G.R. No. L-57312. March 5, 1993.
LEONOR DELOS ANGELES, FEDERICO DELOS ANGELES, ADELAIDA DELOS ANGELES, JAIME DELOS ANGELES and JOSEFINA DELOS ANGELES, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, LORENZO CRUZ, SABINA CRUZ, RAYMUNDA CRUZ, PRUDENCIO CRUZ, SIXTO CRUZ and LOPE CRUZ, respondents.

FACTS

On February 3, 1967, petitioners (the Delos Angeles heirs) filed a complaint for reconveyance and annulment of title against private respondents (the Cruz heirs) over Lot No. 1, plan Psu-205042. Petitioners claimed the land was a portion of their private property inherited from their parents, who inherited it from their grandmother, Eulalia Criste, who acquired it via a deed of sale dated August 22, 1895. They alleged that while their application for registration of the subject land (LRC Case No. 5148) was pending, Domingo Cruz, the respondents’ predecessor, through fraud, concealment, and misrepresentation, obtained a free patent covering an area that included the subject land, resulting in the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. 512 on April 1, 1965, and later Transfer Certificate of Title No. 224458. Petitioners prayed for the declaration of nullity of these titles and reconveyance. Respondents countered that the free patent and title were lawfully issued as they and their predecessor had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession for over thirty years. The trial court dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

1. Whether the subject land had been sufficiently identified.
2. Whether the free patent and certificates of title should be annulled on grounds of fraud and weakness of petitioners’ title.

RULING

1. On Identification: The Supreme Court noted that private respondents had judicially admitted the identity of the subject land in their answer and a partial stipulation of facts, where they admitted that the lot claimed by petitioners was a portion of the land covered by their title. However, the Court emphasized that in an action for recovery, mere identification is insufficient; the plaintiff’s title must also be strong.
2. On Annulment and Title: The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. Petitioners failed to prove a strong title. The deed of sale describing their grandmother’s property had entirely different boundaries and area from the land covered by respondents’ OCT No. 512. Furthermore, the tax declarations presented by petitioners (Nos. 2429 and 3793) described parcels with areas and boundaries different from the original property of Eulalia Criste, failing to support their claim of ownership over the specific disputed lot.
3. On Fraud: The Court found petitioners’ allegation of fraud in Domingo Cruz’s free patent application unsubstantiated. The trial court records showed Cruz’s application was filed and processed (with a notice issued in July 1964 and an order of approval in January 1965) before petitioners filed their registration application in March 1965. The Court also ruled that specific circumstances of fraud enumerated by petitioners in their Supreme Court brief could not be considered, as they were not raised before the trial court.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The petition was DENIED. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were AFFIRMED.