MARIA C. VDA. DE LAPORE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. NATIVIDAD L. PASCUAL, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, DEMETRIO PASCUAL, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Direct appeal to this Court from an order of the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the
ground that it is barred by prior judgment.

It appears that on January 28, 1954, plaintiff Maria C. Vda. de
Lapore executed a “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase” by virtue of
which she sold Lot No. 435-2, formerly a portion of Lot No. 435,
Cadastral Survey of Bacolod, to herein defendant Natividad L. Pascual,
the same to be repurchased on or before January 28, 1955. As plaintiff
failed to exercise her right to repurchase within the period
stipulated, the vendee Natividad L. Pascual instituted proceedings in
the land registration court for consolidation and confirmance of title
to the lot in question in her name. (Cadastral Case No. 2, G.L.R.O. No.
55.) The hearing of the petition was, upon agreement of the parties,
postponed a number of times with a view to enabling the vendor Maria C.
Vda. de Lapore to pay the repurchase price. The said vendor, however,
failed to do so, and when the petition was last called for hearing on
December 15, 1956—about a year from the filing thereof—neither she nor
her counsel appeared. On that same date, the court issued an order
consolidating title to the lot in dispute in the name of the
petitioner, herein defendant Natividad L. Pascual, and directing the
Register of Deeds of the province of Negros Occidental to issue the
corresponding certificate of title in her name.

On February 22, 1957, after the order in the registration
proceedings had become final and executory, Maria C. Vda. de Lapore
filed the present complaint in the court below to annul the “Deed of
Sale with Right to Repurchase” on the ground that it was fictitious,
the real agreement between the parties being one of mortgage.

Instead of answering, the defendant Natividad L. Pascual, assisted
by her husband Demetrio Pascual, filed a motion to dismiss, alleging
that the complaint was barred by prior judgment.

Plaintiff opposed the motion, but the lower court, after hearing,
overruled the opposition and, on April 29, 1957, issued an order
dismissing the complaint. From that order, plaintiff took the present
appeal.

The rule is settled that a decree entered by the land registration
court confirming a party’s title to the parcel of land applied for and
directing its registration in his name, is conclusive not only on the
questions actually contested and determined but upon all matters that
might have been litigated and decided in the registration proceedings.
(Dizon, et al. vs. Banues, 104 Phil., 107.) Needless to say,
the estoppel applies to defenses available therein which are sought to
be used in another action as the foundation of a claim for relief. In
the case at bar, the legality and validity of the “Deed of Sale with
Pacto de Retro” should have been assailed in the land registration
proceedings by the appellant. This she failed to do. What is more, she
was given ample opportunity to repurchase the land in question, but she
did not avail herself of such opportunity. She did not even appear at
the hearing of the case. And when the land registration court entered a
decree consolidating and confirming title in the name of herein
appellee Natividad L. Pascual, appellant did not even appeal therefrom,
thereby allowing it to become final. In the circumstances, we do not
think the court below erred in dismissing the present complaint.

Wherefore, the order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.