G.R. No. 39671 ; March 8, 1932
In re Estate of the deceased Gabina Medina. ALEJANDRO SAMIA, administrator-appellant, vs. IRENE MEDINA, ET AL., opponents-appellees.

FACTS

Alejandro Samia, as administrator of the testamentary estate of Gabina Medina, appealed from an order of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The order granted a motion to reopen the proceedings for the probate of Gabina Medina’s will, set aside the previous order allowing the will, and ordered a new trial. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the order was interlocutory and thus not appealable. The appellant opposed, arguing the order was final and appealable.

ISSUE

Whether an order granting a motion to reopen proceedings for the allowance of a will under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure is interlocutory (and unappealable) or final (and appealable).

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal. It held that an order granting a motion for a new trial under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure is interlocutory and therefore not appealable. The Court found no legal or logical reason to treat such an order differently from an order granting a new trial under Section 145 of the same Code, which had long been settled as interlocutory. While the underlying judgment or proceeding affected by a Section 113 motion is final, the order granting the reopening itself does not terminate the litigation; the aggrieved party can still question its propriety on appeal from any adverse judgment rendered after the new trial. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

AI Generated by Armztrong.