2 Republic Vs CA Dela Rosa

8/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 160
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Court ofAppeals
*
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.
*
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.
*
No. L-44092. April 15, 1988.
ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, 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.
Constitutional Law; Public Lands: Mining Claims; Fact that

the subject property were considered forest land and included in
the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve did not impair the rights
already vested in Benguet and Atok,—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.
Same; Same; Same; Perfection of a location of a mining claim,
its effect.—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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016508616b6c215c2860003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
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.3. 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
________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
229
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 229
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.’
Same; Same; Same; Locations acquired exclusive rights over
the land even against the government.—The perfection of the
mining claim converted the property to mineral land and under
the laws then in force removed it from the public domain. By such
act, the locators acquired exclusive rights over the land, against
even the government, without need of any further act such as the
purchase of the land or the obtention of a patent over it. As the
land had become the private property of the locators, they had the
right to transfer the same, as they did, to Benguet and Atok.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Whether a patent has been served
by Benguet andAtok is of no importance.—It is of no importance
whether Benguet and Atok had secured a patent for as held in the
Gold Creek Mining Corp. Case, for all physical purposes of
ownership, the owner is not required to secure a patent as long as
he complies with the provisions of the mining laws; his possessory
right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though
secured by patent.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The requirements of the
mining laws having been complied with, the claims were removed
from the public domain.—"We agree likewise with the oppositors
that having complied with all the requirements of the mining
laws, the claims were removed from the public domain, and not
even the government of the Philippines can take away this right
from them. The reason is obvious, Having become the private
properties of the oppositors, they cannot be deprived thereof
without due process of law.”
Same; Same: Same; Prescription; Private respondents’ claim
of acquisitive prescription not available in the case at bar.—It is
true, as the Court of Appeals observed, that such private property
was subject to the “vicissitudes of ownership,” or even to forfeiture
by non-user or abandonment or, as the private respondents aver,
by acquisitive prescription. However, the method invoked by the
de la Rosaa is not available in the case at bar, for two reasons.
First, the trial court found that the evidence of open, continuous,
adverse and exclusive possession submitted by the applicants was
insufficient to support their claim of ownership. They themselves
had acquired the land only in
230
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
1964 and applied for its registration in 1965, relying on the

earlier alleged possession of their predecessors-in-interest. The
trial judge, who had the opportunity to consider the evidence first-
hand and observe the demeanor of the witnesses and test their
credibility was not convinced. We defer to his judgment in the
absence of a showing that it was reached with grave abuse of
discretion or without sufficient basis. Second, even if it be
assumed that the predecessors-in-interest of the de la Rosas had
really been in possession of the subject property, their possession
was not in the concept of owner of the mining claim but of the
property as agricultural land, which it was not. The property was
mineral land, and they were claiming it as agricultural land. They
were not disputing the rights of the mining locators nor were they
seeking to oust them as such and to replace them in the mining of
the land. In fact, Balbalio testified that she was aware of the
diggings being undertaken “down below” but she did not mind,
much less protest, the same although she claimed to be the owner
of the said land.
Same; Same; Same; The owner of a piece of land has rights
not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the
airspace above it up to a reasonable height.—The Court of Appeals
justified this by saying there is “no conflict of interest” between
the owners of the surface rights and the owners of the sub-surface
rights. This is rather strange doctrine, for it is a well-known

principle that the owner of a piece of land has rights not only to
its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace
above it up to a reasonable height. Under the aforesaid ruling, the
land is classified as mineral underneath and agricultural on the
surface, subject to separate claims of title. This is also difficult to
understand, especially in its practical application.
Same; Same; Same; Regalian Doctrine reserves to the state all
minerals that may be found in public and even private land
devoted to agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential or for
&ny purpose other than mining.—This is an application of the
Regalian doctrine which, as its name implies, is intended for the
benefit of the State, not of private persons. The rule simply
reserves to the State all minerals that may be found in public and
even private land devoted to “agricultural, industrial, commercial,
residential or (for) any purpose other than mining.” Thus, if a
person is the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are
discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him the right
to extract or utilize the said minerals without the permission of
the State to which such minerals belong.
Same; Same; Same; Court holds that Benguet and Atok have
ex-
231
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 231
Republic vs, Court of Appeals
clusive rights to the property in question.—Our holding is that

Benguet and Atok have exclusive rights to the property in
question by virtue of their respective mining claims which they
validly acquired before the Constitution of 1935 prohibited the
alienation of all lands of the public domain except agricultural
lands, subject to vested rights existing at the time of its adoption.
The land was not and could not have been transferred to the
private respondents by virtue of acquisitive prescription, nor
could its use be shared simultaneously by them and the mining
companies for agricultural and mineral purposes.
PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
CRUZ, J.:
The Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all natural

wealth that may be found in the bowels of the earth1 even if
the land where the discovery is made be private. 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 by2 Mamaya Balbalio and Jaime Alberto,
respectively, in 1964.
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
3
the Bureau
of Forestry Development, as to Lots 1–9. 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
________________
1 Sec. 4, Commonwealth Act No. 137.

2 Original Records, Land Registration Case No. 146, pp. 1–4.
3 Ibid., pp. 33, 68, 241.
232

in the land, which 4 was possessed by her parents under

claim of ownership. 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
5
earlier
possession of the land by Alberto’s father. Balbalio
presented her tax declaration 6in 1956 and the realty tax
receipts from that year to 1964, Alberto his tax declaration
7
in 1961 and the realty tax receipts from that yearto!964.
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
8
trench side cuts, and its payment of taxes
on the land
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 the9 boring
of tunnels, and its payment of annual taxes thereon.
The location of the mineral claims was made in
accordance with Section 21 of the Philippine Bill of 1902
which provided that:
________________
4 TSN, May 5, 1966, p. 61.

5 TSN, May 3,1967, pp. 89–115.
6 Original Records, Exhs. “J," p. 24, “K," p. 26.
7 Original Record, Exhs. “I," p. 22, “K," p. 26.
8 Exhs. “8 (a-e)," “9 (a-e)," “9 (f-g)," “7," and 11."
9 Exh. “5," Atok; Exh. “6," Atok, RoUo (G.R. No. 44081), Annex “B," pp.
76–82.
233
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 233

“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.”
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 10
to alienation
under the Constitutions
**
of 1935 and 1973.
The trial court denied the application, holding that the
applicants had failed to prove their claim of possession 11
and
ownership of the land sought to be registered. ***
The
applicants appealed to the respondent court, which
reversed the trial court and recognized the claims of the
applicant, but subject to the rights
12
of Benguet and Atok
respecting their mining claims. 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
________________
10 Original Records, Land Registration Case No. 146, p. 291.

** Judge Feliciano Belmonte, CFI of Baguio, Benguet.
11 Ibid., p. 325.
*** Leuterio, J., ponente, with Vasquez and Escolin, JJ.
12 Rollo (G.R. No. 43938), pp, 38–51.
234

Benguet was one of the 16 mining claims of James E. Kelly, an

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 had 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.
‘lt 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).
235
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 235

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)
“It is of no importance whether Benguet and Atok had secured a

patent for as held in the Gold Creek Mining Corp. Case, for all
physical purposes of ownership, the owner is not required to
secure a patent as long as he complies with the provisions of the
mining laws; his possessory right, for all practical purposes of
ownership, is as good as though secured by patent.
“We agree likewise with the oppositors that having complied
with aU the requirements of the mining laws, the claims were
removed from the public domain, and not even the government of
the Philippines can take away this right from them. The reason is
obvious. Having become the private properties of the oppositors,
13
they cannot be deprived thereof without due process of law."
Such rights were not affected either by the stricture in the

Commonwealth Constitution against the alienation of all
lands of the public domain except those agricultural in
nature for this was made subject to existing rights. Thus,
in its Article XIII, Section 1, it was categorically provided
that:
“SEC. 1. All agricultural, timber and mineral lands of the public

domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the
Philip
________________
13 Ibid., pp. 40–42.
236
pines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation,

development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the
Philippines or to corporations or associations at least 60% of the
capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing
right, grant, lease or concession at the time of the inauguration of
the government established under this Constitution. Natural
resources with the exception of public agricultural lands, shall not
be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the
exploitation, development or utilization of any of the natural
resources shall be granted for a period exceeding 25 years, except
as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or
industrial uses other than the development of water power, in
which case beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the
grant.”
Implementing this provision, Act No. 4268, approved on

November 8,1935, declared:
“Any provision of existing laws, executive order, proclamation to

the contrary notwithstanding, all locations of mining claim made
prior to February 8,1935 within lands set apart as forest reserve
under Sec. 1826 of the Revised Administrative Code which would
be valid and subsisting location except to the existence of said
reserve are hereby declared to be valid and subsisting locations as
of the date of their respective locations.”
The perfection of the mining claim converted the property

to mineral land and under the
14
laws then in force removed
it from the public domain. By such act, the locators
acquired exclusive rights over the land, against even the
government, without need of any further act such as the 15
purchase of the land or the obtention of a patent over it.
As the land had become the
________________
14 McDaniel v. Apacible, 42 Phil. 749; Salaeot Mining Co. v. Rodriguez,

67 Phil. 97; Salacot Mining v. Apacible, 67 Phil. 110; Benguet, Inc. v.
Republic, 143 SCRA 466.
15 “The respondents may claim, however, that inasmuch as a patent has
not been issued to the petitioner, he has acquired no property right in said
mineral claims. But the Supreme Court of the United States, in the cases
of Union Oil Co, v. Smith (249 U.S. 337), and St. Louis Mining & Milling
Co. v. Montana Mining Co, (171 U.S. 650), held that.even without a
patent, the possessory right of a locator after discovery of minerals upon
the claim is a property right in the fullest sense, unaffected by the fact
that the paramount title to the land is in the United State. McDaniel v.
Apacible, supra; Salacot Mining Co. v. Rodriguez, supra.
237
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 237

private property of the locators, they had the right to

transfer the same, as they did, to Benguet and Atok.
It is true, as the Court of Appeals observed, that such
private property was subject to the “vicissitudes of
ownership,” or even to forfeiture by non-user or
abandonment or, as the private respondents aver, by
acquisitive prescription. However, the method invoked by
the de la Rosas is not available in the case at bar, for two
reasons.
First, the trial court found that the evidence of open,
continuous, adverse and exclusive possession submitted by
the applicants was insufficient to support their claim of
ownership. They themselves had acquired the land only in
1964 and applied for its registration in 1965, relying on the16
earlier alleged possession of their predecessors-in4nterest.
The trial judge, who had the opportunity to consider the
evidence first-hand and observe the demeanor of the
witnesses and test their credibility was not convinced. We
defer to his judgment in the absence of a showing that it
was reached with 17
grave abuse of discretion or without
sufficient basis.
Second, even if it be assumed that the predecessors-in-
interest of the de la Rosas had really been in possession of
the subject property. their possession was not in the
concept of owner of the mining claim but of the property as
agricultural land, which it was not. The property was
mineral land, and they were claiming it as agricultural
land. They were not disputing the rights of the mining
locators nor were they seeking to oust them as such and to
replace them in the mining of the land. In fact, Balbalio
testified that she was 18 aware of the diggings being
undertaken “down below" but she did not mind, much less
protest, the same although she claimed to be the owner of
the said land.
The Court of Appeals justified this by saying there is “no
conflict of interest” between the owners of the surface
rights
________________
16 Original Records, pp. 1–4.

17 Tan Hong v. Hon. Paredes, G.R. No. 78627, Jan. 29,1988; Pio Padilla
v. CA, G.R. No. 75577, Jan. 29,1988; Verdant Acres v. Ponciano
Hernandez, G.R. No. 51352, Jan. 29,1988; People v. Ancheta, 148 SCRA
178; Peopie v. Delavin, 148 SCRA 257; People v. Alcantara, 151 SCRA
326.
18 TSN, Oct. 18, 1966, p. 79.
238

and the owners of the sub-surface rights. This is rather

strange doctrine, for it is a well-known principle that the
owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface
but also to everything underneath
19
and the airspace above it
up to a reasonable height. Under the aforesaid ruling, the
land is classified as mineral underneath and agricultural
on the surface, subject to separate claims of title. This is
also difficult to understand, especially in its practical
application.
Under the theory of the respondent court, the surface
owner will be planting on the land while the mining locator
will be boring tunnels underneath. The farmer cannot dig a
well because he may interfere with the mining operations
below and the miner cannot blast a tunnel lest he destroy
the crops above. How deep can the farmer, and how high
can the miner, go without encroaching on each other’s
rights? Where is the dividing line between the surface and
the sub-surface rights?
The Court feels that the rights over the land are
indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half
agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be
categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or
completely agricuituraL In the instant case, as already
observed, the land which was originally classified as forest
land ceased to be so and became mineral—and completely
20
mineral—once the mining claims were perfected. As long
as mining operations were being undertaken thereon, or
underneath, it did not cease to be so and become
agricultural, even if only partly so, because it was enclosed
with a fence and was cultivated by those who were
unlawfully occupying the surface.
What must have misled the respondent court is
Commonwealth Act No. 137, providing as follows:
“Sec. 3. All mineral lands of the public domain and minerals

belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation,
development or utilization, shall be limited to citizens of the
Philippines, or to corporations, or associations, at least 60% of the
capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing
right, grant, lease or concession at the time of the inauguration of
government established under the Constitution.”
________________
19 Article 437, new Civil Code.

20 Sec. 1, Preaidential Legislative Act No. 4268.
239
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 239

“SEC. 4. The ownership of, and the right to the use of land for
agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential, or for any
purpose other than mining does not include the ownership of, nor
the right to extract or utilize, the minerals which may be found on
or under the surface.”
“SEC. 5. The ownership of, and the right to extract and utilize,
the minerals included within all areas for which public
agricultural land patents are granted are excluded and excepted
from all such patents.”
“SEC. 6. The ownership of, and the right to extract and utilize,
the minerals included within all areas for which Torrens titles are
granted are excluded and excepted from all such titles.”
This is an application of the Regalian doctrine which, as its

name implies, is intended for the benefit of the State, not of
private persons. The rule simply reserves to the State all
minerals that may be found in public and even private land
devoted to “agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential
or (for) any purpose other than mining.” Thus, if a person is
the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are
discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him
the right to extract or utilize the said minerals without the
permission of the State to which such minerals belong.
The flaw in the reasoning of the respondent court is in
supposing that the rights over the land could be used for
both mining and non-mining purposes simultaneously, The
correct interpretation is that once minerals are discovered
in the land, whatever the use to which it is being devoted
at the time, such use may be discontinued by the State to
enable it to extract the minerals therein in the exercise of
its sovereign prerogative. The land is thus converted to

mineral land and may not be used by any private party,
including the registered owner thereof, for any other
purpose that will impede the mining operations to be
undertaken therein. For the loss sustained by such owner,
he is of course entitled to just compensation under the 21
Mining Laws or in appropriate expropriation proceedings.
Our holding is that Benguet and Atok have exclusive
rights to the property in question by virtue of their
respective mining
________________
21 Consolidated Mines Administr ative Order, May 17,1975, Secs. 10 &

11, as amended by Mines Administrative Order No. MRD-15.
240

Buccat vs. Dispo
claims which they validly acquired before the Constitution

of 1935 prohibited the alienation of all lands of the public
domain except agricultural lands, subject to vested rights
existing at the time of its adoption. The land was not and
could not have been transferred to the private respondents
by virtue of acquisitive prescription, nor could its use be
shared simultaneously by them and the mining companies
for agricultural and mineral purposes.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent court
dated April 30, 1976 is SET ASIDE and that of the trial
court dated March 11, 1969, is REINSTATED, without ant
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (C.J.), Narvasa, Gancayco and Griño-

Aquino, JJ., concur.
Note.—The Bureau of Mines, not the Regional Trial

Court, has jurisdiction over compensation claims by surface
owners against mine prospectors under Presidential Decree
No. 1281. (Rajah Lahuy Mining Company vs. Pajares, 136
SCRA 415.)
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

2 Republic Vs CA Dela Rosa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Republic Vs CA Dela Rosa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Republic Vs CA Dela Rosa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 160

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIRECTOR OF

BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., petitioner, vs. HON.

ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, petitioner, vs.

Constitutional Law; Public Lands: Mining Claims; Fact that

mining claim, the area becomes segregated from the public

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 229

Republic vs. Court ofAppeals

within the lines of the claim, except as limited by the extralateral

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

1964 and applied for its registration in 1965, relying on the

rights. This is rather strange doctrine, for it is a well-known

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 231

Republic vs, Court of Appeals

clusive rights to the property in question.—Our holding is that

PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all natural

1 Sec. 4, Commonwealth Act No. 137.

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

in the land, which 4 was possessed by her parents under

Benguet opposed on the ground that the June Bug

4 TSN, May 5, 1966, p. 61.

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 233

“SEC. 21. All valuable mineral deposits in public lands in the

The Bureau of Forestry Development also interposed its

covered by the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve under

10 Original Records, Land Registration Case No. 146, p. 291.

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Benguet was one of the 16 mining claims of James E. Kelly, an

claims had subsequently been acquired by Benguet Consolidated,

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 235

The legal effect of a valid location of a mining claim is not only to

“It is of no importance whether Benguet and Atok had secured a

Such rights were not affected either by the stricture in the

“SEC. 1. All agricultural, timber and mineral lands of the public

13 Ibid., pp. 40–42.

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

pines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation,

Implementing this provision, Act No. 4268, approved on

“Any provision of existing laws, executive order, proclamation to

The perfection of the mining claim converted the property

14 McDaniel v. Apacible, 42 Phil. 749; Salaeot Mining Co. v. Rodriguez,

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 237

private property of the locators, they had the right to

16 Original Records, pp. 1–4.

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and the owners of the sub-surface rights. This is rather

“Sec. 3. All mineral lands of the public domain and minerals

19 Article 437, new Civil Code.

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 239

This is an application of the Regalian doctrine which, as its

its sovereign prerogative. The land is thus converted to

21 Consolidated Mines Administr ative Order, May 17,1975, Secs. 10 &

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED