G.R. No. L-44446. November 29, 1976.
MERCEDES U. DE GUZMAN, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact FELICITACION G. ROXAS and the HEIRS OF FRANCISCO P. DE GUZMAN, SR., represented by FELICITACION G. ROXAS (Daughter), petitioners, vs. The HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO M. AUSTRIA, ROMAN M. UMALI and JULIANA U. TRINIDAD, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents filed an action for partition and accounting of an agricultural land. Petitioners, as defendants, claimed sole ownership of the property, raising prescription, laches, and estoppel as defenses. The trial court rendered a decision ordering the immediate partition of the property in equal shares among the three plaintiffs and defendant Mercedes U. de Guzman, and directing defendants to render an accounting of income from March 1971. Petitioners sought to appeal this decision.
The Court of Appeals, however, issued a resolution directing petitioners to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed. It viewed the trial court’s decision as merely interlocutory under Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court, which governs partition actions. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for further partition proceedings, denying petitioners’ motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether a trial court’s decision ordering partition and accounting, where the defendant asserts exclusive ownership and denies any co-ownership, is a final and appealable judgment or merely an interlocutory order.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the challenged orders of the Court of Appeals. It abandoned the doctrine established in Fuentebella vs. Carrascoso, which held that a judgment for recovery of property with accounting is interlocutory and not appealable. Instead, the Court adopted the opposite rule, as articulated in the recent case of Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, which reinstated the rationale of H.E. Heacock Co. vs. American Trading Co.
The legal logic is clear: where the primary purpose of the case is to determine true ownership and the right to exclusive use of disputed property, a judgment on these merits is final and appealable. An order for an accounting is merely incidental to this judgment on the merits. Allowing an immediate appeal promotes judicial efficiency and prevents potential injustice. If the appellate court affirms the ownership ruling, the accounting proceeds without prejudice. Conversely, if it reverses, requiring an accounting first would waste time and resources and could materially injure the appellant. This rule applies in partition cases under Rule 69 when the appellant, as here, claims exclusive ownership and denies the adverse party’s right to any partition. Consequently, the trial court’s decision was final and appealable. The Court of Appeals was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.