This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-08-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known. The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon.[20] An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered.[21] The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final. | |||||
|
2009-09-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| An interlocutory order, as opposed to a final order, was defined in Tan v. Republic:[20] | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence recognizes the existence of multiple appeals in a complaint for expropriation because there are two stages in every action for expropriation.[26] The first stage is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit.[27] The order of expropriation may be appealed by any party by filing a record on appeal.[28] The second stage is concerned with the determination by the court of the just compensation for the property sought to be expropriated.[29] A second and separate appeal may be taken from this order fixing the just compensation.[30] | |||||