GR L 797; (July, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-797; July 24, 1948
TOMAS MAPUA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SUBURBAN THEATERS, INC., defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiffs filed an action for illegal detainer in the municipal court, alleging the lease contract had expired and praying the defendant vacate the premises and pay a monthly rental of P1,000 until it does. The municipal court dismissed the complaint. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI), plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as a matter of course before defendant answered, increasing their claim for reasonable compensation for use and occupation to P10,000 a month from November 1945 onward. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that on appeal from an inferior court, parties cannot raise issues not raised below. The CFI granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint but allowed plaintiffs to amend within five days. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint reverting to the original demand of P1,000 monthly rental. After trial, the CFI rendered judgment ordering defendant to vacate and pay P1,000 monthly from July 1, 1945. Both parties appealed: plaintiffs appealed the order dismissing their first amended complaint and the judgment fixing compensation at P1,000; defendant appealed the judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal from the CFI’s interlocutory order dismissing the first amended complaint can be prosecuted separately and independently from the appeal from the final judgment on the merits.
RULING
No. The order dismissing the first amended complaint was an interlocutory order and therefore not appealable under the Rules of Court. An interlocutory order may only be assigned as error in an appeal from the final judgment. The question of the amount of monthly rental raised in the first amended complaint is interwoven with the question decided in the final judgment. Thus, the appeal from the order is merely an incident of the appeal from the final judgment and cannot be prosecuted independently. Since the appeal from the final judgment involves questions of fact and law within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, the case (including the appeal from the interlocutory order) was referred to the Court of Appeals for proper action.
AI Generated by Armztrong.