Vicencio vs. de Borja

An appeal from a judgment declaring a partnership dissolved is premature when the rendition of accounts ordered by the trial court is still pending — the case is not terminated until the accounts have been rendered and approved, and the liquidation must be submitted to the court for decision before any appeal may be taken.

Ananias Vicencio and Jose de Borja were former partners in a business that had been dissolved. Their dispute concerned the division of the partnership's assets — Vicencio claiming money and cattle as his share, and de Borja counterclaiming a sum of money as his own share. The case presents the procedural question of when a judgment in a partnership dissolution case becomes final and appealable, specifically whether an appeal may be taken while the ordered liquidation of accounts remains pending.

Ananias Vicencio filed a complaint against Jose de Borja praying that the defendant be ordered to pay him certain sums of money and to deliver certain cattle alleged to belong to him as his share in their partnership, which had been dissolved. The defendant filed a counterclaim also claiming a certain sum of money which belonged to him as his share in the same partnership and praying for a liquidation of the affairs of the partnership.

The trial court rendered judgment ordering, among other things, that the plaintiff make a liquidation of the partnership. The plaintiff thereafter interposed an appeal from that judgment. The liquidation ordered by the trial court had not yet been rendered and approved at the time the appeal was taken.

N/A — the decision does not recount the appellant's specific arguments on appeal.

N/A — the decision does not recount the appellee's specific arguments on appeal.

• Prematurity of Appeal: Whether the appeal from a judgment ordering the liquidation of a dissolved partnership is premature when the rendition of accounts is still pending.

• Prematurity of Appeal: Yes. The appeal was premature because the case could not be considered terminated until the accounts had been rendered and approved by the trial court, following the doctrine in Natividad vs. Villarica.

• Prematurity of Appeal: The Court adopted the doctrine laid down in Natividad vs. Villarica (31 Phil., 172), which holds that when the rendition of accounts ordered by the Court of First Instance in dissolving a partnership is still pending, the case cannot be considered terminated in that court until the accounts have been rendered and approved. Consequently, the allowance of an appeal filed by one of the parties from the judgment declaring the partnership dissolved is premature. The liquidation which the plaintiff has to make in obedience to the trial court's order does not settle the litigation; the liquidation must be submitted to the court for decision, and only from that decision may the parties take an appeal if the same is not agreeable to them. Because the plaintiff's liquidation had not yet been rendered and approved, the appeal was premature, and the record was ordered returned to the court of origin for further proceedings.

• Premature Appeal in Partnership Dissolution — When the rendition of accounts ordered by the trial court in dissolving a partnership is still pending, the case cannot be considered terminated until the accounts have been rendered and approved. An appeal from the judgment declaring the partnership dissolved is therefore premature. The liquidation does not settle the litigation; it must be submitted to the court for decision, and the parties may appeal from that decision if not agreeable to them.

• "When the rendition of accounts ordered by the Court of First Instance in dissolving a partnership is still pending, the case cannot be considered terminated in that court until said accounts have been rendered and approved, and consequently the allowance of the appeal filed by one of the parties from the judgment declaring the partnership dissolved is premature." — This is the controlling doctrine from Natividad vs. Villarica, quoted and adopted by the Court as the basis for dismissing the appeal.
• "The liquidation which the plaintiff has to make in obedience to said order of the court, does not settle the litigation, but said liquidation must be submitted to the court for decision, from which the parties may take an appeal, if the same is not agreeable to them." — This explains the rationale for the prematurity rule: the liquidation is not self-executing but must be judicially approved before the case becomes final and appealable.

• Natividad vs. Villarica, 31 Phil., 172 — Controlling precedent, followed by the Court in holding the appeal premature; it established the doctrine that a partnership dissolution case is not terminated until the ordered accounts have been rendered and approved.

N/A — the decision cites no specific constitutional, statutory, or codal provisions.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, and Ostrand, JJ., concurred.

N/A — no dissenting opinion is noted in the text.