Republic of the Philippines Meanwhile, on August 21, 1964, the heirs of Miguel del

SUPREME COURT Fierro, led by his widow Generosa Jimenez Vda. del
Manila Fierro, filed an ejectment case (forcible entry) against
THIRD DIVISION Lodelfo Marcial and Narciso Marcial before the
Municipal Trial Court of Palauig, Zambales.5 On October
G.R. No. 152141, August 8, 2011 31, 1972, the municipal court rendered a decision in
CORNELIO DEL FIERRO, GREGORIO DEL FIERRO, favor of the Del Fierros.6On appeal, the Court of First
ILDEFONSO DEL FIERRO, ASUNCION DEL FIERRO, Instance (CFI) of Zambales, Branch II-Iba, in a
CIPRIANO DEL FIERRO, MANUELA DEL FIERRO, and Decision7 dated August 1, 1973, sustained the right of
FRANCISCO DEL FIERRO Petitioners, the Del Fierros to the possession of the subject
vs. premises and ordered the Marcials to vacate the
RENE SEGUIRAN, Respondent. premises.

DECISION On June 29, 1964, Lodelfo Marcial mortgaged to the

PERALTA, J.: Rural Bank of San Marcelino, Inc. a parcel of land
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision covered by Tax Declaration No. 21492 with an area of
of the Court of Appeals dated October 2, 2001, and its 140,000 square meters.8 The property is more
Resolution dated February 11, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. particularly described as:
60520.
A parcel of land suitable for cultivation, upland rice,
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the riceland and nipa land, situated in Marala, Palauig,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, Zambales, containing an area of 140,000, sq. m., the
in Civil Case No. RTC-233-1, dismissing petitioners’ improvements consists of mango trees in the
complaint for reconveyance of property and possession of the mortgagor; bounded on the North by
cancellation of titles for insufficiency of evidence as to River; on the South by China Sea; on the East by heirs of
the identity of the properties sought to be recovered. Miguel del Fierro and on the West by River; this
property has been declared under Tax Declaration No.
The factual background of this case, as stated by the 21492 and assessed at ₱1,550.00 in the name of the
Court of Appeals, is as follows: mortgagor; the visible limits at simple sight on the
The subject of this case are two parcels of agricultural North and East are Rivers; on the South by China Sea
land, Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 with an area of 72,326 and fence on the East.9
square meters and 116,598 square meters, respectively.
On December 26, 1972, the bank extrajudicially
Both lots are situated in Locloc, Palauig, Zambales. The foreclosed the real estate mortgage and was the highest
cadastral survey of these lots were conducted bidder in the sale of the property per the Certificate of
sometime in December 1962 (Cad. 364-D, Palauiag Sale issued by the Provincial Sheriff.10 On April 22, 1982,
Cadastre, Zambales).1The records of the Lands the Rural Bank of San Marcelino, Inc. consolidated its
Management Bureau, RLO III, San Fernando, Pampanga ownership over the property.11
show that the claimants of Lot No. 1625 was Lodelfo
Marcial2 versus Miguel del Fierro, while the claimants of On October 28, 1981, Lodelfo Marcial executed in favor
Lot No. 1626 were Lodelfo Marcial versus Francisco of respondent Rene Seguiran a Deed of Absolute Sale
Santos and Narciso Marcial.3 over a parcel of swampland designated as Lot Nos. 1625
and 1626, Palauig Cadastre with Free Patent Application
On April 29, 1965, Francisco Santos filed an application No. L-4-201 applied for by Marcial in 1967 and covered
for free patent over Lot No. 1626 with the Bureau of by Tax Declaration No. 3250 for the year 1974.12 Marcial
Lands, District Land Office No. 40 at Olongapo, had Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 surveyed by a private
Zambales. The application remained pending until the surveyor on October 19, 1969.13
commencement of this litigation in 1985.4 Francisco
Santos died on December 9, 1978. On November 9, 1981, respondent Rene Seguiran
purchased Marcial’s foreclosed property from the Rural
Bank of San Marcelino Inc.14 Respondent then filed an
1
application for free patent over Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, December 26, 1972, and consolidated ownership over
which was approved by the Bureau of Lands. On July 11, the lots on April 22, 1982. On October 28, 1981,
1983, Free Patent Nos. 598462 (Lot No. 1625) and defendant Rene S. Seguiran purchased from Lodelfo
598461 (Lot No. 1626) were issued in respondent’s Marcial (deceased) the subject lots. On November 9,
name. On July 29, 1983, the Register of Deeds of 1981, defendant purchased the subject lots again from
Zambales issued in the name of respondent Original the Rural Bank of San Marcelino, Inc.
Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. P-7013 and P-7014
covering Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, respectively.15 On Moreover, plaintiffs alleged that Lodelfo Marcial,
September 21, 1983, respondent had Lot Nos. 1625 and predecessor-in-interest of defendant, had no legal right
1626 surveyed by a private surveyor.16 He also paid the to convey the said lots to plantiffs, since he was merely
real property taxes and declared the property in his a deforciant in the said lots. Further, defendant, with
name beginning the year 1985.17 On August 26, 1983, evident bad faith, fraudulently applied with the Bureau
petitioner petitioned the RTC of Iba, Zambales to of Lands for a free patent over the said lots, alleging
conduct a relocation survey of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, that he was the actual possessor thereof, which
which petition was approved by the court. However, on constitutes a false statement, since the plaintiffs were
February 16, 1985, the heirs of Miguel and Generosa del the ones in actual possession. Despite knowing that the
Fierro filed a Motion to Quash Order of said lots were the subject of legal controversy before
Execution,18 claiming they are in actual physical the CFI of Iba, Zambales, Branch II, defendant
possession of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, and that prior to fraudulently secured a certification from the Court of
the sale of the said lots to respondent, the vendor, Olongapo to prove that the said parcels of land were
Lodelfo Marcial no longer had any right over the not subject of any court action. As a consequence of the
property, since he lost in Civil Case No. 706-1 for foregoing illegal and fraudulent acts, defendant was
ejectment filed by the Del Fierros. In an Order19 dated able to secure OCT Nos. P-7013 and P-7014 for Lot Nos.
March 20, 1985, the RTC of lba, Zambales, Branch LXX 1625 and 1626, respectively.
held in abeyance the implementation of its earlier
orders regarding the relocation survey of the lots Plaintiffs prayed that after trial, judgment be rendered:
subject of the petition filed by petitioners. (1) ordering defendant to reconvey the parcels of land
covered by OCT Nos. P-7013 and P-7014 to them
On September 13, 1985, the heirs of Miguel and (plaintiffs); (2) ordering the Register of Deeds of lba,
Generosa del Fierro, namely, Cornelio, Gregorio, Zambales to cancel the said titles and issue a new one in
Ildefonso, Asuncion, Cipriano, Manuela and Francisco, favor of plaintiffs; and (3) ordering defendant to pay
all surnamed Del Fierro, petitioners herein, filed a plaintiffs ₱40,000.00 as actual and consequential
Complaint for reconveyance and cancellation of titles damages; ₱50,000.00 as moral damages; and
against defendant Rene Seguiran, respondent herein, ₱10,000.00 as exemplary damages.22
before the RTC of Iba, Zambales, Branch 71 (trial court).
The Complaint20 alleged that plaintiffs (petitioners) Defendant was declared in default for failure to file an
were the owners and possessors of a parcel of land Answer, and plaintiffs were allowed to present evidence
identified as Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, formerly part of ex parte.23 On October 13, 1986, after the completion of
Lot No. 1197, situated at Barangay Locloc, Palauig, the testimonial evidence of the plaintiffs, the case was
Zambales. On July 26, 1964, Lodelfo and Narciso Marcial submitted for decision.24
unlawfully entered the land occupied by plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs sued them for forcible entry21 before the Meanwhile, on December 9, 1986, the heirs of Francisco
Municipal Court of Palauig. Santos, who intervened in the case, filed a
protest25 with the Bureau of Lands, questioning the
The municipal court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, which award of free patent in favor of respondent Rene
decision was affirmed on appeal by the CFI of Iba, Seguiran over Lot No. 1626 when they were the actual
Zambales, Branch II on August 1, 1973. Consequently, owners and possessors of the said lot, since their father
Lodelfo and Narciso Marcial were ejected from the was the registered claimant and applicant of the said
premises. Meanwhile, on June 29, 1964, Marcial had lot, while respondent had never set foot on the lot. The
mortgaged the lots to the Rural Bank of San Marcelino, Director of Lands directed Land Investigator Alfredo S.
Inc., which foreclosed the real estate mortgage on
2
Mendoza of the Bureau of Lands District Office in Iba, trial court granted defendant’s counsel the right to
Zambales to investigate the matter.26 cross-examine the witnesses who had testified during
the proceedings already conducted.32
On February 26, 1981, the heirs of Francisco Santos,
represented by their attorney-in-fact Olivia C. Olaivar, At the pre-trial conference held on October 20, 1988,
filed a Motion for Leave to File a Complaint-in- only the plaintiffs and intervenors admitted that Lot No.
Intervention, which was granted by the trial 1625 was actually being occupied by the plaintiffs (Del
court.27 Intervenors claimed ownership and possession Fierros), while Lot No. 1626 was being occupied by the
of Lot No. 1626, being the heirs of the late Francisco intervenors (the heirs of Francisco Santos). Defendant
Santos who was the registered claimant of the said lot did not admit the said facts.33
under the Cadastral Survey Notification Card in 1962.
The intervenors prayed that after hearing, the trial On October 13, 1995, intervenors filed a Motion to Hold
court render judgment (1) annulling the Free Patent the Proceedings in Abeyance,34 since their pending
Application No (III-4) (1) 467-A (Patent No. 598461) administrative protest, which involved the same lots,
issued to defendant Rene Seguiran; (2) declaring the had been scheduled for pre-trial conference on October
intervenors the true and lawful owners of Lot No. 1626, 3, 1995 by the Bureau of Lands.
since they are the legal heirs of the late Francisco
Santos; and (3) requiring defendant to pay to the In an Order35 dated January 8, 1996, the trial court
intervenors ₱5,000.00 as attorney’s fees.28 directed that the proceedings be held in abeyance until
after the resolution of the administrative case.
In their Answer to [the] Complaint-in- However, after plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the
29
Intervention, plaintiffs denied that the intervenors Order, the trial court continued the proceedings in the
were the owners and possessors of Lot No. 1626; interest of justice because the administrative case for
hence, the intervenors had no cause of action against cancellation of title had yet to commence the reception
them. Plaintiffs prayed that the complaint-in- of evidence, while in this case, the intervenors (the
intervention be dismissed. complainants in the administrative case) had already
presented witnesses and marked evidences on their
On May 20, 1988, defendant filed his Answer,30 claiming behalf; and the suspension of this case would prove to
that when he bought the land in dispute on October, be more expensive for all party litigants.36 The
28, 1981, Lodelfo Marcial was no longer its owner, but intervenors’ motion for whole or partial reconsideration
the Rural Bank of San Marcelino, Inc., since Marcial of the said order of reversal was denied by the trial
failed to redeem the land within the one-year period of court for lack of merit.37
redemption. His only purpose for buying the land from
the mortgagor, Lodelfo Marcial in November 1981 was On April 23, 1998, the trial court rendered judgment in
for the peaceful turn-over of the property to him by favor of defendant, respondent herein, the dispositive
Marcial. Defendant denied any fraud, illegality or bad portion of which reads:
faith in securing OCT Nos. P-7013 and P-7014. He
asserted that when he secured a certification from the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint dated
RTC on June 6, 1983, there was in truth no pending case September 12, 1985 is dismissed for insufficiency of
involving the subject properties in any court in evidence as to the identity of the properties sought to
Zambales; hence, no bad faith could be attributed to be recovered. The complaint-in-intervention dated
him. Defendant prayed that judgment be rendered by February 24, 1987 is dismissed for prematurity and
the trial court dismissing the complaint and ordering insufficiency of evidence.38
plaintiffs to pay him actual, moral and exemplary
damages as well as attorney’s fees and the expenses of The trial court held that plaintiffs (petitioners) failed to
litigation. prove the identity of the property sought to be
recovered. The numerous documents they presented to
On August 2, 1988, defendant also filed his Answer to prove ownership of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 showed
the Complaint-in-Intervention31 with the same defenses that the properties covered by sale or pacto de retro
and counterclaim. On motion of defendant, the earlier are located at Liozon,39 Palauig, Zambales, while Lot
order declaring him in default was set aside, and the Nos. 1625 and 1626 are located at Locloc, Palauig,
3
Zambales; and there is no clear showing that parts of this case that the said lots indeed formed part of Lot
Liozon became Locloc. Moreover, although the Del No. 1197.
Fierros were declared as the possessors of the property
in the ejectment case (forcible entry)40filed by Generosa In addition, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners
del Fierro against Lodelfo and Narciso Marcial, the failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
property concerned in the said case is Lot No. 1197. the issuance of the certificates of title in favor of
There was no evidence as to the original size of Lot No. respondent was attended by fraud.
1197 and no proof that Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 formed
part of Lot No. 1197. Based on the foregoing, the trial The Court of Appeals declared as unmeritorious the
court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint. argument of intervenors that this case is not covered by
the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. It
The trial court also dismissed the complaint of cited Garcia v. Aportadera,42 wherein it was held that
intervenors on the ground of non-exhaustion of where a party seeks for the cancellation of a free patent
administrative remedies as the protest filed earlier by with the Bureau of Lands, he must pursue his action in
them against defendant (respondent) with the Bureau the proper Department and a review by the court will
of Lands was still pending. not be permitted unless the administrative remedies
are first exhausted. Further, an applicant for a free
Both plaintiffs (petitioners) and intervenors appealed patent may not file an action for reconveyance for that
the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals. is the remedy of an owner whose land has been
erroneously registered in the name of another.43
On October 2, 2001, the Court of Appeals upheld the
decision of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied for
appellate court’s decision reads: lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in a
Resolution44 dated February 11, 2002.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeals
are hereby DISMISSED and the appealed Decision in Petitioners filed this petition, raising the following
Civil case No. RTC-233-1 is hereby AFFIRMED and issues:
UPHELD.41 I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
The Court of Appeals held that petitioners are not DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ON THE
entitled to reconveyance of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, BASIS OF ISSUES NOT RAISED BY RESPONDENT IN THE
since they failed to prove the identity of the parcels of TRIAL COURT.
land over which they claim ownership. The evidence II
they adduced to prove their ownership of the said lots THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
showed that the Spanish deeds of conveyance involved DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT VIS-À-VIS
properties that were located in Barrio Liozon and not in THE JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF RESPONDENT ON THE
Locloc, Palauig, Zambales, which is the actual location of RIGHT OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE PROPERTY.
Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626. III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
Moreover, the Court of Appeals stated that the fact that DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE
Lodelfo Marcial was defeated in the forcible entry case FACT THAT THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RUN COUNTER
filed by petitioners prior to the purchase by respondent AND ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO (THE)
of the foreclosed property from Marcial and from the SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE REGIONAL
mortgagee bank in 1973 could not serve as the basis for TRIAL COURT.
petitioners’ right of ownership or title over Lot Nos.
1625 and 1626 as only Lot No. 1197 was involved in the The main issues are whether petitioners are entitled to
ejectment case and only the issues of possession reconveyance of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, and whether
thereof was adjudicated therein. The appellate court the certificates of title of respondent to the said lots
stated that the said court decision could have should be cancelled.
buttressed petitioners’ claim of ownership over Lot Nos.
1625 and 1626 if petitioners were able to establish in
4
The requisites of reconveyance are provided for in evidencing transfer of properties to their father, Miguel
Article 434 of the Civil Code, thus: del Fierro, which were adduced in evidence, covered Lot
Nos. 1625 and 1626. The Court of Appeals stated:
Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be
identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of In support of their claim of ownership over Lot Nos.
his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s 1625 and 1626, plaintiffs-appellants (petitioners)
claim. submitted in evidence various Spanish documents or
deeds of purchase: (1) a Spanish document dated June
Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that to 1927, "Venta Real de Terreno" executed by J.L. Faranal
successfully maintain an action to recover the in favor of Miguel del Fierro, over a parcel of land
ownership of a real property, the person who claims a situated in Marala, Barrio Liozon, Palauig, Zambales; (2)
better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the a Spanish document dated December 18, 1939
identity of the land claimed; and second, his title executed by Justo Apostol in favor of Miguel del Fierro,
thereto.45 for the sale of a riceland situated in Barrio Liozon,
Palauig, Zambales (1,350 sq.m.); (3) "Escritura de
In regard to the first requisite, in an accion Compra Venta" dated June 1, 1918 executed by
reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a Alejandro Abaga in favor of Feliciana Frase over a parcel
better right to the property must first fix the identity of of land situated in Marala, Barrio Lioson, Palauig,
the land he is claiming by describing the location, area Zambales; (4) "Renuncia De Derecho" (Waiver of Rights)
and boundaries thereof.46 Anent the second dated September 6, 1928 executed by Juan Saclolo in
requisite, i.e., the claimant's title over the disputed favor of Miguel del Fierro over a riceland situated in
area, the rule is that a party can claim a right of Marala, Barrio Lioson, Palauig, Zambales; (5) "Venta Con
ownership only over the parcel of land that was the Pacto de Retro de Terrenos dated April 8, 1927
object of the deed.47 executed by Faustino Barrentos in favor of Don Miguel
del Fierro over a coconut plantation located at Sitio
In this case, petitioners failed to prove the identity of Sasa, Barrio Liozon, Palauig, Zambales; (6) "Venta Real
the parcels of land sought to be recovered and their de Terrenos" dated July 24, 1926 executed by Jose
title thereto. Petitioners contend that they are the Trinidad and Ursula Villanueva in favor of Miguel de1
owners of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 by virtue of the Fierro over a riceland situated in Barrio Liozon, Palauig,
decision of the Municipal Court of Palauig, Zambales in Zambales (25,610 sq. ms.); (7) "Escritura de Cancelacion
the ejectment case (forcible entry)48 against Lodelfo and de Hipoteca de Bienes Inmuebles" (Contract of
Narciso Marcial, declaring them (petitioners) as the Cancellation of Mortgage of Real Estate Property)
ones in possession of the property, which decision was executed by Pedro Redona in favor of Ursula Villanueva
affirmed on appeal. However, as stated by the trial over a riceland situated in Barrio Lioson, Palauig,
court and the Court of Appeals, the property involved in Zambales; (8) "Declaracion Jurada" (Sworn Statement)
the ejectment case was Lot No. 1197, and it was never dated January 11, 1928 executed by Demetrio Sison,
mentioned in the respective decisions49 of the Aurea Sison and Severino Anguac affirming the contract
Municipal Court of Palauig, Zambales and the CFI of of sale dated September 25, 1925 signed by their
Zambales, Branch II-Iba that the portion intruded upon deceased mother in favor of Miguel del Fierro over a
was Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626. Moreover, petitioners riceland situated in Barrio Lioson, Palauig, Zambales
failed to adduce in evidence the technical description of (15,660 sq. ms.); (9) "Escritura de Compra Venta" dated
Lot No. 1197 and failed to prove that Lot Nos. 1625 and September 25, 1925 executed by Justa Romero and
1626 were part of or used to be part of Lot No. 1197. Aurea Sison in favor of Don Miguel del Fierro over a
piece of land situated in [Sitio] Sasa, Barrio Lioson,
Further, the documents presented by petitioners to Palauig, Zambales (1 hectare, 56 ares and 60 centares);
prove their title over Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 showed (10) "Escritura de Compra Venta" dated August 29,
that the properties covered therein were located in 1921 executed by Juan Sison in favor of Miguel del
Barrio Liozon, Palauig, Zambales, while Lot Nos. 1625 Fierro over a parcel of coconut land (83 ares and 70
and 1626 are located in Barrio Locloc, Palauig, centares) situated in Barrio Lioson, Palauig, Zambales;
Zambales. In addition, petitioners failed to establish (11) "Venta Real de Terrenos" dated September 16,
which of the deeds of sale, donation or documents 1925 executed by Agustin Abaga in favor of Miguel del
5
Fierro over a parcel of land situated in [Sitio] Sasa, manifest injustice. They assert that issues not raised in
Barrio Lioson, Palauig, Zambales (7,200 sq. ms.); and the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on
(12) "Escritura de Donacion" (Deed of Gift or Pure appeal.
Donation) executed by Eugenio del Fierro in favor of his
son, Miguel del Fierro of a land situated in Marala, Petitioners’ argument is unmeritorious.
Barrio Lioson, Paiauig, Zambales (12 hectares, 77 ares Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance and
and 90 centares). In addition to the foregoing cancellation of titles. Hence, it was incumbent on
documents, plaintiffs-appellants presented various tax petitioners to prove the requisites of reconveyance, one
declarations for the years 1944 (Miguel del Fierro), of which is to establish the identity of the parcels of
1952, 1968, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1985 and 1987 (Heirs of land petitioners are claiming. To reiterate, in an accion
Miguel del Fierro).1These tax declarations pertain to reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a
lots situated in Locloc, Palauig, Zambales but the better right to the property must first fix the identity of
designation of Lots 1625 and 1626 (as part of Lot 1197) the land he is claiming by describing the location, area
was made only in TD Nos. 11-0099 and 11-0100 for and boundaries thereof.51Petitioners’ failure to present
1984 and 1987, respectively. sufficient evidence on the identity of the properties
sought to be recovered and their title thereto resulted
A perusal of these documents would readily show that in the dismissal of their complaint.
the lots indicated in the Spanish deeds of conveyence
were located in Barrio Lioson and not in Locloc, Palauig, As regards the second issue raised, petitioners contend
Zambales, the actual location of the Lot Nos. 1625 and that the Partial Pre-Trial Order stated that during the
1626. As to the tax declarations, the real properties pre-trial conference the following facts were stipulated
declared therein, although situated in Locloc, Palauig, on:
Zambales were not designated as Lot Nos. 1625 and
1626 until the year 1985, the same year the said lots 1) By the plaintiffs and intervenor – that Lot 1625 is
were titled in the name of defendant-appellee. actually occupied by the Del Fierros, while Lot 1626,
Cad. Lot 364-D of the Palauig is occupied by the heirs of
And even without such designation of Lot Nos. 1625 Francisco Santos, who is already deceased. The
and 1626, plaintiffs-appellants failed to show that the defendant did not admit this fact.
separate lots which their predecessor-in-interest, Don
Miguel del Fierro, had acquired in the 1920’s, were the 2) The plaintiffs and defendants—that there exists a
very same land (or included therein) which have been decision rendered by the then Court of First Instance of
designated as Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, or which was Zambales thru Honorable Judge Pedro Cenzon in favor
covered by the land supposedly donated by their of the plaintiffs in this case, affirming the decision of the
grandfather to Don Miguel del Fierro. In other words, Municipal Trial Court of Palauig, Zambales where it was
the identity of the land being claimed by plaintiffs- stated that the plaintiffs are the ones in possession of
appellants could not be clearly established on the basis Lots 1625 and 1626, which is docketed as Civil Case No.
of either the Spanish deeds of purchase and donation or 706-I entitled "Generosa Jimenez Vda. de Del Fierro, et
the old tax declarations presented by plaintiffs- al. versus Leodolfo Marcial, et al." The intervenor did
appellants.50 not admit this fact.52

Based on the foregoing, petitioners failed to prove the Petitioners contend that the said judicial admission is
identity of the properties sought to be recovered and binding and conclusive on the respondent and it cannot
their title thereto. just be ignored by the trial court without doing violence
to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of
Petitioners argue that the issue of identity of the Evidence.53 Petitioners also contend that the decision of
subject parcels of lands was not among those raised the appellate court in the ejectment case (Civil Case No.
during pre-trial or even during the trial. They contend 706-I), filed by petitioners against Lodelfo Marcial,
that the findings of the trial court, which were affirmed respondent’s predecessor-in-interest, is conclusive as to
by the Court of Appeals, on the issue of supposed petitioners’ possession of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626. Since
insufficiency of evidence as to the identity of the petitioners are in possession, respondent fraudulently
properties not only surprised them, but caused them applied for and procured free patents, as the
6
consideration in qualifying as a patentee is that the As regards the third issue raised, petitioners cited their
applicant is in actual possession of the land applied for. testimonial evidence as narrated by the trial court, and
Moreover, the undisputed possession of petitioners and contend that the identity of the land and their
their predecessors of the land as early as 1920s had possession thereof were established as shown by the
long converted the parcels of land to private land and decision of the trial court. They contend that they seek
no longer part of the public domain. reconveyance because the free patent titles were
issued to respondent on false representation as they
Petitioners’ contention does not persuade. (petitioners) were in possession of the land.
As stated by the trial court and the Court of Appeals,
the ejectment case entitled Generosa Jimenez Vda. de The contention lacks merit.
Del Fierro, et al. v. Leodolfo Marcial, et al. involved Lot
No. 1197, and there was no mention of Lot Nos. 1625 The testimonial evidence of petitioners showed that
and 1626 therein. The land involved in the ejectment they did not know the land area of Lot Nos. 1625 and
case was described by the plaintiffs (petitioners) in their 1626;61they had no tax declaration specifically for Lot
Complaint54 as follows: Nos. 1625 and 1626;62 they did not know who was
residing in Lot No. 1626; they could not identify which
Consisting of 21.3196 hectares, more or less, and of the documents evidencing transfer of properties to
bounded on the North by Leoncia Apostol, Heirs of P. their father, Miguel del Fierro, covered Lot Nos. 1625
Lesaca, Justa Ponce and P. Artiquera; East by Hrs. of and 1626;63 and they had no survey plan of the property
Potenciano Lesaca, M. Abdon, P. Artiquera, David over which they were claiming ownership.
Abdon and D. Abdon; South by P. Garcia, Barrio Road
and Maximo Abdon and West by River and Beach. It is However, Ildefonso del Fierro testified that he has a
designated as Lot No. 1197 of the Palauig Cadastre and fishpond and an approximately two-hectare riceland in
declared for taxation purposes in the name of the Heirs Lot No. 1625;64 hence, he did not allow the relocation
of Miguel del Fierro under Tax Declaration No. 18324 survey by respondent of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626,
and assessed at P5,330.00.55 because it would pass through his fishpond and it would
be disturbed.65 Nevertheless, petitioners failed to
Moreover, in this case, petitioners failed to prove that identify the specific area of Lot No. 1625 or of Lot No.
Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 were part of Lot No. 1197. The 1626 where the fishpond, riceland or houses of
Survey Map56 of Lot 1626 showed that Lot Nos. 1197, petitioners are located. Instead, they claim possession
1625, and 1626 are distinct lots. The cadastral survey of of the entire area of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, but not
Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 was conducted sometime in one of their documents showing transfer of properties
1962.57 The ejectment case was filed in 1964, after the in the name of their father, Miguel del Fierro,
cadastral survey of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, yet specifically states that it covers Lot No. 1625 or Lot No.
petitioners did not mention in their complaint that the 1626, and petitioner could not identify which
ejectment case involved Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626. documents referred to Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626. Thus,
petitioners erred in claiming that their testimonial
In view of the foregoing, the Partial Pre-trial evidence established the identity of the parcels of land
Order58 mistakenly stated that petitioners were sought to be recovered and their title thereto.
declared as the ones in possession of Lot Nos. 1625 and
1626 in the ejectment case. Even the trial court stated The Court notes that the trial court did not discuss the
during the pre-trial conference held on October 28, merits of the testimonial evidence of petitioners, but
1988 that there was no mention of Lot Nos. 1625 and the Court of Appeals did, stating thus:
1626 in the decision59 of the CFI of Zambales, Branch II-
Iba in the ejectment case (Civil Case No. 706- x x x [T]he testimonies of plaintiffs’ witnesses did not
I).60 Moreover, contrary to the contention of serve to clarify the matter of identity of the subject
petitioners, respondent did not admit that petitioners properties as they even failed to indicate the precise
and the intervenors were in possession of Lot Nos. 1625 boundaries or areas of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, and
and 1626, respectively, which fact was clearly stated in likewise admitted they have no tax declaration
the Partial Pre-trial Order. specifically for Lot Nos. 1625 and 1526 even after the
cadastral survey in 1962. Failing in their duty to clearly
7
identify the lands sought to be recovered by them,
plaintiffs-appellants’ action for reconveyance must
necessarily fail. To reiterate, in order that an action to
recover ownership of real property may prosper, the
person who claims he has a better right to it must prove
not only his ownership of the same but also
satisfactorily prove the identity thereof. x x x 66

In fine, petitioners failed to prove the identity of the

properties over which they claimed ownership and
sought to be reconveyed to them, and they also failed
to prove their title over Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626; hence,
the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the
decision of the trial court, which dismissed petitioners’
Complaint.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of

Appeals’ Decision dated October 2, 2001 and its
Resolution dated February 11, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No.
60520 are hereby AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice