GR L 12679; (April, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12679; April 27, 1960
MARIA C. VDA. DE LAPORE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NATIVIDAD L. PASCUAL, joined by her husband, DEMETRIO PASCUAL, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On January 28, 1954, plaintiff-appellant Maria C. Vda. de Lapore executed a “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase” over a parcel of land (Lot No. 435-2) in favor of defendant-appellee Natividad L. Pascual, with the right to repurchase on or before January 28, 1955. Appellant failed to repurchase within the stipulated period. Consequently, appellee instituted consolidation proceedings in the land registration court (Cadastral Case No. 2, G.L.R.O. No. 55). The hearing was postponed several times by agreement to allow appellant to pay the repurchase price, but she failed to do so. On December 15, 1956, neither appellant nor her counsel appeared at the hearing. On that date, the land registration court issued an order consolidating title in appellee’s name and directing the Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding certificate of title. This order became final and executory. Subsequently, on February 22, 1957, appellant filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance to annul the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase,” alleging it was fictitious and that the real agreement was one of mortgage. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of bar by prior judgment. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint for annulment of the deed is barred by the prior final judgment of the land registration court in the consolidation proceedings.
RULING
Yes, the complaint is barred by prior judgment. The decree of the land registration court confirming title in appellee’s name and directing its registration is conclusive not only on matters actually litigated and determined but also on all matters that could have been litigated and decided in those proceedings. Appellant had the opportunity to assail the legality and validity of the “Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro” in the land registration case but failed to do so. She was given ample opportunity to repurchase, did not appear at the hearing, and did not appeal from the land registration court’s decree, allowing it to become final. Therefore, the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint. The order of dismissal is affirmed.