Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1949 > October 1949 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1873 October 31, 1949 - LUIS SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO CASTILLO

084 Phil 839:



[G.R. No. L-1873. October 31, 1949.]

LUIS SAN JOSE ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EUSEBIO CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellee.

Rovero, Nicolas & Magsalin for Appellants.

Santiago, Ramirez & Santiago for Appellee.


1. APPEAL; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT IS INTERLOCUTORY AND NOT APPEALABLE. — An appeal from an order denying motion to declare defendant in default is premature, the order being interlocutory or incidental because it leaves something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case.



In the justice of the peace court of Bocaue, Bulacan, plaintiffs filed on June 14, 1947 a complaint for ejectment against defendant Eusebio Castillo. In due time the latter interposed a written answer; and on July 12, 1947, he got a favorable decision. Plaintiffs appealed to the court of first instance. Later, i. e., on September 18, 1947, they submitted to that court a motion asking that defendant be declared to be in default, because — according to the motion — he having been notified by the clerk of the docketing of the appeal, he neglected to file within fifteen days a written answer in accordance with section 1, Rule 9 and section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.

Denial of such motion and of a subsequent motion to reconsider, gave rise to this appeal, which we find to be premature, the appealed order being interlocutory or incidental (sec. 2, Rule 41) because it leaves something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case. 1

The trial judge opined that the answer submitted by the defendant in the justice of the peace court may be considered reproduced in the court of first instance, and denied the motion for default. Whether erroneous or not, the order did not dispose of the ease. The next step was the hearing; and if after such hearing the plaintiffs found themselves on the losing end, they could then appeal, and assign as error the denial of the motion for default.

In Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 4, p. 252, it is stated that "except as it may be (specially) permitted by particular statutes, no appeal lies from an order refusing judgment by default." That text is supported by decisions from California, Ohio, Colorado, Arkansas, Iowa and Oregon. (See also notes in 1948 Cumulative Annual Pocket Part.)

In Brockway v. W. & T. Smith Co., 66 Pac., 1073, the plaintiff appealed (by writ of error) to the Court of Appeals of Colorado from an order denying his motion to declare defendant in default. The appeal was dismissed, the court

"But the cause is still pending below. While the court quashed the return of service, and denied the motion for a default, it entered no judgment against the plaintiff. All proceedings in the case stopped with the denial of the default. With that order, the record before us ends. Our statute permits the review in appellate courts of final judgments only. Sections 388, 406, 406d, Mills’ Ann. Code. Let the writ of error be dismissed."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Brown v. Sterling Fixture Co., 166 Pac., 323, it was

"The appeal from the court’s order refusing to enter defendant’s default requires but the briefest notice. It is not an appealable order."cralaw virtua1aw library

For the satisfaction of appellants it should be stated that before coursing this appeal, they applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the order of denial of default, and that such petition, was summarily dismissed by a resolution saying "the proper remedy being by appeal." Apparently plaintiffs merely followed the course indicated in our said resolution. But it must be clear that we meant an appeal at the right time — not an immediate appeal. 2 Appeal dismissed. No costs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.


1. See Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. I, pp. 730, 731.

2. Compare Olsen v. Olsen, 48 Phil., 238.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

October-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1451 October 6, 1949 - TAN TUAN ET AL. v. LUCENA FOOD CONTROL BOARD, ET AL.

    084 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-3215 October 6, 1949 - ALONZO A. BAGTAS v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 692

  • G.R. No. L-743 October 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO DUMAPIT

    084 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-1610 October 12, 1949 - DOROTEA DE LA CRUZ v. DEOGRACIAS MARCELINO

    084 Phil 709


    084 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1567 October 13, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR SALICO

    084 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-2822 October 13, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO D. MARI

    084 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-3081 October 14, 1949 - ANTONIO LACSON v. HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. L-3050 October 17, 1949 - ALBERTO A. VILLAVERT v. TOBIAS FORNIER

    084 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-2190 October 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABALOS

    084 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. L-833 October 20, 1949 - CARLOS PIÑERO v. MARCELO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 774

  • Adm. Case No. 25 October 25, 1949 - AMBROSIA SUMAÑGIL, ET AL. v. MARIANO STA. ROMANA

    084 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1553 October 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION

    084 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1560 October 25, 1949 - DEMETRIA ESTRADA v. ULDARICO CASEDA

    084 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-1849 October 25, 1949 - LAUREANA GABIN v. MARIA MELLIZA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-1776 October 27, 1949 - PAZ M. CEA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-2413 October 27, 1949 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. EMILIO GARCIA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. L-2057 October 29, 1949 - ESPERANZA F. DE GONZALEZ v. ERNESTO GONZALEZ

    084 Phil 806

  • G.R. No. L-594 October 31, 1949 - LEON O. MANZANILLO v. JOSE G. JARAMILLA

    084 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-1454 October 31, 1949 - EMILIO RUMBAOA, ET AL. v. IGNACIO ARZAGA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 812


    084 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. L-1551 October 31, 1949 - NICANOR TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-1554 October 31, 1949 - JULIAN CABRERA v. PEDRO V. LOPEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-1873 October 31, 1949 - LUIS SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO CASTILLO

    084 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-1949 October 31, 1949 - REALTY INVESTMENTS, INC., ET AL. v. MARIANO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-2089 October 31, 1949 - JUSTA G. GUIDO v. RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION

    084 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-2116 October 31, 1949 - JOSEFA FABIE v. NGO BOO SOO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 857

  • G.R. No. L-2168 October 31, 1949 - CELSO ICASIANO v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 860

  • G.R. No. L-3311 October 31, 1949 - M. MARGOLARI v. TIBURCIO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 865