Facts:

The case involves Thelma Tanalega and Fernando Roman as petitioners against Honorable Tito V. Tizon, the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bataan, and private respondents Antonio Delgado and Nellie C. Delgado. The events leading to this case began with a civil suit filed by the private respondents against the petitioners regarding Lot No. 592 of the Mariveles Cadastre. On July 16, 1968, the CFI rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents, declaring the reopening of Cadastral Case No. 19 as null and void, setting aside a previous decision from May 2, 1967, and revoking the Original Certificate of Title No. 135 issued to the petitioners. The court recognized the private respondents as the lawful owners of the lot in question and validated the petitioners' Original Certificate of Title No. 212. The petitioners received a copy of this decision on July 23, 1968. Subsequently, on August 10, 1968, they filed a motion to set aside the decision, c...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:
   The case involves a civil dispute over the ownership of Lot No. 592 of the Mariveles Cadastre. The private respondents, Antonio Delgado and Nellie C. Delgado, filed a case against the petitioners, Thelma Tanalega and Fernando Roman, challenging the reopening of Cadastral Case No. 19 and the subsequent issuance of a decision and title in favor of the petitioners.

2. Trial Court Decision:
   On July 16, 1968, the respondent Judge Tito V. Tizon of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bataan rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents. The court declared the reopening of the cadastral case null and void, set aside the decision in favor of the petitioners, and revoked the title issued to them. The court also declared the private respondents as the lawful owners of the lot.

3. Motion to Set Aside and Appeal:
   The petitioners received the decision on July 23, 1968, and filed a motion to set it aside on August 10, 1968, arguing that it was contrary to law and unsupported by evidence. The motion was denied on November 11, 1968. On November 22, 1968, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a motion for a 15-day extension to file their record on appeal. The extension was granted, and the record on appeal was filed on December 5, 1968.

4. Denial of Record on Appeal:
   On January 27, 1969, the respondent Judge denied approval of the record on appeal, citing that it did not show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time, as required by Section 6, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petitioners challenged this order via certiorari.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Purpose of the Record on Appeal:
   The record on appeal is intended to present the facts necessary for the appellate court to review the rulings, orders, or judgments appealed from. It is not mandatory for the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time, especially when the trial court still has the complete records and can verify the timeliness of the appeal.

2. Trial Court's Duty to Verify Timeliness:
   The trial court, which has the complete records, can determine whether the appeal was perfected on time. It is not required to dismiss the appeal outright if the record on appeal lacks certain data. Instead, it should order the appellant to amend the record on appeal to include the necessary information.

3. Amendment of the Record on Appeal:
   Section 7, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court empowers the trial court to order the amendment of the record on appeal if it is incomplete or defective. The respondent Judge should have utilized this power to direct the petitioners to amend their record on appeal instead of dismissing it.

4. Grave Abuse of Discretion:
   The respondent Judge's refusal to reconsider his position and allow the amendment of the record on appeal, despite having granted the extension himself, was arbitrary and amounted to grave abuse of discretion.