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,

vs.
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.

FACTS

Vicente Miranda, as administrator of the Intestate Estate of Hilarion Dydongco, filed Civil Case No. R-7793 against the petitioners. The complaint alleged that the petitioners, taking advantage of Hilarion Dydongco’s absence and subsequent death, took over his business enterprises and properties, organized companies using his capital and assets, and purchased lands and constructed a building with his funds. The administrator prayed that the properties be declared held in trust for the estate and that the petitioners be ordered to deliver them, render an accounting, and pay damages. The trial court, presided by respondent Judge Jose M. Mendoza, rendered a decision finding for the administrator. The decision ordered the petitioners: (1) to deliver the properties belonging to the estate to the administrator; (2) to render an accounting of the fruits and proceeds of said properties from 1935; (3) to render an accounting of the fruits, profits, and assets of the specified companies from 1935; (4) to pay exemplary damages; and (5) to pay attorney’s fees. The petitioners received a copy of the decision on July 30, 1965. They filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond on August 9, and a record on appeal on August 10. They later filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial on August 16, which was denied on October 18. On October 26, they gave notice that they would submit the record on appeal for consideration. The administrator objected to the approval of the record on appeal, contending the decision was final and executory. The respondent Judge issued an order on November 29, 1965, declaring that the petitioners had not perfected their appeal on time and that the decision had become final and executory. A motion for reconsideration was denied on December 15, 1965. The petitioners then filed the present action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the said orders and to direct the respondent Judge to give due course to their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners’ appeal from the trial court’s decision was proper, given the nature of that decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve whether the petitioners perfected their appeal within the reglementary period. It held that the trial court’s decision, while declaring that most properties belonged to the estate of Hilarion Dydongco, also required the petitioners to render a full accounting of the fruits and proceeds of those properties. Citing Fuentebella v. Carrascoso, the Court ruled that such a decision is interlocutory in character because it does not dispose of the action entirely and leaves something to be done to complete the relief sought. Consequently, an interlocutory order is not appealable until after the necessary adjudications to complete the relief have been made. The petitioners’ counsels conceded this view, admitting the appeal was taken prematurely. Therefore, the writs prayed for were denied, the preliminary injunction was dissolved, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.