GR L 40429; (November, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-40429 November 29, 1984
GREGORIO GITGANO, plaintiff, vs. HONORABLE JOSE C. BORROMEO, Judge, Court of First Instance of Cebu, ROSALIA DIANO, ESPERANZA F. GARCIA, as Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Cebu, defendants.
FACTS
In Land Registration Case No. R-736, the Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered a decision on September 18, 1969, adjudicating various lots to several applicants. On November 3, 1969, the same court issued an Order amending its decision to include the adjudication of Lot No. 2359-D to Rosalia Diano. No appeal was taken from this amendatory order, and a decree of registration was subsequently issued. Petitioner Gregorio Gitgano, prior to the instant action, had already filed a petition for relief from judgment in the same land registration case, which was dismissed. He also filed two separate civil actions for reconveyance of the same lot (Civil Case Nos. R-11663 and R-12828), both of which were dismissed by the trial court, with the dismissals having become final.
ISSUE
Whether the final dismissals of the prior reconveyance actions bar the subsequent action to annul the amendatory judgment of the land registration court.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. R-13513. The legal logic rests on the principles of res judicata and the conclusiveness of a land registration decree. Under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Act 496), a decree of registration becomes conclusive upon all persons and can only be impugned on grounds of fraud, provided the action is filed within one year from its entry. Petitioner’s attempt to annul the November 3, 1969 Order via an independent civil action, filed years later, is an impermissible collateral attack on a final judgment. More critically, the grounds for annulment alleged in this case—that the order was not based on findings of fact or law and was repugnant to the original decision—are identical to the grounds raised in his previously dismissed reconveyance suits. The dismissals of those prior actions on the merits, which have attained finality, constitute a bar under the rule of res judicata. A party cannot litigate the same issues repeatedly; allowing such would violate the doctrine of finality of judgments essential to judicial efficiency. The Court found no clear showing of the order’s nullity to warrant an exception.