Facts:

The case titled "El Intestado de Benito Valdez y Otro" involves the petitioners Benito Valdez and another individual against Vicente Albert, the Judge of First Instance of Masbate, and the Director of Lands. The events leading to this case began with a legal proceeding in the First Instance Court of Masbate concerning the registration of land under G.L.R.O. Record No. 42235. On July 22, 1940, the court issued an order requiring the petitioners to amend their application, which they subsequently did by submitting a document referred to as the "Pieza de Excepciones." However, the General Prosecutor, representing the Director of Lands, raised objections to this document, prompting the judge to order the petitioners to revise it further. The judge's order included the insertion of the adverb "no" in a specific line and the removal of paragraphs 1 to 43, which the judge deemed irrelevant as they were merely copies of previous motions and orders th...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:
   The case involves the intestate estate of Benito Valdez and another petitioner (recurrentes) who appealed against an order issued by the Court of First Instance of Masbate in Registration Case No. 65 (G.L.R.O. Record No. 42235). The order dismissed their petition for failure to amend it as required by the court.

2. Filing of the Bill of Exceptions:
   To perfect their appeal, the petitioners submitted their Bill of Exceptions for approval. However, the Solicitor General, representing the Director of Lands (the opposing party), raised objections to the Bill of Exceptions.

3. Court's Order to Amend the Bill of Exceptions:
   The trial judge ordered the petitioners to amend their Bill of Exceptions. The amendments included inserting the negative adverb "no" in a specific line and deleting paragraphs 1 to 43, which the court deemed irrelevant as they were mere copies of pleadings, motions, and interlocutory orders unrelated to the appealed order.

4. Petitioners' Argument:
   The petitioners believed the trial judge acted without authority in refusing to approve their original Bill of Exceptions and in ordering the deletion of significant portions. They filed a mandamus proceeding to compel the judge to approve the Bill of Exceptions in its original form.

5. Legal Provisions Cited:
   The case references Articles 7 of Rule 41 and Article 9 of Rule 50 of the New Rules of Court, which govern the approval and amendment of records on appeal.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Authority of Trial Judges in Amending Records on Appeal:
   Under Articles 7 of Rule 41 and Article 9 of Rule 50 of the New Rules of Court, trial judges may only order amendments to a record on appeal to correct incompleteness or inaccuracies. They cannot delete portions of the record that are relevant to understanding the issues on appeal.

2. Purpose of the Bill of Exceptions:
   The Bill of Exceptions serves to inform the appellate court of all relevant incidents in the trial to determine whether the appealed order or decision is in accordance with the law. Deleting relevant portions undermines this purpose.

3. Mandamus as a Remedy:
   Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel a trial judge to approve a Bill of Exceptions when the judge acts without authority or exceeds their jurisdiction. The petitioners' filing of an amended Bill of Exceptions under protest did not waive their right to seek mandamus.

4. Relevance of Deleted Portions:
   The deleted paragraphs, though consisting of pleadings, motions, and interlocutory orders, were essential for understanding the context of the appealed order. Their removal would prejudice the petitioners' right to a fair appeal.