Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 631 views

    M.A.R.T.I.N.E.Z. v. CA

    Uploaded by

    JMarc
    1) The spouses Romeo Martinez and Leonor Suarez owned two parcels of land in Lubao, Pampanga, including a disputed parcel that the government claimed was a public river. 2) Prior owners of the disputed parcel had attempted to restore dikes and convert it to a fishpond, but were prevented by the municipal president from doing so. 3) When the spouses later purchased the properties, including the disputed parcel, they were aware of the dispute over whether it was public land or could be privately owned, yet still bought it. 4) The Court ruled that the spouses could not be considered purchasers in good faith, as they knowingly took on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    M.A.R.T.I.N.E.Z. v. CA

    Uploaded by

    JMarc
    631 views1 page
    1) The spouses Romeo Martinez and Leonor Suarez owned two parcels of land in Lubao, Pampanga, including a disputed parcel that the government claimed was a public river. 2) Prior owners of the disputed parcel had attempted to restore dikes and convert it to a fishpond, but were prevented by the municipal president from doing so. 3) When the spouses later purchased the properties, including the disputed parcel, they were aware of the dispute over whether it was public land or could be privately owned, yet still bought it. 4) The Court ruled that the spouses could not be considered purchasers in good faith, as they knowingly took on

    Original Description:

    M.a.r.t.i.n.e.z. v. CA

    Original Title

    M.a.r.t.i.n.e.z. v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The spouses Romeo Martinez and Leonor Suarez owned two parcels of land in Lubao, Pampanga, including a disputed parcel that the government claimed was a public river. 2) Prior owners of the disputed parcel had attempted to restore dikes and convert it to a fishpond, but were prevented by the municipal president from doing so. 3) When the spouses later purchased the properties, including the disputed parcel, they were aware of the dispute over whether it was public land or could be privately owned, yet still bought it. 4) The Court ruled that the spouses could not be considered purchasers in good faith, as they knowingly took on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    631 views1 page

    M.A.R.T.I.N.E.Z. v. CA

    Uploaded by

    JMarc
    1) The spouses Romeo Martinez and Leonor Suarez owned two parcels of land in Lubao, Pampanga, including a disputed parcel that the government claimed was a public river. 2) Prior owners of the disputed parcel had attempted to restore dikes and convert it to a fishpond, but were prevented by the municipal president from doing so. 3) When the spouses later purchased the properties, including the disputed parcel, they were aware of the dispute over whether it was public land or could be privately owned, yet still bought it. 4) The Court ruled that the spouses could not be considered purchasers in good faith, as they knowingly took on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Martinez vs CA (56 SCRA 647) purchasers for value and in good faith as in the deed of

    absolute conveyance executed in their favor.


    GR No. L- 31271, April 29 1974
    Before purchasing a parcel of land, it cannot be contended
    Esguerra, J.: that the spouses did not know exactly the condition of the
    land that they were buying and the obstacles or
    Facts:
    restrictions thereon that may be put up by the government
    The spouses Romeo Martinez and Leonor Suarez are the in connection with their project of converting Lot No. 2 in
    registered owners of two (2) parcels of land located in question into a fishpond. Nevertheless, they willfully and
    Lubao, Pampanga. The disputed property was originally voluntarily assumed the risks attendant to the sale of said
    owned by one Paulino Montemayor, who secured a "titulo lot. One who buys something with knowledge of defect or
    real" over it way back in 1883. After the death of Paulino lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he acquired it
    Montemayor the said property passed to his successors-in- in good faith.
    interest, Maria Montemayor and Donata Montemayor, who
    in turn, sold it, as well as the first parcel, to a certain
    Potenciano Garcia.

    Because Potenciano Garcia was prevented by the then The ruling that a purchaser of a registered property cannot
    municipal president of Lubao, Pedro Beltran, from go beyond the record to make inquiries as to the legality
    restoring the dikes constructed on the contested property, of the title of the registered owner, but may rely on the
    Garcia filed a civil case with the Court of First Instance registry to determine if there is no lien or encumbrances
    against Beltran to restrain the latter in his official capacity over the same, cannot be availed of as against the law
    from molesting him in the possession of said second and the accepted principle that rivers are parts of the
    parcel, and on even date, applied for a writ of preliminary public domain for public use and not capable of private
    injunction, which was issued against said municipal appropriation or acquisition by prescription.
    president. The Court declared permanent the preliminary
    injunction.

    On April 17, 1925. Potenciano Garcia applied for the


    registration of both parcels of land in his name, and the
    Court of First Instance of Pampanga, sitting as land
    registration court, granted the registration.

    Thereafter, the ownership of these properties changed


    hands until eventually they were acquired by the spouses.

    To avoid any untoward incident, the disputants agreed to


    refer the matter to the Committee on Rivers and Streams,
    which, after conducting an ocular inspection, reported that
    the parcel was not a public river but a private fishpond
    owned by the herein spouses.

    The Secretary of Public Works and Communications,


    ordered another investigation of the said parcel of land,
    directing the spouses to remove the dikes they had
    constructed, threatening that the dikes would be
    demolished should the spouses fail to comply therewith
    within 30 days.

    Issue:

    Whether the spouses are purchasers for value and in good


    faith on the parcel alleged to be a public river.

    Held:

    No, they are not.

    There is no weight in the spouses' argument that, being a


    purchaser for value and in good faith of Lot No. 2, the
    nullification of its registration would be contrary to the law
    and to the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court as it
    would destroy the stability of the title which is the core of
    the system of registration. Appellants cannot be deemed

    You might also like