GR L 12679; (March, 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 proceedings in the land registration court (Cadastral Case No. 2, G.L.R.O. No. 55) for consolidation and confirmation of title. The hearing was postponed several times by agreement to allow appellant to pay the repurchase price, but she failed to do so. When the petition was called for hearing on December 15, 1956, neither appellant nor her counsel appeared. On that same date, the 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 which ordered the consolidation of title in favor of the appellee.
RULING
Yes, the complaint is barred by prior judgment. The decree entered by the land registration court confirming title in appellee’s name 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 should have assailed the legality and validity of the “Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro” in the land registration case. She failed to do so despite being given ample opportunity, did not appear at the hearing, and allowed the registration court’s order to become final without appeal. Therefore, the lower court correctly dismissed the present complaint. The order of dismissal is affirmed.