This  is  an  appeal, taken  by Dolores  Lopez  Vda. de Jison, the Heirs of Albino Jison and the Heirs of Joaquina Alboro, from a decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing their petition for a writ of mandamus to enjoin respondent Hon. Francisco Arellano, as  Judge  of First Instance of Negros Occidental, to certify the  joint record on  appeal filed, by said petitioners,  in Cadastral Case No. 27 of said province, G.L.R.O. No. 284, in connection with the decision therein rendered as regards lots Nos.  606,  609,  610, 631 and 818 of the Cadastre  of Sagay,  Negros Occidental.

The only question raised in  this  action is whether or not petitioners' appeal from said decision of the  Court of First Instance of Negros  Occidental has been perfected in due time.   The pertinent facts are not disputed.

On October  17, 1952,  said Court of  First Instance rendered decision, penned by Honorable Lorenzo C.  Garlitos, Judge,  adjudicating  said  lots to  respondents herein, the spouses Dominador Lacson and  Visitacion Lacson.  Notice of this decision was received by the petitioners, as claimants of said lots, on November 17,1952.   Twenty-one days later, or on December  8, 1952, petitioners gave the corresponding  notice of appeal.  On December 12,  1952, they asked permission to file a joint record  on appeal.  Leave of absence  having been taken by Judge Garlitos,  during the Christmas of 1952,  said request was not acted upon until January 10, 1953, when said Judge issued an order authorizing petitioners "to  file and  submit for approval  a joint record on appeal within the  reglementary period as required by  law."   Copy  of this border was, on February 19,  1958, served upon petitioners'  counsel, who filed said joint record  on appeal, and the  corresponding appeal bond, immediately thereafter,  or on February. 20,  1953. Respondents  Dominador and Visitacion Lacson, later objected to the approval of said joint record on appeal  and moved for  the dismissal of petitioners' appeals, upon the  ground that said  joint  record  on appeal  and  the appeal  bond had been  filed beyond  the reglementary period.  This pretense, was overruled  by  Judge Garlitos in  an order dated  April 23,  1953.   Soon after,  said  Judge  ceased, however, to preside the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and respondent Judge, Hon. Francisco Arellano, to whom  the case had,  meanwhile, been assigned,  reconsidered said order and  dismissed the appeal, on motion of Dominador  and Visitacion Lacson.   Consequently, petitioners instituted the present action,  in the  Court of Appeals, for the  purpose of compelling said respondent Judge, by  mandamus, to approve and certify the  aforementioned joint record on appeal.  The case is now  before us on  appeal from the decision  of the Court of Appeals dismissing said petition for mandamus, with costs against the petitioners.

At the outset,  the Court of  Appeals  seems  to have been  under  the impression  that  petitioners' motion for permission to submit a joint record  on appeal  had been filed on January 10, 1953, inasmuch as the  decision of said Court  states:

"It appears  that petitioners, among the  five different claimants, filed answer  for  said  lots.  Their claim  was  adversely  decided and, having received notice  of the decision on1 November 17, 1952, they filed notice of  appeal  on  December  12, 1952.  On  January 10,  1953, they filed  a motion asking the court  to allow  them  to the  a  joint record on appeal together  with the  other  appellants. (Italics supplied.)

Obviously, the  conclusion  of the Court  of Appeals to the effect that the appeal had not been perfected within the reglementary period would be  correct if the foregoing narration were accurate.  Over  fifty (50)  days  having elapsed from November  17, 1952 when  petitioners received notice of the decision of the Court of First Instance to January 10, 1953, said decision-would  have been final several weeks prior  to the date last mentioned,  had the motion for authority to submit  a joint  record  on appeal not been filed prior thereto.

However, the very  decision of the  Court of Appeals quotes, in support thereof, the order of Judge  Garlitos of January 10, 1953, which indicates and respondents admit that said motion was filed on December 12, 1952.  Moreover, , said  decision of the Court of Appeals significantly states, quite inaccurately,  that petitioners had given notice of their  intention to  appeal on December  12, 1952, although the record shows,  and  respondents admit,  that said notice was filed  on  December 8, 1952.  These  circumstances  suggest,  to our mind, that the dismissal of the petition for mandamus by the Court of Appeals was prompted mainly by its erroneous belief that  the motion for permission to submit a joint record  on  appeal  had been filed on January  10,  1953, and  that what petitioners had attached  to the  record on December  12,  1952  was, not said  motion,  but  their  notice  of appeal.  In  fact, however, said motion  was  filed on December  12, 1952 or five (5) days before the  expiration of the reglementary period to perfect the appeal the notice of appeal having been  recorded four  (4)  days before, or on December 8, 1952.

It is urged that the filing of said motion did not suspend  the running of  the period to .perfect the  appeal; that an extension of  said period was  not asked  in said motion;  that  the  lower  court, in its  order of January 10, 1953, merely authorized the filing of said joint record on appeal  "within the reglementary period,"  which, respondent  contend, expired on December  17,  1952; that said order  did  not  extend  the  period  within which to perfect the  appeal; and that petitioners should have filed, therefore, their joint record on appeal on or 'before December 17, 1952.  Upon  the  other hand,  petitioners  herein maintain that they could not have done so after the filing of said motion  on, December  12, 1952 and until receipt of notice of the order of  January 10, 1953, granting said motion.

Upon  consideration of the  circumstances surrounding the case,  we  are of  the  opinion that  petitioners'  appeal had been  seasonably  perfected.   To  begin  with,  if,  as respondents  contend,  the party seeking an  extension of time may  not assume that the same  would be  granted, petitioners herein were,  by the same  token, not entitled to take  it for. granted that their motion for authority to file a joint record on appeal would merit favorable  action.'' Hence, they  cannot be said to be  under legal obligation to file said joint record  on appeal pending  the granting of said  motion.

Again,  the  question whether or  not  the  presentation of a joint record on  appeal shall  be authorized, is principally  addressed to  the sound discretion  of  the court, to be exercised   in  the  light  of the  condition  obtaining in  each  case.  In  connection therewith, Judge  Garlitos said in his order of April 23,  1953:

"This Court was aware of the  shuttling- back  and forth of  the records of  this case from the Office of the  Clerk of  Court in  Bacolod City to  the   Municipality of Escalante, Negros  Occidental, at which latter place this  Court had  been  holding sessions  in connection  "with Cadastral Cases  involving   lots  of the  Escalante Cadastre.   The said Municipality is 102 kilometers  away from  the City of Bacolod, and  that there were times  when  the records of this  case were  brought  to  Esealante  and   then returned to  the City of Bacolod and' vice-versa,  making it thereby really hard  and inconvenient for the parties-claimants to perfect their Record on Appeal due to the unavailability  of the records  of this  case to the attorneys  for  the  claimants-appellants  who  are all residents of Bacolod  City.  The Court is  also aware of  the circumstance that this  is a  case involving reconstitution  of the records which have been destroyed during  the war as well  as the hearing of the many witnesses of  the claimants which made  the record voluminous as to necessitate a longer period  of time for the  preparation of the Joint Record  on  Appeal.   The Court having  been conscious of these  facts, acting  within the  proper bounds  of both, justice and  equity, and in  the exercise of its sound discretion, had  to be liberal in  granting extensions  of time to  the parties  concerned to enable them to  file  their  Records on Appeal."

*           *           *           *           *           *           *           *

"The records, likewise, disclose that the heirs of Raymuhdo Tupaa received  the copy of the decision  rendered by this  Court on November  4,  3952; that  on November 26,  1952, . the  corresponding Notice of Appeal  dated  November  12,  1952, was filed  by the said heirs;  that on  November  25,  1952,  before  the  expiration of  the original  thirty-day period, the  heirs of  Raymundo Tupas prayed for an extension of time which was  granted by the Court as may be  seen in  its order  dated  November  29,  1952,  allowing  them fifteen  (15)  days extension  within which to file their Record on Appeal; that on  the  12th day of December,  1952,  the  heirs  of Albino  Jison  and the heirs  of Joaquina  Alboro prayed  that  the Joint  Record on  Appeal  with the  other  claimants-appellants be affected; that on January 10, 1953, after the undersigned  presiding this Court  had returned from Manila after a  leave of absence of  fifteen (15) days, the Court resolved the aforesaid  petition and authorized the heirs of Albino Jison  and the  heirs  of  Joaquina Alboro to file and submit  for  approval a Joint  Record on Appeal within the reglementary period  as required by law;  that  this  order was received by the  heirs of  Albino  Jison, Dolores  L. Vda. de Jison and the heirs of  Joaquina  Alboro on the 19th day of  February 1953;  that on the other hand the  heirs  of  Raymundo Tupas filed on  January 14,  1953, a pleading entitled "Confirmity to the Motion of  Dolores Lopez  Vda. de Jison for the  Joint  Record on Appeal and a Motion which prayed among  other things that the parties submit their  Record  on Appeal  which  was acted  upon by this Court  on January 23,  1953, and a copy of which was received by the heirs of Raymundo  Tupas  on  the  3rd day of February  1953; that in the said order  this Court authorized the heirs of Raymundo Tupas to  withdraw their record  on appeal and in  lieu thereof the parties  concerned  were thereby enjoined  to  submit their  Joint Record on Appeal within the  reglementary  period  as  required by law; and,  that  on the 20th day  of  February,  1953,  the heirs of Raymundo Tupas, the heirs of Albino Jison, Dolores  L. Vda. de Jison and the Heirs of  Joaquina  Alboro submitted their Joint Record on  Appeal together  with their  appeal bond.

"On the  strength,  of  the facts mentioned above  and after a mature perusal of the  pleadings of the  parties concerned as well as the oral arguments of their lawyers,  the Court is of the considered judgment, and it so holds, that the motion to dismiss  the Appeals submitted by the  heirs  of Raymundo Tupas, the heirs  of Albino Jison, Dolores L. Vda. de  Jison and the heirs of Joaquina Alboro is without merit, and  it is, therefore, hereby overruled.'"

These facts and  the  conclusion   drawn therefrom  by Judge Garlitos  strongly  suggest  that  said Judge issued his order of January 10,  1953,  with the  intention, either of  suspending the running of the  period to file  the record on  appeal   during  the  pendency  of  petitioners'  motion of December 12, 1952, or of granting., petitioners herein, from notice of said order of January 10,  1953, an additional time, for the filing of said joint  record on appeal, equivalent to the portion of the reglementary period which had  not expired  at the time of  the filing of said motion. In view  of  the  foregoing, and  considering  that  the joint record on  appeal and the appeal bond were filed the day immediately following receipt of the notice aforementioned, and that the Rules of Court should be construed liberally,  in  order that litigants may .'have a reasonable opportunity to defend and enforce their substantive rights (Rule 1,  section 2,  Rules of Court), the decision of the Court of Appeals should be, as it is hereby, reversed,  and let the writ of mandamus prayed for be issued, with costs against  respondents Dominador Lacspn and Visitation Lacson.   It is so ordered.

Parás, C. J., Bengzon,  Padilla, Montemayar, Reyes, A., Jugo,  Labrador,  Reyes,  J.  B.  L.,  and Endencia,   JJ., concur.