MARTINEZ v CA

Esguerra, J.
No. L-31271. – April 29, 1974
FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
● Spouses Martinez are the registered owners of two parcels of land located in Lubao, Pampanga covered by TCT
No. 15856. The second parcel is the disputed land in this case.
 Both parcels of land are fishponds
 1888: One Paulino Montemayor, who originally owned the disputed property, secured a titulo real over it
 April 17, 1925: One Potenciano Garcia, who bought the property from Monetmayor’s heirs, was granted
registration of both parcels of land in his name by the CFI of Pampanga, sitting as land registration court
 The ownership of these parcels of land changed hands until eventually they were acquired by Spouses
Martinez
● The municipal officials of Lubao contested the ownership of the Spouses Martinez over the second parcel of land
as it alleged that it is a river, and thus forms part of public domain
 Referred the matter to the Committee on Rivers and Streams
● July 7, 1953: The Committee on Rivers and Streams decided in favor of Spouses Martinez, declaring that
exclusive possession, use and enjoyment of the creek in question should be restored to Spouses Martinez as it
forms part of their registered property
● Sept. 1, 1954: Spouses Martinez instituted a civil case before the CFI of Pampanga against Acting Mayor Zagad
 Zagad refused to recognize the decision of the Committee
 Prayed that Zagad be enjoined from molesting them in their possession of their property and in the
construction of the dikes therein
● The CFI ruled in favor of Spouses Martinez, and issued a writ of preliminary injunction against Zagad
 Upon appeal, the SC dismissed Zagad’s petition
 With this dismissal, the Spouses began to construct dikes in the disputed parcel of land
● June 13, 1958: Florencio Moreno, then Secretary of Public Works and Communications, ordered another
investigation of the said parcel of land
 Directed the appellees herein to remove the dikes they had constructed
o On the strength of the authority vested in him by Republic Act No. 20561
 Warned that said order embodied a threat that the dikes would be demolished should the herein
appellees fail to comply therewith within 30 days
● Jan. 2, 1959: In reply to Moreno’s order, Spouses Martinez commenced the present case in the CFI of Pampanga
● Aug. 10, 1959: CFI ruled in favor of Spouses Martinez
 Declared the decision rendered by Moreno null and void
● As against this judgment, respondent officials of the Dept. of Public Works and Communications appealed the
case to the CA
● Nov. 17, 1969: The CA reversed the CFI decision
 Upheld Moreno’s decision, declaring that Lot No. 2 of TCT 15856 is a public river
 Ordered the cancellation of registration of Lot No. 2
o Further ordered its reconveyance to the public domain
● Spouses Martinez filed an appeal by certiorari with the SC
 The CA ruling declaring the subject property a public river, is a collateral attack on the indefeasibility of
the torrens title originally issued in 1925 in favor of the petitioners-appellants’ predecessor-in-interest,
Potenciano Garcia, which is violative of the rule of res judicata
o The decree of registration issued by the Land Registration Court was not reopened through a
petition for review filed within one (1) year from the entry of the decree of title

1
An Act To Prohibit, Remove and/or Demolish the Construction of Dams, Dikes, Or Any Other Walls In Public Navigable Waters, Or
Waterways and In Communal Fishing Grounds, To Regulate Works in Such Waters or Waterways And In Communal Fishing Grounds,
And To Provide Penalties For Its Violation, And For Other Purposes

1
 o Thus, the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto in favor of the appellants for the land covered
thereby is no longer open to attack under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Act 496) and the
jurisprudence on the matter established by this Tribunal
 Sec. 38 of the Land Registration Act expressly makes a decree of registration, which in turn,
ordinarily makes the title absolute and indefeasible
ISSUE/HELD/RATIO:
1. W/N the CA erred in declaring that Parcel No. 2 of TCT No. 15856 is a public river
HELD: NO, the incontestable and indefeasible character of a TCT does NOT operate when the land covered
thereby is not capable of registration. Lot No. 2 covers a river, which is a part of public domain, and therefore not
capable of registration.
● The incontestable and indefeasible character of a TCT does NOT operate when the land covered thereby is not
capable of registration (Dizon v Rodriguez)
● At the time of the enactment of the Land Registration Act, the Old Civil Code granted recognized the ff.
properties as parts of the public domain intended for public use:
 Roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports, and bridges constructed by the State
 Banks, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character (Art. 339, par. 1)
o As parts of the public domain, these properties are outside the commerce of man, and therefore
cannot be subject to private appropriation
● Lot No. 2 is a branch of the main river that has been covered with water since time immemorial and is therefore
part of public domain
 Finding has been long affirmed by the SC
 There is no longer any doubt that Lot No. 2 is a river which is NOT capable of private appropriation or
acquisition by prescription
o Thus, Spouses Martinez’s TCT does not include the river
● Moreover, the Land Registration Court has no jurisdiction over non-registerable properties, such as public
navigable rivers which are parts of the public domain, nor can said Court validly adjudge the registration of title
in favor of a private applicant
 Thus, the judgment of the CFI Pampanga as regards Lot No.2 of TCT No. 15856 may be attacked at any
time, directly or collaterally, by the State
o The State is not bound by any prescriptive period
o Moreover, the State’s right of reversion of public properties not capable of private appropriation
fraudulently registered does not prescribe
2. W/N petitioners’, as the seventh of the successive innocent purchasers of the property, can rely on the principle
that the persons dealing with registered land need not go behind the register to determine the condition of the
property
HELD: NO, such principle cannot be availed of as against the law and the accepted principle that rivers are parts of
the public domain for public use and not capable of private appropriation or acquisition by prescription
● Moreover, Spouses Martinez willfully and voluntarily assumed the risks attendant to the sale of said lot
 Before purchasing a parcel of land, it cannot be contended that the appellants did not know:
o The condition of the land that they were buying
o The obstacles or restrictions thereon that may be put up by the government in connection with
their project of converting Lot No. 2 in question into a fishpond
 One who buys something with knowledge of defect or lack of title in his vendor CANNOT claim that he
acquired it in good faith
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the Court of Appeals appealed from is in accordance with law, and the same
is hereby affirmed with costs against the petitioners-appellants.