G.R. No. L-4590
MARIANO LIMJAP, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TOMASA VERA MOGUER, defendant-appellant.
October 12, 1908

FACTS:
In 1893, Doña Praxedes de los Santos sold land to Doña Rita Juan Carballo with a right to repurchase within eight years (until April 17, 1901). Prior to the deadline, Doña Tomasa Vera Moguer, an heir of Praxedes, offered to repurchase the property and deposited the necessary money in court, but Doña Rita refused. On April 19, 1901, Doña Rita recorded a “nota de consolidacion” (entry of no repurchase) in the registry of property and on July 23, 1901, sold the land to Telesforo Ablaza, who recorded his deed.

Ablaza then filed an action (Case No. 321) against Doña Tomasa for recovery of possession and declaration of ownership. A final judgment was rendered on July 2, 1902, declaring Ablaza the owner and ordering Tomasa to vacate, based on the recorded “nota de consolidacion” and Tomasa’s failure to cancel it before Ablaza acquired the property. Tomasa did not appeal this judgment.

Subsequently, Tomasa filed another action (Case No. 1016) against Doña Rita and Ablaza. In this case:
1. On October 17, 1902, judgment was entered dismissing the case as to Ablaza, citing the final determination in Case No. 321 that he was the owner.
2. Although another judge later entered judgment against Ablaza in this case, a third judge vacated it as far as Ablaza was concerned. This vacation order was affirmed by the Supreme Court on November 2, 1905.
3. Tomasa filed a notice of lis pendens in the registry of property in July 1902.
4. On February 20, 1906, the court denied Tomasa’s motion to vacate and annul the October 17, 1902 order (which had dismissed the case against Ablaza).
5. Case No. 1016 proceeded against Doña Rita only, resulting in a December 27, 1906 judgment that the sale between Rita and Ablaza was null and void as between Tomasa and Rita, and that Tomasa was entitled to possession as against Rita. This judgment did not affect Ablaza’s rights.

On November 15, 1904, Ablaza sold the land to Mariano Limjap (plaintiff-appellee), who recorded his deed on February 20, 1906. Limjap commenced the present action on August 5, 1907, seeking to be declared the owner.

ISSUE:
Whether Doña Tomasa Vera Moguer can successfully assert her claim over the land against Mariano Limjap, the successor-in-interest of Telesforo Ablaza, given the multiple prior judgments upholding Ablaza’s ownership, and what the effect of her notice of lis pendens is.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of Mariano Limjap, declaring him the owner of the property.

The Court held that the question of ownership between Ablaza and Doña Tomasa had been definitively and finally decided in Ablaza’s favor on three separate occasions before Limjap commenced this action:
1. In Case No. 321, a final judgment declared Ablaza the owner, from which Tomasa did not appeal.
2. In Case No. 1016, the initial judgment dismissed the case as to Ablaza on grounds of res judicata, which was never reversed.
3. Also in Case No. 1016, the order of February 20, 1906, denying Tomasa’s motion to vacate the previous dismissal concerning Ablaza, was also unappealed.

These judgments are binding on Doña Tomasa. So far as Ablaza and his grantee, Limjap, are concerned, the question of whether Tomasa should have been allowed to repurchase the property in 1901 is no longer open to discussion.

Regarding the notices of lis pendens filed by Doña Tomasa in July 1902, the Court ruled that their only effect, under either the Code of Civil Procedure or the Mortgage Law, was to secure the rights of the plaintiff if she finally prevailed in the suit. Since Doña Tomasa did not prevail and judgment was rendered against her concerning Ablaza’s ownership, the notices of lis pendens could produce no effect. The claim that Limjap lacked good faith by allegedly furnishing money for Ablaza’s purchase was also deemed irrelevant given the prior conclusive judgments.