G.R. No. L-10222, August 29, 1958
CIRILO DIZON and BALTAZARA DIZON, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ISABEL BANUES, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Catalino Dizon died, leaving a will that instituted his brother Cirilo, sister Baltazara (the plaintiffs-appellants), and Isabel Banues (the defendant-appellee) as his heirs. The defendant presented the will for probate. The plaintiffs engaged the law firm of Castillo, Cervantes & Occeña to object to its allowance. On November 2, 1946, the attorneys for both parties entered into a “convenio y proyecto de particion” (agreement and project of partition), dividing the estate into two lots: Lot No. 1 to the defendant and Lot No. 2 to the plaintiffs. This agreement was submitted to and approved by the probate court on November 18, 1946, which adjudicated the estate accordingly. The defendant withdrew the petition for probate, and the proceeding was treated as one for administration and settlement of the estate. On June 5, 1948, the defendant commenced land registration proceedings under Act No. 496 to confirm her title to Lot No. 1. The plaintiffs objected. On March 26, 1951, the land registration court confirmed the defendant’s title and decreed registration in her name. The plaintiffs did not appeal from this decree. On September 18, 1953, the plaintiffs filed the present action in the Court of First Instance of Davao, claiming their attorneys entered into the partition agreement without their express authority and that they only learned of it in October 1950 when cited in the land registration case. They prayed for the declaration of nullity of the “convenio y proyecto de particion.” The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds including lack of legal capacity to sue, bar by prior judgment, statute of limitations, and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs’ action to declare the “convenio y proyecto de particion” null and void is barred by the prior judgment of the land registration court which confirmed the defendant’s title based on that same agreement.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The legality and validity of the “convenio y proyecto de particion” should have been assailed by the plaintiffs in the land registration proceedings where they had objected to the defendant’s application. Their failure to do so, and their subsequent failure to appeal from the land registration court’s decree confirming the defendant’s title, rendered that decree final and conclusive. The decree is conclusive not only on matters actually contested but on all matters that could have been litigated in those proceedings. Allowing the present action to succeed would result in setting aside the land registration decree, which cannot be reopened after the lapse of one year from its entry. Therefore, the action is barred by the prior judgment.