Ocampo v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alfredo V. de Ocampo filed an application for the registration of two parcels of land in Negros Occidental, stating that the Bureau of Public Schools was claiming these parcels. Procedural History: The trial court issued a general default order, except for the Bureau of Public Schools and a mortgagee. Subsequently, the court declared the Bureau of Public Schools as having waived its claim due to failure to file an answer. However, the court later reconsidered this, admitting the opposition filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, stating the lands belonged to the Republic by virtue of a legacy. The applicant appealed this order. The Petition: The applicant sought to appeal the trial court's order which set aside its previous order of waiver and admitted the opposition of the Solicitor General.
Issue(s)
Whether the order of the trial court setting aside its previous order of waiver and admitting the opposition of the Solicitor General is a final and appealable order. Whether the appeal filed by the applicant should be given due course.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed for being without merit. The order appealed from is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appealability of the order: The Court reiterated the definition of a final order as one that finally disposes of the pending action, leaving nothing more to be done in the lower court. An order that leaves something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case is interlocutory and not appealable. The order of December 18, 1961, which set aside the previous order of waiver and admitted the opposition of the Solicitor General, did not finally dispose of the land registration case. It merely allowed the case to proceed to trial on the merits, meaning there was still much to be done in the lower court. Therefore, the order was interlocutory and not subject to an immediate appeal. The applicant's remedy was to await a final judgment on the merits and then appeal that judgment, raising the issue of the interlocutory order as an error in the proceedings. On the appeal filed by the applicant: Since the order appealed from was interlocutory, the appeal was prematurely filed. The trial court correctly approved the record on appeal, but the Solicitor General's subsequent motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-appealability was the correct procedural step. The Supreme Court deferred action on the Solicitor General's motion until the case was decided on the merits, indicating that the primary issue before them was the appealability of the order itself. The Court found no merit in the applicant's appeal because it was based on an interlocutory order.
Main Doctrine
An order is interlocutory if it leaves something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case; it is final if it disposes of the entire controversy, leaving nothing to be enforced but execution. An appeal may only be taken from a final order.