DY CHUN, DY SUAT HONG, DY BEE, DY SEKO, TAN HO, JOSE KOO DY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF NOLASCO DYCOTHAY, “AGUSAN COMMERCIAL” EAST MINDANAO LUMBER CO., HIAP BEE, A…

Petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction to annul
an order of respondent Hon. Jose M. Mendoza, as Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu, dismissing the appeal sought to be
taken by petitioners herein from a decision and an order of said respondent in
Civil Case No. R-7793 of said Court.

It appears that as administrator of the Intestate Estate of Hilarion Dydongco, deceased, the
settlement of which is the subject matter of Special Proceedings No. 2205-R of
the Court of First Instance of Cebu, its Clerk of
Court, Vicente Miranda – hereinafter referred to as the Administrator –
commenced Civil Case No. R-7793 of the same Court against most of the
petitioners herein, namely, Dy Chun, Dy Suat Hong, Dy
Bee, Dy Seko, Tan Ho, Nolasco Dycothay,^[1] Agusan Commercial Company, New Agusan
Commercial, East Mindanao Lumber Company, Hiap Bee
and East Mindanao Lum­ber Company, Hiap Bee and East
Mindanao Lumber Company, Inc.

In his amended complaint, Miranda alleged that prior to and at
the time of his death in China sometime in 1941, Hilarion
Dydongco, who resided in the Philippines since the
beginning of the century, had, in Butuan, Agusan and Cebu City,
well-developed and established business and commercial enterprises with
substantial bank deposits and about 127 parcels of land or property; that Hilarion Dydongco went to China,
in 1934, and, thereafter, became seriously ill; that, at that time, his
children, Dy Chun and Dy Suat Hong^[2]
as well as Dy Siok Lee^[3]
and his protegees Dy Bee
and Dy Seko were working as
his Manager and/or employees in the aforementioned business establishments;
that taking advantage of the absence and bad condition of the health of Hilarion Dydongco, particularly
of his subsequent death, the defendants therein (petitioners herein) took over
said business, in­cluding its assets, goods, merchandise, chattels, machinery,
stock-­in-trade, cash on hand and in banks, amounts receivable and other
properties of the deceased, as well as his store known as “Dydongco Store”, and its branches, and organized
first, a fake partnership with the business name of “Agusan
Commercial Company”, and then the East Mindanao Lumber Co., which operated
and did business with the capital, assets, stocks-in-trade, merchandise, funds
and other pro­perty of said deceased; that with funds belonging to the latter,
the de­fendants therein (petitioners herein) moreover purchased several parcels
of land, on one of which a 20-door apartment building was constructed, with
funds of the same nature, and let to Chinese tenants and other lessees; that
the defendants therein (petitioners herein) had received and are receiving the
rentals, earnings and profits derived from said business and property of the
deceased; and that said de­fendants (petitioners herein) hold, manage and
operate the aforemen­tioned business, properties and income in trust
for the Intestate Estate of Hilarion Dydongco, but have not rendered any accounting thereof.

The Administrator prayed, therefore, that judgment be rendered
declaring that said business, assets, income and other property, are in the
possession and under the management and control of said defendants (petitioners
herein) as mere trustees thereof, and sentencing them to turn over and deliver
the same to him, as Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Hilarion Dydongco, as well as to
render ac­counts and to execute the corresponding deeds of conveyance, in addi­tion
to paying damages and the costs.  After
appropriate proceedings, said Court, presided over by respondent Judge,
rendered a decision finding that most of the allegations of the Administrator
had been duly proven and, accordingly, sentenced the defendants therein
(petition­ers herein):

“1.  (To) Deliver all properties found by the Court
(in the body of its decision) to belong to the estate of Hilarion
Dydongco, to plaintiff as administrator of the Estate
of Hilarion Dydongco;

“2.  To render full, accurate and correct
accounting of all the fruits and proceeds of the properties which each of the
defendants had possessed and which has been found by this Court as properties
belonging to the estate of Hilarion Dydongco, from 1935 until the present date;

“3.  To render full, accurate and correct account­ing
of all the fruits, interest, profits and assets as well as properties acquired
by the Agusan Commercial Com­pany, New Agusan Commercial Company, East Minda­nao Lumber Company,
East Mindanao Lumber Company, Inc., from 1935 up to the present date;

“4.  To pay by way of exemplary damages, jointly
and severally, the sum of P60,000.00 to Dy Sio Pong and Dy Suat Ngo;

“5.  To pay to counsel for plaintiff, jointly and
se­verally, the sum of P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees, including the cost of
this suit.

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of this decision was, on July 30, 1965, served upon the defendants.  On August 9, they filed their notice of
appeal and appeal bond and the next day, they submitted their record on
appeal.  On August 16, 1965, they filed, however, a motion for
reconsideration and new trial, which was denied on October 18, 1965.  Copy of the order to this effect was served
upon them on October 19.  On October 26,
they filed a notice to the effect that, on October 30, 1965, they would submit for consideration the
record on appeal filed on August 10.  On
November 13, defendants filed additional pages to be attached to said record on
appeal, whereas the administrator objected to the approval thereof, upon the
ground that the decision was already final and executory.  On November 29, respondent Judge issued an
order declaring that “the defendants (petitioners herein) have not
perfected their appeal on time” and that the aforementioned decision had,
consequently, become final and executory.

A reconsideration of this order was denied on December 15, 1965,
whereupon said defendants – petitioners herein – instituted the present
original, action for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, with a writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction, against the administrator and respondent
Judge, alleging that the latter had acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing said orders of November 29 and
December 15, 1965, and praying, accordingly, that said orders be declared null
and void, and that respondent Judge be directed to give due course to the afore
mentioned appeal of petitioners herein as defendants in said case No.
R-7793.  Soon after the commencement of
these proceedings, or on December 24,
1965, we issued a writ restraining respondents there­in, until January 4, 1966, from implementing,
enforcing and executing the orders of respondent Judge dated November 29 and December 15, 1965.   On January
18, 1966, said writ was incorporated into a writ of preliminary
injunction, upon the posting and approval of a bond, filed by the petitioners,
in the sum of P5,000.00.

The petition herein and the answer thereto filed by respondents
discuss rather extensively the question whether or not petitioners had
perfected their appeal in the lower court within the reglementary
period.  We find it, however, unnecessary
to pass upon said question, for the reason presently to be stated.

Although declaring that most of the properties involved in the
litigation belong to the estate of Hilarion Dydongco, the decision of respondent Judge, dated July 30,
1965, moreover, required petitioners herein to render a “full, accurate
and complete accounting of all the fruits and proceeds” of said
properties. After analyzing previous rulings thereon, this Court declared, in Fuentebella v. Carrascoso^[4]
that a decision of such nature is interlocutory in character, because it does
not dispose of the action in its entirety and leaves something to be done to
complete the relief sought, and that, accordingly, it is not appealable, until after the adjudications necessary for the
completion of said relief shall have been made. 
Indeed, the very counsel for petitioners herein now accept this view and
concede that petitioners’ appeal had been taken prematurely.

WHEREFORE,
this case should be as it is hereby dismissed and the writ prayed for denied,
with costs against petitioners herein. 
The writ of preliminary injunction issued in this case on January 18, 1966, is, accordingly,
dissolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano,
JJ., concur.

Dizon and
Zaldivar, JJ.,
did not take part.

^[1] Who
died later and was substituted by the Administrator of his estate, Jose Koe Dy.

^[2]
Both defendants in said case R-7793.

^[3]
Who died subsequently and is not a defendant in case No. R-7793.

^[4] G.R.
No. 48102, May 27, 1942.  See, also, Salazar v. Torres, L-13711, May
25, 1960; Zaldarriaga v. Enriquez, L-13252, April 29, 1961; Zaldarriaga
v. Zaldarriaga,
L-13424, May 31, 1961.