Access over 20 million homework & study documents

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT), petitioner

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/18
1
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-43938 April 15, 1988
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT), petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) and JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents.
G.R. No. L-44081 April 15, 1988
BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, VICTORIA, BENJAMIN and EDUARDO, all surnamed DE LA ROSA,
represented by their father JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents.
G.R. No. L-44092 April 15, 1988
ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, VICTORlA, BENJAMIN and EDUARDO, all surnamed DE LA ROSA,
represented by their father, JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents.
CRUZ, J.:
The Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all natural wealth that may be found in the bowels of the earth
even if the land where the discovery is made be private.
1
In the cases at bar, which have been consolidated
because they pose a common issue, this doctrine was not correctly applied.
These cases arose from the application for registration of a parcel of land filed on February 11, 1965, by Jose
de la Rosa on his own behalf and on behalf of his three children, Victoria, Benjamin and Eduardo. The land,
situated in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet Province, was divided into 9 lots and covered by plan Psu-225009.
According to the application, Lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la Rosa and Lots 6-9 to his children by Mamaya
Balbalio and Jaime Alberto, respectively, in 1964.
2
The application was separately opposed by Benguet Consolidated, Inc. as to Lots 1-5, Atok Big Wedge
Corporation, as to Portions of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9, and by the Republic of the Philippines, through the
Bureau of Forestry Development, as to lots 1-9.
3
In support of the application, both Balbalio and Alberto testified that they had acquired the subject land by
virtue of prescription Balbalio claimed to have received Lots 1-5 from her father shortly after the Liberation.
She testified she was born in the land, which was possessed by her parents under claim of ownership.
4
Alberto
said he received Lots 6-9 in 1961 from his mother, Bella Alberto, who declared that the land was planted by
Jaime and his predecessors-in-interest to bananas, avocado, nangka and camote, and was enclosed with a
barbed-wire fence. She was corroborated by Felix Marcos, 67 years old at the time, who recalled the earlier
possession of the land by Alberto's father.
5
Balbalio presented her tax declaration in 1956 and the realty tax
receipts from that year to 1964,
6
Alberto his tax declaration in 1961 and the realty tax receipts from that year
to 1964.
7
Benguet opposed on the ground that the June Bug mineral claim covering Lots 1-5 was sold to it on September
22, 1934, by the successors-in-interest of James Kelly, who located the claim in September 1909 and recorded
it on October 14, 1909. From the date of its purchase, Benguet had been in actual, continuous and exclusive
possession of the land in concept of owner, as evidenced by its construction of adits, its affidavits of annual
assessment, its geological mappings, geological samplings and trench side cuts, and its payment of taxes on
the land.
8
For its part, Atok alleged that a portion of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9 were covered by the Emma and Fredia
mineral claims located by Harrison and Reynolds on December 25, 1930, and recorded on January 2, 1931, in
the office of the mining recorder of Baguio. These claims were purchased from these locators on November 2,
1931, by Atok, which has since then been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the said lots as
evidenced by its annual assessment work on the claims, such as the boring of tunnels, and its payment of
annual taxes thereon.
9
The location of the mineral claims was made in accordance with Section 21 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 which
provided that:
SEC. 21. All valuable mineral deposits in public lands in the philippine Islands both surveyed and unsurveyed
are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration, occupation and purchase and the land in which they
are found to occupation and purchase by the citizens of the United States, or of said islands.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/18
2
The Bureau of Forestry Development also interposed its objection, arguing that the land sought to be
registered was covered by the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve under Proclamation No. 217 dated February
16, 1929. Moreover, by reason of its nature, it was not subject to alienation under the Constitutions of 1935
and 1973.
10
The trial court * denied the application, holding that the applicants had failed to prove their claim of
possession and ownership of the land sought to be registered.
11
The applicants appealed to the respondent
court, * which reversed the trial court and recognized the claims of the applicant, but subject to the rights of
Benguet and Atok respecting their mining claims.
12
In other words, the Court of Appeals affirmed the surface
rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the same time reserving the sub-surface rights of Benguet and
Atok by virtue of their mining claims.
Both Benguet and Atok have appealed to this Court, invoking their superior right of ownership. The Republic
has filed its own petition for review and reiterates its argument that neither the private respondents nor the
two mining companies have any valid claim to the land because it is not alienable and registerable.
It is true that the subject property was considered forest land and included in the Central Cordillera Forest
Reserve, but this did not impair the rights already vested in Benguet and Atok at that time. The Court of
Appeals correctly declared that:
There is no question that the 9 lots applied for are within the June Bug mineral claims of Benguet and the
"Fredia and Emma" mineral claims of Atok. The June Bug mineral claim of plaintiff Benguet was one of the 16
mining claims of James E. Kelly, American and mining locator. He filed his declaration of the location of the
June Bug mineral and the same was recorded in the Mining Recorder's Office on October 14, 1909. All of the
Kelly claims ha subsequently been acquired by Benguet Consolidated, Inc. Benguet's evidence is that it had
made improvements on the June Bug mineral claim consisting of mine tunnels prior to 1935. It had submitted
the required affidavit of annual assessment. After World War II, Benguet introduced improvements on mineral
claim June Bug, and also conducted geological mappings, geological sampling and trench side cuts. In 1948,
Benguet redeclared the "June Bug" for taxation and had religiously paid the taxes.
The Emma and Fredia claims were two of the several claims of Harrison registered in 1931, and which Atok
representatives acquired. Portions of Lots 1 to 5 and all of Lots 6 to 9 are within the Emma and Fredia mineral
claims of Atok Big Wedge Mining Company.
The June Bug mineral claim of Benguet and the Fredia and Emma mineral claims of Atok having been perfected
prior to the approval of the Constitution of the Philippines of 1935, they were removed from the public
domain and had become private properties of Benguet and Atok.
It is not disputed that the location of the mining claim under consideration was perfected prior to November
15, 1935, when the Government of the Commonwealth was inaugurated; and according to the laws existing at
that time, as construed and applied by this court in McDaniel v. Apacible and Cuisia (42 Phil. 749), a valid
location of a mining claim segregated the area from the public domain. Said the court in that case: The
moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral deposit on the lands located, and perfected his location in
accordance with law, the power of the United States Government to deprive him of the exclusive right to the
possession and enjoyment of the located claim was gone, the lands had become mineral lands and they were
exempted from lands that could be granted to any other person. The reservations of public lands cannot be
made so as to include prior mineral perfected locations; and, of course, if a valid mining location is made upon
public lands afterwards included in a reservation, such inclusion or reservation does not affect the validity of
the former location. By such location and perfection, the land located is segregated from the public domain
even as against the Government. (Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337; Van Mess v. Roonet, 160 Cal. 131; 27
Cyc. 546).
"The legal effect of a valid location of a mining claim is not only to segregate the area from the public domain,
but to grant to the locator the beneficial ownership of the claim and the right to a patent therefor upon
compliance with the terms and conditions prescribed by law. Where there is a valid location of a mining claim,
the area becomes segregated from the public domain and the property of the locator." (St. Louis Mining &
Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 650; 655; 43 Law ed., 320, 322.) "When a location of a mining
claim is perfected it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive
possession, with the right to the exclusive enjoyment of all the surface ground as well as of all the minerals
within the lines of the claim, except as limited by the extralateral right of adjoining locators; and this is the
locator's right before as well as after the issuance of the patent. While a lode locator acquires a vested
property right by virtue of his location made in compliance with the mining laws, the fee remains in the
government until patent issues."(18 R.C.L. 1152) (Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Hon. Eulogio Rodriguez,
Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce, and Quirico Abadilla, Director of the Bureau of Mines, 66 Phil. 259, 265-
266)

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/18

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 18 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-43938 April 15, 1988 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT), petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) and JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents. G.R. No. L-44081 April 15, 1988 BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, VICTORIA, BENJAMIN and EDUARDO, all surnamed DE LA ROSA, represented by their father JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents. G.R. No. L-44092 April 15, 1988 ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, VICTORlA, BENJAMIN and EDUARDO, all surnamed DE LA ROSA, represented by their father, JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents. CRUZ, J.: The Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all natural wealth that may be found in the bowels of the earth even if the land where the discovery is made be private. 1 In the cases at bar, which have been consolidated because they pose a common issue, this doctrine was not correctly applied. These cases arose from the application for registration of a parcel of land filed on February 11, 1965, by Jose de la Rosa on his own behalf and on behalf of his three children, Victoria, Benjamin and Eduardo. The land, situated in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet Province, was divided into 9 lots and covered by plan Psu-225009. According to the application, Lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la Rosa and Lots 6-9 to his children by Mamaya Balbalio and Jaime Alberto, respectively, ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
I was stuck on this subject and a friend recommended Studypool. I'm so glad I checked it out!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4