G.R. No. L-968, November 26, 1902
FRANCISCO M. GO-QUICO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA AND THE HEIRS OF BALBINO VENTURA HOCORMA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On March 3, 1902, Francisco M. Go-Quico filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Municipal Board of the City of Manila and the heirs of Balbino Ventura Hocorma. Go-Quico, alleging he was a tenant in possession of a parcel of land, claimed that the landlord (Hocorma’s heirs) had fraudulently leased the property to others and that the City had ordered the demolition of the houses on the land. He prayed for a preliminary injunction to restrain the Municipal Board from executing the demolition order and to prevent the heirs from disturbing his possession. On the same day, the court issued a preliminary injunction ex parte. The City, appearing specially, moved to dissolve the injunction, which the court granted on March 10. On April 12, Go-Quico filed another petition for a new preliminary injunction. Over the City’s objection that no summons or copy of the complaint had been served, the court issued a second preliminary injunction on April 16. The City again moved to dissolve it, but the court denied the motion on May 20. The City then appealed from the orders of April 16 and May 20.

ISSUE:
Whether the orders granting the preliminary injunction (April 16) and denying its dissolution (May 20) are appealable interlocutory orders.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the orders in question were interlocutory and not final judgments, and thus not appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 123 explicitly prohibits appeals from interlocutory rulings, orders, or judgments, allowing appeals only upon a final judgment that disposes of the action. The Court explained that a preliminary injunction is by nature provisional and lasts only during the pendency of the main action. The orders granting or denying such injunctions do not terminate the litigation; no answer had been filed, no issues had been joined, and no trial on the merits had occurred. The Court further noted that a suit solely for a preliminary injunction cannot be maintained, as a preliminary injunction is merely ancillary to a principal action. The purpose of Go-Quico’s suit appeared to be to obtain a final injunction pending the resolution of his separate action against the heirs, but the proceedings had not reached a final adjudication on that main relief. Therefore, the appealed orders were interlocutory, and the appeal was prohibited by law.