NAWASA v. KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI NG NAWASA

  • G.R. No. L-21488 October 14, 1968 - LUCILA DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24802 October 14, 1968 - LIM KIAH v. KAYNEE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25607 October 14, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25332 October 14, 1968 - ARTURO T. UBARRA, ET AL. v. BISCOM EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25032 and L-25037-38 October 14, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. CEMENT WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21957 October 14, 1968 - LAURO ADAMOS, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25646 October 14, 1968 - GERVACIO VALENCIA v. CARMEN P. CRISOLOGO

  • G.R. No. L-22226 October 14, 1968 - PACIFIC TUG & SALVAGE CORPORATION OF PANAMA v. RAMON O. NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-20158 October 14, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL. v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 October 14, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22504 October 14, 1968 - GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT FEDERICO GARLIT v. ERLINDA G. GARLIT

  • G.R. No. L-25726 October 21, 1968 - CESAR C. ALTAREJOS v. TEODORO K. MOLO

  • G.R. No. L-23454 October 25, 1968 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-22290 October 25, 1968 - EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET AL. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26242 October 25, 1968 - IN RE: JAMES Y. NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26398 October 25, 1968 - ELPIDIO TALASTAS v. CLEMENCO ABELLA

  • Adm. Case No. 501 October 26, 1968 - IN RE: ZACARIAS MANIGBAS

  • G.R. No. L-29648 October 26, 1968 - FRANCISCO SOCORRO v. NORA VARGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25301 October 26, 1968 - GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. MARTA LIM-JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20973 October 26, 1968 - JOSE BELTRAN v. NICANOR CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-26863 October 26, 1968 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. CO BAN LING & SONS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25411 October 26, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26332 October 26, 1968 - SWEDISH EAST ASIA CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-27802 October 26, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24377 October 26, 1968 - FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. SOCORRO DANCEL VDA. DE MISA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24632 October 26, 1968 - LEXAL LABORATORIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-19857 October 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24695 October 26, 1968 - B.J. SERVER v. RICARDO SIKAT

  • G.R. No. L-21756 October 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMAN VIÑAS

  • G.R. No. L-16995 October 28, 1968 - JULIO LUCERO v. JAIME L. LOOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26001 October 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27662 October 29, 1968 - MANILA PEST CONTROL, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 October 29, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16941 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO DEL CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 - RESINS INCORPORATED v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO PERALTA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20563 October 29, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. COLLECTOR (NOW COMMISSIONER) OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21115 October 29, 1968 - LINKOD JUANE, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-22046 October 29, 1968 - CHU HOI HORN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22252 October 29, 1968 - ELPIDIO MARCELO v. REYNALDO MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23270 October 29, 1968 - MARIA O. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO H. ENDAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23657 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23645 October 29, 1968 - BENJAMIN P. GOMEZ v. ENRICO PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23893 October 29, 1968 - VILLA REY TRANSIT INC. v. EUSEBIO E. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25888 October 29, 1968 - TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY v. ADELAIDA C. DIONISIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26047 October 30, 1968 - DONATO MATA v. DELFIN B. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26981 October 30, 1968 - IN RE: GLORIA GOMEZ v. RUFINO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20398 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN GIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24530 October 31, 1968 - BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, ET AL. v. BEATO GO CALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18543 October 31, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GENERAL SALES SUPPLY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20960-61 October 31, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE ACE LINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23708 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22403 October 31, 1968 - LUIS CASTRO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-23309 October 31, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24756 October 31, 1968 - CITY OF BAGUIO v. FORTUNATO DE LEON