G.R. No. L-14871; April 29, 1961
FLORENCIA M. GUANCO, accompanied by her husband, CELSO S. GUANCO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. SEGUNDO MONTEBLANCO and NICOLAS MONTEBLANCO, defendants. NICOLAS MONTEBLANCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, spouses Florencia M. Guanco and Celso S. Guanco, filed a complaint against Segundo Monteblanco (Florencia’s father) and Nicolas Monteblanco. The complaint involved multiple causes of action, including partition and accounting of a conjugal partnership, recovery of lands and sugar quotas, damages, and the appointment of a receiver. Defendants filed separate amended answers with counterclaims. Nicolas Monteblanco’s amended answer contained three counterclaims. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the second and third counterclaims of Nicolas Monteblanco, which the trial court granted. Nicolas Monteblanco appealed this dismissal directly to the Supreme Court.
The second and third counterclaims of Nicolas Monteblanco were based on allegations that Segundo Monteblanco, holding properties in trust for Nicolas (allegedly the legitimate son of a deceased Nicolas Sian, Sr.), sold those trust properties. Segundo allegedly used the proceeds to pay the financial obligations of the plaintiff spouses, particularly for their purchase of Hacienda Fidela. Nicolas claimed that Celso S. Guanco assured Segundo that the property purchased with the trust funds would be delivered to Nicolas (the beneficiary) upon demand. Thus, Nicolas sought recovery from the plaintiffs.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court’s order dismissing the second and third counterclaims of defendant-appellant Nicolas Monteblanco is appealable.

RULING

No, the appealed order is not appealable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the challenged resolution was interlocutory, not a final judgment. An interlocutory order does not dispose of the case on the merits but settles a preliminary or incidental matter during the pendency of the action. The proper remedy against such an order is not an immediate appeal but to await the final judgment and raise the issue therein. The Court emphasized that the issues in the dismissed counterclaims were “interwoven with the main issues” of the complaint and the counterclaims of co-defendant Segundo Monteblanco. A ruling on their merits at that stage would constitute a prejudgment of causes of action still pending trial. The Court found that the counterclaims were substantially identical to causes of action in Segundo’s own counterclaim, which would be decided during the trial regardless of the dismissal of Nicolas’s claims. Therefore, review of the dismissal order should be deferred until after the final disposition of the main case. The appeal was dismissed for being premature, without prejudice to the issue being raised in due course.