FLORENCIA M. GUANCO, ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND, CELSO S. GUANCO, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. SEGUNDO MONTEBLANCO AND NICOLAS MONTEBLANCO, DEFENDANTS. NICOLAS MONTEBLANCO, DEF…

Appeal from a resolution of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental
granting a motion of plaintiffs Florencia M. Guanco and Celso S. Guanco, for the
dismissal of the second and third counterclaims in the amended answer of
defendant Nicolas Monteblanco and dismissing said counterclaims.

Said plaintiffs are husband and wife, whereas defendant Segundo Monteblanco
is the father of plaintiff Florencia M. Guanco. Plaintiffs’ complaint set up
several causes of action, some against defendant Segundo Monteblanco, others
against defendant Nicolas Monteblanco, and the rest against both. The defendant
filed separate answers and amended answers. The amended answer of Segundo
Monteblanco admitted some allegations of the complaint, denied other allegations
thereof, alleged some affirmative defenses and set up a counterclaim, with
several causes of action. The amended answer of Nicolas Monteblanco, likewise,
admitted some allegations of the complaint, denied1 other allegations thereof,
and set up three (3) counterclaims. Plaintiffs moved for the dismissal of the
second and third counterclaims of Nicolas Monteblanco, which was granted by the
lower court. Hence, this appeal by said defendant.

Although both parties have, in their respective briefs, merely discussed the
merits of the resolution granting said motion to dismiss, this appeal cannot be
entertained, for the simple reason that said resolution is interlocutory in
nature, and, hence, its review should be deferred until after the disposition of
the main case, which does not appear to have been heard as yet. The necessity of
not passing upon the merits of said resolution becomes more apparent when we
consider that the issues raised in the second and third counterclaims of Nicolas
Monteblanco are interwoven with the main issues raised in plaintiff’s complaint
and the amended answer filed by defendant Segundo Monteblanco (Caldera
vs. Balcueba, 84 Phil., 304, 305; Quimosin vs. Javien, L-2968,
resolution of July 19, 1949).

Indeed, plaintiffs seek in their complaint: (1) the partition of the conjugal
partnership of Segundo Monteblanco and his deceased wife Concepcion Benedicto,
mother of Florencia M. Guaneo, which allegedly continued under the
administration of Segundo Monteblanco; (2) an accounting thereof; (3) the
delivery of several parcels of land the possession of which is said to have been
forcibly taken by Segundo Monteblanco from the plaintiffs; (4) the recovery of
damages allegedly suffered by them in consequence thereof, aside from attorney’s
fees; (5) the reconveyance to the plaintiffs of certain sugar quotas allegedly
belonging to them and said to have been fraudulently and simulatedly transferred
by Segundo Monteblanco to Nicolas Monteblanco, after both had caused the
registration of said quotas in plaintiffs’ name to be cancelled in the
corresponding central; (6) the registration of said quotas in the name of the
plaintiffs; (7) the recovery of P4,350 claimed to have been paid by plaintiffs
to Segundo Monteblanco in consideration of his alleged promise to disclaim any
interest in said quotas, which he did not fulfill; (8) the recovery from Nicolas
Monteblanco of P10,000 as moral and exemplary damages caused by the
aforementioned acts said to have been performed by Segundo Monteblanco upon: the
advice of Nicolas Monteblanco, who is allegedly the illegitimate son of Segundo
Monteblanco; (9) the recovery from Segundo Monteblanco of one-half of the price
of two (2) lots of the aforesaid conjugal partnership allegedly sold by him;
(10) the recovery of a lot said to have been held by Segundo Monteblanco in
trust for the plaintiffs and allegedly conveyed by him fraudulently and
fictitiously to Nicolas Monteblanco; and (11) the appointment of a receiver of
the properties above referred to, in order to forestall further manipulations of
the defendants to defraud the plaintiffs and to insure the proper management of
said properties, which Segundo Monteblanco is not in a position to undertake due
to “old age and physical handicap.”

Upon the other hand, Segundo Monteblanco alleged in his amended answer,
inter alia, that, since the death of his wife, the properties belonging
to their conjugal partnership and some of his exclusive properties were
administered by the plaintiffs; that the property to which plaintiffs’ third
cause of action refers belongs, not to them, but to him; that the sugar quotas
alluded to in the complaint are his exclusive property and the conveyance
thereof to Nicolas Monteblanco was made for a consideration actually paid by
him; that certain properties of Segundo Monteblanco were mortgaged to secure a
loan for a given venture of the plaintiffs; that the latter administered said
properties and saw to it that the mortgage be foreclosed; that plaintiffs,
subsequently, secured in their favor a promise to sell from the mortgagee, which
had acquired said properties at the auction sale, and, then, fraudulently
conveyed their rights to a relative of plaintiff Celso S. Guanco, thus depriving
Segundo Monteblanco of his aforementioned properties; that Nicolas Monteblanco
is not his offspring, but the legitimate son of the deceased Nicolas Sian Sr.,
who left the child under his (Segundo Monteblanco’s) custody; that Nicolas Sian
Sr., likewise, left his properties under the care of Segundo Monteblanco, in
trust and for the benefit of Nicolas Monteblanco; and that, in order to help the
plaintiffs extricate themselves from some financial difficulties they had before
the war, particularly in connection with the purchase of an Hacienda Fidela,
certain crop loan deficits and some time loan accounts, Segundo Monteblanco sold
the aforementioned properties, held by him in trust and for the benefit of
Nicolas Monteblanco, and applied the proceeds thereof to the payment of said
obligations of plaintiffs herein.

Segundo Monteblanco prayed therefore: (a) that plaintiffs be sentenced
to render accounts of their administration of said conjugal estate and of his
own properties, and to reconvey to him his properties which were illegally
acquired by them from the mortgagee thereof, as well as to pay moral damages,
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees; (b) that the Hacienda Fidela be
placed under receivership pendente lite; (c) that plaintiffs be
ordered to reconvey said Hacienda to Nicolas Sian Jr. (Nicolas Monteblanco) in
consideration of the purchase price thereof, which was paid with proceeds of the
properties held by Segundo Monteblanco in trust and for the benefit of said
Nicolas Sian Jr. (or Nicolas Monteblanco), or else, to pay him the amount of
said proceeds, with interest thereon, as well as the amount of the other
obligations of the plaintiffs paid with proceeds of said properties.

The allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint and in the amended answer of
defendant Segundo Monteblanco regarding the nature of the relations between
Segundo Monteblanco and Nicolas Sian, Jr. or Nicolas Monteblanco, gave occasion
for the latter’s counterclaims. In the first counterclaim of Nicolas
Monteblanco, he sought moral and exemplary damages for the injury caused by the
allegation that he is an illegitimate son of Segundo Monteblanco, despite the
alleged knowledge of the plaintiffs that he (Nicolas Sian, Jr. or Nicolas
Monteblanco) is the son of the spouses Nicolas Sian, Sr. and Rosario
Velasco.

By way of second cause of action, Nicolas Monteblanco alleged that “with
the full knowledge of plaintiffs regarding the existing * * * trust” and
“with the understanding” that Segundo Monteblanco “would sell the properties
held in trust for Nicolas Sian Jr. (Nicolas Monteblanco) so that with the
proceeds of the purchase” (sale) “thereof he would purchase, as in effect he did
purchase * * * the said Hacienda Pidela and in the meantime place it in the name
of plaintiff Celso S. Guanco and his wife”; that for such “purpose, with the
proceeds of the sale of the trust properties” Segundo Monteblanco “paid the
amount of about twenty-five thousand pesos in payment of the price of ‘Hda.
Fidela’ and other amounts totalling about fourteen thousand pesos * * *”; and
“that in doing this, the defendant Segundo Monteblanco acted in the belief as
he was assured by Celso S. Guanco upon demand at any time, he would deliver
the property purchased with the trust funds (Hda. Fidela) to the beneficiary
thereof, who is no other than Nicolas Monteblanco”.

The third counterclaim of Nicolas Monteblanco refers to other sums of money,
taken from the proceeds of the sale of said properties of the Sians, allegedly
applied by Segundo Monteblaneo to the satisfaction of other monetary obligations
of the plaintiffs, as set forth in the amended answer of Segundo
Monteblanco.

Insofar as the appeal before us is concerned, the allegations of the
complaint and of the two (2) amended answers adverted to above offer the
following salient features, namely:

1. Plaintiffs, according to the defendants, were aware of the fideicomisary
   character of the funds applied by Segundo Monteblanco to the satisfaction of
   their (plaintiffs’) debts, and Segundo Monteblanco did so, according to Nicolas
   Monteblanco, upon the assurance of plaintiff Celso S. Guanco that “upon
   demand at any time he would, deliver the property purchased with the trust
   funds (Hda. Fidela) to the beneficiary thereof, who is no other than Nicolas
   Monteblanco”. It is thus difficult to understand why the lower court found, in
   the resolution appealed from, that Nicolas Monteblanco had a cause of action
   against Segundo Monteblanco only, not against the plaintiffs.

2. The second and third counterclaims of Nicolas Monteblanco are, not only
   intimately related to the issues raised by the complaint and the amended answer
   of Segundo Monteblanco. Said counterclaims of Nicolas Monteblanco are
   substantially identical to the fourth and sixth causes of action in the
   counterclaim of Segundo Monteblanco. Hence, they will have to be decided by the
   lower court, after trial of the case on the merits, regardless of its resolution
   dismissing the second and third counterclaims of Nicolas Monteblanco. As a
   consequence, a determination of the merits of the present appeal would lead to a
   judgment on said causes of action in the counterclaim of Segundo Monteblanco.

Wherefore, without prejudice to the consideration of the merits of said
resolution at its proper time, this appeal is hereby dismissed, with the costs
of this instance against defendant-appellant Nicolas Monteblanco. It is so
ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.