G.R. No. L-11464; March 17, 1916
VICTOR BIUNAS, petitioner-appellant, vs. BENITO MORA, respondent-appellee.

FACTS:
Victor Biunas filed a petition for the probate of the will of Romana Arevalo. The trial court, upon opposition from Benito Mora and others, denied the petition in an order dated October 20, 1915. On October 22, 1915, Biunas excepted to this order. On November 1, 1915, he filed a motion to reopen the case and for a new trial, arguing the decision was contrary to the evidence and the law. The trial court denied this motion. Biunas then filed a notice of appeal on November 17, 1915. The appellee, Benito Mora, moved to dismiss the appeal, contending it was filed out of time. He argued that under Section 781 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal period was 20 days from October 21, 1915, and that the filing of the motion for a new trial did not interrupt this period.

ISSUE:
1. Whether a motion for a new trial is permissible in special proceedings, such as probate.
2. Whether the filing of a motion for a new trial interrupts the running of the period to appeal in special proceedings.

RULING:
The Supreme Court held that the appeal was timely and properly allowed.

1. On the Permissibility of a Motion for New Trial in Special Proceedings: The Court ruled that a motion to set aside a judgment and for a new trial is allowable in special proceedings. Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for such motions, does not restrict its application to ordinary civil actions alone. Since no law prohibits it, the remedy is available to correct errors affecting the rights of parties in special proceedings as well.

2. On the Interruption of the Appeal Period: The Court ruled that the filing of a motion for a new trial interrupts the running of the period prescribed for taking an appeal in special proceedings. This principle, already established for ordinary actions and registration proceedings, applies by analogy. Therefore, the 20-day appeal period under Section 781 was suspended from the filing of the motion for a new trial (November 1, 1915) until it was denied. Consequently, the notice of appeal filed on November 17, 1915, was timely.

The Court further noted that in special proceedings brought to the Supreme Court via appeal (not by bill of exceptions), the evidence may be reviewed even if no exception was taken to the order denying the motion for a new trial.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The motion to dismiss the appeal was denied. The proceedings in the Supreme Court were to continue for a decision on the merits of the appeal.

SEPARATE OPINION:
Chief Justice Arellano, concurring in the result only, disagreed with the majority’s establishment of a general principle allowing motions for new trial in special proceedings. He argued that the Code of Civil Procedure drew a radical distinction between ordinary actions (governed by bills of exceptions and Section 145) and special proceedings (governed by appeal under Section 781). He would hold that in equity, a motion for a new trial filed within the appeal period, though technically improper, should be treated as the equivalent of a notice of appeal to prevent prejudice to the movant. Justice Johnson concurred with this separate opinion.