Martinez v.

CA

Date: April 29, 1974

Petitioner: ROMEO MARTINEZ and LEONOR SUAREZ, spouses (appellants)
Respondent: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SECRETARY and UNDERSECRETARY
OF PUBLIC WORKS & COMMUNICATIONS (appellees)
Ponente: ESGUERRA

Doctrine: A simple possession of a certificate of title under the Torrens system does
not necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein.
If a person obtains title under the Torrens system which includes by mistake or
oversight, lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens system, he does not by
virtue of said certificate alone become the owner of the land illegally included.

Facts:
 Spouses Martinez and Suarez owned two parcels of land (fishponds) in
Lubao, Pampanga.
 Their predecessor-in-interest, Potenciano Garcia was bale to register both
parcels of land in 1925 through the CFI in Pampanga.
 The Committee on Rivers and Streams, in 1954, held that lot parcel no. 02
was not a public river but a fishpond; hence, its registration was valid.
 A dike was then constructed over the said property.
 In 1958, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications (Florencio
Magno) ordered a reinvestigation on the nature of the property; and also the
demolition of the said dike pursuant to his authority under RA 2056.
 The Spouses filed a case for injunction against the Secretary alleging that
the registration decree issued in favor Potenciano Garcia in 1925 was
uncontested after one year thereafter. Thus, it was already indefeasible and
cannot be attacked collaterally.
 CFI: Nullified the orders of the Secretary.
 CA: Reversed; it held that lot no 02 was a public stream.

Issue: W/N Lot No. 2 is a public stream and therefore its title should be cancelled and
the river covered reverted to public domain - YES

Held:
 Lot No. 02 was part of the public domain (a river) and thus, outside the
commerce of man.
 The CFI acting as land registration court, which issued the decree in 1925 in
favor of Potenciano Garcia, had no jurisdiction over said property.
 That judgment, being void, was then subject to attack at any time, either
directly or collaterally.
 Evidence showed that lot no. 02 was a branch of the main river covered by
water “since time immemorial.”
 Contrary to the claim of the spouses, they were not buyers in good faith.
They knew from the start that lot no. 02 was open and had no seawall when
they bought it before converting it to a fishpond.

Dispositive: CA AFFIRMED