G.R. No. L-9681; July 26, 1915
EUGENIA NATIVIDAD, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FELISA VILLARICA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Eugenia Natividad and Felisa Villarica formed a partnership on July 2, 1906, for the sale of sinamay and native dry goods, with contributions of P703 and P2,007, respectively. Natividad filed a complaint on May 2, 1913, alleging that Villarica, as managing partner, failed to prepare balance sheets as required by their agreement, and sought recovery of her capital contribution with interest. After the partnership’s shop burned down on July 4, 1913, Natividad filed a supplementary complaint claiming a share in the P8,000 insurance proceeds received by Villarica. Villarica countered that the partnership had been dissolved on May 1, 1909, after accounting and liquidation, resulting in a net loss exceeding P3,719, and that Natividad had refused to assent to the balance sheets. The trial court declared the partnership dissolved as of May 1, 1909, and ordered Villarica to render an account of the partnership’s transactions up to that date. Natividad appealed this judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether the appeal from the trial court’s judgment was premature, given that the ordered accounting and liquidation had not yet been completed.

RULING:
Yes, the appeal was premature. The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s judgment, which declared the partnership dissolved but simultaneously ordered the rendition of accounts and subsequent approval by the court, was interlocutory and not final. The case remained pending in the trial court until the accounting was completed and approved. Therefore, the appeal was not taken from a final judgment or order. The Supreme Court set aside the appeal and directed the trial court to proceed with the accounting as ordered. No costs were awarded.