Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 63528 September 9, 1996 ATOK B G!"E#GE M N NG COMPAN$, petitioner, vs. %ON. NTERME# ATE APPE&&ATE COURT '() TUKTUKAN SA NGAN, respondents.

%ERMOS S MA, *R., J.: In the face of t o sets of diver!ent rulin!s of the Supre"e #ourt on the nature of the ri!hts of "inin! clai"ants over the land here their clai" is located, the parties herein see$ a definitive rulin! on the issue% &hat is actuall' the ri!ht of a locator of a "inin! clai" located and perfected under the Philippine (ill of )*+, over the land here the clai" is found- Does he have an absolute ri!ht of o nership thereof or does he have the "ere ri!ht to possess and clai" the sa"e- &hose ri!ht to the land should, therefore, prevail% the "inin! clai"ant.s or that of an applicant for land re!istration- Does the "ere recordin! or location of a "inin! clai" ipso facto and irreversibl' convert the land into "ineral land, not ithstandin! the fact the "inin! clai"ant failed to co"pl' ith the strict or$ re/uire"ent under the Philippine (ill of )*+,Petitioner 0to$ (i! &ed!e Minin! #o"pan' appeals fro" the decision 1 of the #ourt of 0ppeals 2 hich reversed the decision 3 of the then #ourt of First Instance of (a!uio #it' + in a land re!istration case. 5 The courta quo denied and correspondin!l' dis"issed the application for re!istration of title filed b' private respondent Tu$tu$an Sain!an, findin! no "erit in Sain!an.s clai" of adverse, open and continuous possession in concept of an o ner of the tract of land applied for b' hi", hich happened to be clai"ed b' petitioner as part of its "inin! dul' recorded b' the Minin! Recorder of (en!uet. Respondent appellate court found petitioner to have abandoned its "inin! clai" over the said tract of land and, on the other hand, ad1ud!ed private respondent to be the o ner thereof b' virtue of his havin! possessed the sa"e under a bona fide clai" of o nership for at least thirt' 23+4 'ears prior to the filin! of his land re!istration application in )*56. The court a quo "ade the follo in! findin!s of fact%

0pplicant 7private respondent8 see$s the re!istration of a parcel of land ith an area of 9),,*5 s/uare "eters situated in the barrio of :ucnab, Ito!on, (en!uet, hich is sho n in surve' plan Psu; ,+*<6) . . . The evidence for the applicant =private respondent> ho as ?+ 'ears old at the ti"e he testified sho s that he ac/uired the land fro" his father;in;la , Don!ail, hen he "arried his dau!hter@ that he as then )< 'ears old@ that at the ti"e of his ac/uisition, it as planted ith ca"otes, casava =sic>, lan!$a, !abi, coffee and avocados@ that he lived on the land since his "arria!e up to the present@ that he has been pa'in! the taAes durin! the Bapanese occupation and even before it@ that he as never disturbed in his possession. Supportin! his oral testi"on', applicant =private respondent> sub"itted taA declarations . . . both dated March ,+, )*9<, the for"er for a rural land and the latter for urban land and i"prove"ent therein. The receipt sho in! pa'"ent of the taAes on such taA declarations is dated Feb. <, )*9* . . . The said taA declarations . . . sho that the' cancel taA declaration No. 93* dated Feb. )+, )*9? hich as presented b' the Oppositor =petitioner> 0to$ (i! &ed!e Minin! #o"pan' as its CAhibit )9, and the land taA under CAh. )9 as paid b' applicant =private respondent> in )*9? . . . 0pplicant =private respondent> has also sub"itted CAh. D#D, hich indicates that all pre; ar records of taA declarations and real propert' receipts of the "unicipalit' of Ito!on here the propert' is located ere burned and destro'ed durin! the last orld ar. The (ureau of :ands and (ureau of Forestr', represented b' the Provincial Fiscal, oppose =sic> application. The 0to$ (i! &ed!e Minin! #o"pan' ca"e in also as oppositor clai"in! that the land in /uestion is ithin its "ineral clai"s E Sall', Cvel'n and Cthel . . . 0to$ (i! &ed!e Minin! #o"pan' sub"itted CAhibits 5, ? and <, all sho in! that the annual assess"ent or$ of these "ineral clai"s ere "aintained fro" )*3, to )*5? for Sall' and Cvel'n and fro" )*95 to )*5? for Cthel. It as li$e ise sho n that these "ineral clai"s ere recorded in the "inin! recorder.s office@ Sall' and Cvel'n on Ban. ,, )*3) and Cthel on March )<, )*,) . . . 6 The respondent appellate court additionall' found that the tract of land in /uestion Daccordin! to the evidence, CAh. ,, covers portion of "ineral clai"s, Sall', Cvel'n and Cthel, the first t o located b' one Re'nolds in )*3) and the last, also b' Re'nolds in )*,)D , but D0to$ . . . has not even been sho n ho connected ith locator Re'nolds.D 8 Private respondent reiterates this fact in his #o""ent%

. . . 2T4he "inin! clai"s have beco"e vested ri!hts and properties of the locators, Messrs. F. I. Re'nolds and C. B. Farrison. Fo ever, the locators, Re'nolds and Farrison, or the PCTITIONCRS herein, assu"in! that there is an' relation bet een 0to$ (i! &ed!e Minin! #o., and the locators. Re'nolds and Farrison, have never sho n that their ri!hts have been preserved or re"ain vested. AAA AAA AAA Further"ore, hen the land in /uestion as re!istered in the office of the Minin! Recorder in )*,), and )*3), respectivel', the "ineral clai"s coverin! the land in /uestion na"el'% Sall', Cvel'n and Cthel ere in the na"e of the :ocators C.B. Farrison and F. I. Re'nolds. No evidence as ever presented as to ho Petitioner herein obtained o nership over said clai"s durin! the hearin! of this case in the :o er #ourt up to this ti"e. It as not even sho n ho Petitioner herein, 0to$ (i! &ed!e Minin! #o., is connected or related to locator Re'nolds. . . 9 Si!nificantl', nothin! in the subse/uent pleadin!s filed b' petitioner rebuts, disputes or proves other ise, the aforecited issue raised b' private respondent ith re!ard to its personalit', interests and authorit' to oppose the application for re!istration filed b' private respondent respectin! land to hich petitioner clai"s ri!hts but as to hich it is not the dul' recorded "inin! locator. The Director of :ands, thru the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed private respondent.s application on the !round that the applicant did not have title in fee si"ple over the /uestioned land and that he had not eAercised continuous, eAclusive and notorious possession and occupation over the said land for at least thirt' 23+4 'ears i""ediatel' precedin! the filin! of the application. Fo ever, the Solicitor General no lon!er 1oined petitioner in this ulti"ate appeal, the Solicitor General later concedin! eAistence of private respondent.s ri!hts. Petitioner.s presentation of evidence provin! re!istration of the "inin! clai"s of petitioner in the Minin! Recorder of (en!uet datin! bac$ to )*3), at the lattest, notabl' about siAteen 2)54 'ears before private respondent declared the land in /uestion for taAation purposes and thirt' four 2394 'ears before private respondent filed the land re!istration proceedin!s in )*56, apparentl' inpressed the court a quo. 0nd so it ruled in favor of petitioner as oppositor in the land re!istration proceedin!s, the court a quo ratiocinatin! in this ise% . . . 2T4he "inin! clai"s ere recorded ahead of the ti"e hen the applicant =private respondent> declared the land for taAation purposes based on his docu"entar' eAhibits. So the evidence of

the applicant =private respondent> cannot prevail over the docu"entar' eAhibits of the oppositor 0to$ (i! &ed!e Minin! #o"pan'. The !overn"ent oppositors adopted the evidence of the "inin! co"pan'. Moreover, if applicant =private respondent> as alread' in possession and occupation of the land in the concept of o ner, as clai"ed, it is stran!e that he did not oppose its surve' hen the "inin! co"pan' surve'ed the area preparator' to its recordin! in the "inin! recorder.s office. The conclusion is that he as not 'et there hen the surve' b' the "inin! co"pan' as conducted or if he as alread' there the nature of his occupation as not in the concept of o ner for other ise he could have asserted it at the ti"e. The fore!oin! facts sho that the "inin! co"pan' had established its ri!hts lon! before applicant =private respondent> asserted o nership over the land. The perfection of "inin! clai"s over the "ineral lands involved se!re!ate = sic> the" fro" the public do"ain and the beneficial o nership thereof beca"e vested in the locator. 1The trial court havin! dis"issed private respondent.s application for re!istration on the !round that petitioners had alread' re/uired a vested ri!ht over the sub1ect land, private respondent appealed to the respondent court. The Director of :ands, thru the Solicitor General, adopted as his o n, the appellee.s brief filed b' petitioner. The respondent appellate court, on its part, correctl' considered inade/uate, ho ever, the "ere recordin! of petitioner.s "inin! clai"s in the Minin! Recorder of (en!uet and the correspondin!, albeit reli!ious, pa'"ent of annual assess"ent fees therefor, to vest in petitioner o nership ri!hts over the land in /uestion. Trul', under CAecutive Order No. )9) 11, the pa'"ent of annual assess"ent fees is onl' proof of co"pliance ith the char!es i"posed b' la and does not constitute proof of actual assess"ent or$ on the "inin! land concerned. Respondent court ruled in this connection% . . . 2I4t "ust conceded that the sa"e havin! been located and eAistin! since )*,) and )*3), the ri!hts of locator if correspondin!l' preserved, re"ained vested, E but as this #ourt also eAa"ines the evidence, hat has been sho n is that affidavits of assess"ent or$ had been filed, 'es, fro" )*3, in connection ith clai" Sall' and fro" )*33 as to Cvel'n, and fro" )*35 as to clai" Cthel, but tsn. ould not sho that in truth and in fact, there had been that assess"ent or$ on the clai"s, = sic> itness Pela'o of 0to$ ad"its that he had not !one over the area . . . in fact he

1oined the co"pan' in )*5, onl', = sic> in other ords, all that 0to$ has sho n as to assess"ent or$ is the affidavit thereon, but as CA. Order )9) of ) 0u!ust, =sic> )*5< has said% D2&4hat "atters is =sic> "aintainin! and preservin! possessor' ri!hts to the clai"s is the continuous perfor"ance of the re/uired assess"ent or$, not the filin! of an affidavit hich "a' be disproved b' findin!s of =sic> the !round.D and here, the ver' fact that applicant has possessed continuousl' apparentl' ithout protest fro" 0to$ . . . "ust disprove the truth that locator or 0to$ had indeed done assess"ent or$ . . . 12 Private respondent, in support of respondent court.s /uoted findin!s, points out in his pleadin! that% . . . The 0PP:I#0NT =private respondent> constructed various i"prove"ents on the land consistin! of his 3 residential houses, fruit trees, ricefields and other per"anent i"prove"ents. . . AAA AAA AAA On the other hand, the PCTITIONCR Minin! co"pan' has not sho n that it has introduced a singlei"prove"ent 2Dassess"ent or$D4 on the propert'. It has onl' paid the "ini"u" annual assess"ent re/uired b' la of P,++.++ a 'ear. There as no evidence, hatsoever, of its alle!ed DfactualD possession of the propert'. No assess"ent or$ as sho n durin! the ocular inspection ordered b' the Fonorable Trial #ourt neither durin! the ocular inspection conducted b' the (ureau of Forestr'. TFIS ritual of pa'in! the unifor" su" of P,++.++ a 'ear for alle!ed assess"ent or$ is not enou!h evidence that such assess"ent or$ as actuall' "ade. It is precisel' for this reason that CAecutive Order )9) dated 0u!ust ), )*5< as issued b' the President of the Philippines. This order "ade is "andator' that it is not enou!h to pa' P,++.++ a 'ear but there "ust be actual continuous assess"ent or$ done on the surface of the "ineral clai"s . . . =C"phasis supplied b' private respondent.> 13 0lso, private respondent also additionall' infor"s this court that% . . . PCTITIONCR 0to$ (i! &ed!e Minin! #o"pan' has, on October ),, )*?<, converted its application on "ineral clai"s in /uestion 2S0::H, CVC:HN and CTFC:4 into "inin! lease onl' in co"pliance ith Presidential Decree ),)9. PCTITIONCR "inin!

co"pan' is no a "ere lessee of the "inin! clai"s. 0nd as such lessee, it has no ri!ht on the surface ri!hts of such "ineral clai"s. 0n official certification to that effect b' the (ureau of Mines I Geo; Sciences, Re!ional Officer No. ) of the #it' of (a!uio is hereb' attached as 0nneA D0D and "ade inte!ral part 1+ hereof. . . an alle!ation hich obviousl' clinches this case in his favor. Respondent court havin! reversed the trial court.s decision on the !round that private respondent had, b' sufficient evidence, sho n his ri!ht to re!istration over the contested parcel of land, petitioner elevated its cause to this court. The Director of :ands, ho ever, did not 1oin in petitioner.s appeal. Thus, in a Manifestation and Motion, dated Bune ,), )*<3, 15 the Director of :ands, thru the Solicitor General, ac$no led!ed that Dthe respondent #ourt.s decision has beco"e final ith respect to the Director of :ands.D 16 Petitioner, left to its o n b' the Director of :ands, cites the follo in! !rounds fro" the !rant of the instant petition% I TF0T TFC :0ND IN JKCSTION F0D :ONG (CCN SCGRCG0TCD FROM TFC PK(:I# DOM0IN 0ND O&NCRSFIP TFCRCTO F0D :ONG (C#OMC VCSTCD IN FCRCIN PCTITIONCR &FCN ITS MINING #:0IMS IN JKCSTION &CRC RCGISTCRCD IN TFC OFFI#C OF TFC MINING RC#ORDCR IN )*,) 0ND )*3) RCSPC#TIVC:H. II TF0T TFC #OKRT OF 0PPC0:S #OMMITTCD 0 GR0VC 0(KSC OF DIS#RCTION IN FINDING TF0T TFC 0PP:I#0NT &0S IN #ONTINKOKS OPCN 0ND 0DVCRSC POSSCSSION. 1, &e find these ar!u"ents to be devoid of "erit. The records bear out that private respondent has been in possession of sub1ect parcel of land in concept of o ner for "ore than thirt' 23+4 'ears. The court a quo "ade the follo in! factual findin!s based on the testi"on' of private respondent% The evidence . . .sho s that he =private respondent> ac/uired the land fro" his father;in;la , Don!ail, hen he "arried his dau!hter@

that he as then )< 'ears old@ that at the ti"e of his ac/uisition, it as planted ith ca"otes, casava =sic>, lan!$a, !abi, coffee and avocados@ that he lived on the land since his "arria!e up to the present@ that he has been pa'in! the taAes durin! the Bapanese occupation and even before it@ that he as never disturbed in his possession. Supportin! his oral testi"on', applicant sub"itted taA declarations . . . both dated March ,+, )*9<, the for"er for a rural land and the latter for urban land and i"prove"ent therein. 18 Substantiatin! the aforecited testi"onial evidence of private respondent.s actual, adverse and continuous possession of the sub1ect land for "ore than thirt' 23+4 'ears are the observations of the court co""issioner durin! the ocular inspection of the sub1ect land on Februar' ), )*5*, pertinent transcribed portions of hich read as follo s% Kpon verification of the eAtent of the area applied for b' the applicant hich tallies ith the plan on record, e find the follo in! i"prove"ents@ The land applied for is al"ost *+L i"proved ith nu"erous irri!ated rice terraces ne l' planted to pala' at the ti"e of the ocular inspection and others planted to ve!etables such as potatoes, banana plants, flo erin! plants and fruit trees such as "an!oes, 1ac$fruits, coffee plants, avocados and citrus E all fruit bearin!. Most of the fruit trees such as the "an!o trees are about one half 2)M,4 "eter in dia"eter. There are four houses o ned b' the applicant =private respondent> and his children. There is a cree$ traversin! the "iddle portion of the land serve as irri!ation for the nu"erous rice paddies. hich

Kpon verification of the surroundin! area hich e did b' hi$in! all the a', there are no assess"ent tunnels or an' si!n of "inin! activities. AAA AAA AAA There are earthen di$es and fences surroundin! the propert' applied for.

It also appears that the surroundin! area of the land applied for is also full' cultivated especiall' on the estern portion, southern portion and also on the northern portion. On the north estern rid!e are nu"erous terraces planted to various ve!etables and on the ed!es of the propert' is a plantation of ti!er !rass used for broo"s. On the eastern slope are also nu"erous terraces planted to flo erin! plants and nu"erous banana plants. There are onl' t o 2,4 pine trees !ro in! situated on the eastern slope of the land in /uestion. On the northern portion are terraces and ricefields and "an!o tree as ell as banana plants. 0t the northern slope of the land applied for is = sic> full' cultivated ith the eAception of hatever portions are planted to bananas and ti!er !rass. The terraces at the ti"e of the ocular inspection is planted to ve!etables and flo erin! plants such as 0frican dishes = sic>. On the north estern portion of the land are nu"erous terraces planted to seasonal ve!etable crops. The rest are planted to banana eAcept the s"all steep portion planted to ti!er !rass to prevent the land fro" erodin!. On the estern portion is a bi! irri!ation canal ith plent' of ater hich serve =sic> as a ater suppl' to irri!ate the ricefields hich are found around the propert'. 0n esti"ate of around *+ to ),+ bi! and s"all trees are scattered all over the propert'. 0round the houses are full of fruit trees. AAA AAA AAA The "inin! co"pound of Ito!on is ver' far fro" this place and this land is at the boundar' of (a!uio #it' and Ito!on. That is h' it is "ore suitable for residential and a!ricultural purposes. No here do e find an' "inin! or$ done, an' cable or an'thin! that ould sho an' "inin! operation in this area.

0round the 'ard of the houses of the applicant are nu"erous coffee trees, 1ac$fruits, po"elos, papa'a, pineapples, banana plants, !uava trees and carrots. The orchard is full' planted to coffee trees. The area is esti"ated to be "ore than one hectare hich is planted to coffee trees and other plants. 19 Private respondent, it "ust be e"phasiNed, offered in evidence in the land re!istration proceedin!s before the court a quo, taA declarations, dated March ,+, )*9<, and taA pa'"ent receipts, dated Februar' <, )*9*. Si!nificantl', petitioner did not present an' evidence in rebuttal of private respondent.s aforestated clai"s of havin! ac/uired the sub1ect land fro" his ife.s father and havin! lived on the land since his "arria!e at the a!e of ei!hteen 2)<4. Neither has petitioner ta$en eAception to the aforecited observations of the court co""issioner durin! the ocular inspection of the sub1ect land. There is nar' a sho in! in petitioner.s nu"erous pleadin!s filed before us that there eAists substantial basis for us not to believe petitioner.s clai"s, and this is understandable, for petitioner lar!el' anchored its cause on its alle!ed vested ri!hts to its "inin! clai"s under the "andate of the Philippine (ill of )*+, and our rulin!s in McDaniel vs. Apacible and Cuisia 2- and the catena of cases subse/uent thereto. #onsiderin! the aforestated evidence borned out b' the records of the instant case, their credibleness and the lac$ of ade/uate opposition thereto, e a!ree ith respondent #ourt of 0ppeals that Da readin! of tsn. ould rather persuade that applicant =private respondent> had sho n /uite ell that sub1ect propert' had been in 2the4 continuous and adverse possession, first, of his predecessor;in; interest, Don!ail and, after the death of the latter, 2b' respondent4 hi"self, 'ears before, that is, lon! before the outbrea$ of the last ar. 21 Petitioner his C.O. No. ),)9. is dee"ed "inin! No. )9) to have clai"s and abandoned under P.D.

0ll "ineral lands, as part of the countr'.s natural resources, belon! to the Philippine State. This concept of jura regalia enshrined in past and present Philippine constitutions, has not al a's been the prevailin! principle in this 1urisdiction, ho ever, the abundant resources ithin our coastal frontiers havin! in the past filled not 1ust one coloniNer.s boot' haul. Indeed, there as a ti"e in our histor' hen the "inin! la s prevailin! in this 1urisdiction ere co"pro"isin!, to sa' the least, of the Filipino people.s inherent ri!hts to their natural ealth.

(efore the cession of the Philippine Islands to the Knited States under the Treat' of Paris, the prevailin! "inin! la in the colon' as the Ro'al Decree of Ma', )<5?, other ise $no n as The Spanish Minin! :a . In the advent of 0"erican occupation, the Philippines as !overned b' "eans of or!anic acts hich ere in the nature of charters servin! as a #onstitution of the occupied territor' fro" )*++ to )*36 22. 0"on! the principal or!anic acts of the Philippines as the 0ct of #on!ress of Bul' ), )*+, throu!h hich the Knited States #on!ress assu"ed the ad"inistration of the Philippine islands. The Philippine (ill of )*+, contained provisions for, a"on! "an' other thin!s, the open and free eAploration, occupation and purchase of "ineral deposits and the land here the' "a' be found. It declared Dall valuable "ineral deposits in public lands in the Philippine Islands, both surve'ed and unsurve'ed . . . to be free and open to eAploration, occupation and purchase, and the land in hich the' are found to occupation and purchase, b' citiNens of the Knited States, or of said Islands . . . 23 0n' /ualified person desirin! to locate a "ineral clai" "a' enter upon the sa"e and locate a plot of !round "easurin!, here possible, but not eAceedin!, one thousand feet in len!th b' one thousand feet in breath, in as nearl' as possible a rectan!ular for". 2+ Knder the Philippine bill of )*+,, the holder of the "ineral clai" so located is entitled to all the "inerals hich "a' lie ithin his clai", but he "a' not "ine outside the boundar' lines of his clai". 25 the "ine clai" locator "ust have his clai" recorded in the "inin! recorder ithin thirt' 23+4 da's after the location thereof@ other ise, he ill be dee"ed to have abandoned the sa"e. 26 One of the continuin! re/uire"ents for the subsistence of the "inin! clai" is perfor"ance of not less than one hundred dollars. orth of labor or underta$in! of i"prove"ents of the sa"e value ever' 'ear. 2, This is a strict re/uisite, the locator.s failure to co"pl' ith hich shall operate to open the clai" or "ine to relocation in the sa"e "anner as if no location of the sa"e had even been "ade. 28 Kne/uivocal is the "andator' nature of the or$ or labor re/uire"ent on the "ine that the Philippine (ill specificall' desi!nates the ti"e hen the or$ or labor re/uired to be done annuall' on all unpatented "ineral clai"s, shall co""ence. 29 Subse/uentl', a"on! a fe la s passed a"endin! the Philippine (ill of )*+, as 0ct No. 5,9 passed b' the Knited States Philippine #o""ission and approved on Februar' ?, )*+3. Said 0ct prescribed re!ulations to !overn the location and the "anner of recordin! "inin! clai"s and the a"ount of or$ necessar' to hold possession thereof. Such re!ulations reinforced the annual or$ or labor re/uire"ent of not less than one hundred dollars. orth as provided for in the Philippine (ill of )*+,, in accordance ith Section 35 thereof hich li"its the po er of the Knited States Philippine #o""ission to "a$e re!ulations

but Dnot in conflict ith the provision of this 0ct. = i.e., the Philippine (ill of )*+,>, !overnin! the location, "anner of recordin!, and a"ount of or$ necessar' to hold possession of a "inin! clai" . . .D On Nove"ber )6, )*36, the #onstitution of the #o""on ealth too$ effect. The )*36 #onstitution declared all natural resources of the Philippines, includin! "ineral lands and "inerals, to be propert' belon!in! to the State.3- Fo ever, as it turned out, not reall' all of the Philippines. natural resources ere considered part of the public do"ain. Those natural resources, and for that "atter, those "ineral lands and "inerals ith respect to hich there alread' as Dan' eAistin! ri!ht, !rant, lease, or concession at the ti"e of the inau!uration of the Govern"ent established under in #onstitution,D ere then considered outside the application of the jura regaliadoctrine or at least not unconditionall' or totall' ithin the conte"plation of said doctrine. On Nove"ber ?, )*35, the First National 0sse"bl' enacted #o""on ealth 0ct No. )3?, other ise $no n as the Minin! 0ct. In contradistinction ith the Philippine (ill of )*+, hich as patterned after the Knited States Federal Minin! 0cts hich re1ected the re!alian doctrine, the Minin! 0ct eApressl' adopted the re!alian doctrine follo in! the provisions of the )*36 #onstitution. Since said #onstitution necessaril' prohibits the alienation of "inin! lands, the Minin! 0ct !ranted onl' lease ri!hts to "inin! clai"ants ho are proscribed fro" purchasin! the "inin! clai" itself. These provisions of the Minin! 0ct, ho ever, ere eApressl' inapplicable to "inin! clai"ants ho had located and recorded their clai"s under the Philippine (ill of )*+,. The nationalis" underl'in! the adoption of the re!alian doctrine in the )*36 #onstitution as further eroded b' the a"end"ent thereto hich as adopted b' the First #on!ress on Septe"ber )<, )*95 and approved b' a "a1orit' at the elections held on March )), )*9?. This a"end"ent hich ca"e in the for" of an DOrdinance 0ppended to the #onstitutionD is hat is $no n as the DParit' Ri!htsD a"end"ent. It provided that, not ithstandin! the adoption in the #onstitution of the re!alian doctrine and the proscription a!ainst aliens participatin! in the natural ealth of the nation, eAcepted therefro" ere the citiNens of the Knited States and its business enterprises hich ould have the e/ual ri!ht in the disposition, eAploitation, develop"ent and utiliNation of our natural resources, a"on! the", our "inin! lands and "inerals for the period fro" Bul' 9, )*95 to Bul' 3, )*?9. In the "eanti"e, the provisions of the Philippine (ill of )*+, re!ardin! "inin! clai"s, insofar as the "inin! lands and "inin! clai"s ac/uired before the effectivit' of the )*36 #onstitution are concerned, continued to be in effect. 0nnual perfor"ance of labor or underta$in! of i"prove"ents on the "ine re"ained an annual re/uire"ent, non;co"pliance ith hich resulted in the "ine beco"in! a!ain open to relocation but no sub1ect to the lease provisions of the Minin! 0ct. The intention for this annual or$ re/uire"ent to be a strict

prere/uisite to "aintenance of a clai"ant.s ri!hts under the Philippine (ill of )*+, apparentl' not lost on subse/uent le!islators, the' too$ the sa"e as an absolute prere/uisite ith !rave conse/uences and believed it necessar' to eApressl' enact a la 31 aivin! this re/uire"ent durin! the period fro" Banuar' ), )*69 as the circu"stances then necessitated the sa"e. The Philippine (ill of )*+, clearl' re/uired the annual perfor"ance of or$ on the "ine or the underta$in! of i"prove"ents thereon in order for the "ine clai" locator to continue en1o'in! all the ri!hts accruin! to hi" as such under the said (ill. This and nothin! short of this as the re/uire"ent. The filin! of affidavits of annual assess"ent or$, hich procedure is not even provided for in the Philippine (ill of )*+,, is re/uired onl' for purposes of provin! that there had actuall' been or$ or i"prove"ents done. Such filin! could not have been intended to replace the actual or$ re/uire"ent, and nar' is there a basis in la to support an' conclusion to the contrar', not ithstandin! hat as appearin! to be the practice of "ine clai" locators of annuall' filin! affidavits of annual assess"ent but illfull' not underta$in! actual or$ or tan!ile i"prove"ent on the "ine site. On 0u!ust ), )*5<, then President Marcos issued CAecutive Order 2C.O.4 No. )9). &hereas "inin! clai" holders under the Philippine (ill of )*+, D. . . are of the i"pression that the' "a' hold on to their clai"s indefinitel' b' he "ere filin! of affidavits of annual assess"ent or$ . . .,D C.O. No. )9) precisel' declared that Dsuch i"pression is not correct, for hat "atters in "aintainin! and preservin! possessor' title to the clai" is the continuous perfor"ance of the re/uired assess"ent or$, not the filin! of an affidavit hich "a' be disproved b' findin!s on the !round.D #onse/uentl', C.O. No. )9) established the status of such unpatended "inin! clai"s hich have not co"plied ith the annual or$ re/uire"ent, as havin! been abandoned and open for relocation, their declarations of location bein! accordin!l' cancelled. On Banuar' )?, )*?3, the )*?3 #onstitution ca"e into force and effect. Knli$e the for"er #harter the )*?3 #onstitution did not eApressl' /ualif' the application of the re!alian doctrine as bein! sub1ect to an' ri!ht !ranted before the effectivit' of the )*36 #onstitution or the )*?3 #onstitution for the "atter. It provided% Sec. <. 0ll lands of the public do"ain, aters, "inerals, coal, petroleu" and other "ineral oils, all forces of potential ener!', fisheries, ildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belon! to the 32 State. . . (ut the conditional application of the re!alian doctrine under the )*?3 #onstitution could be found in Presidential Decree 2P.D.4 No. 953, enacted on Ma' )?, )<?9, hich revised the Minin! 0ct 2#.0. No. )3?4. &hile the said decree declares that D. . . all "ineral deposits in public or private lands . . . belon!

to the State, inalienabl' and i"prescriptivel' . . .,D it also reco!niNes hatever ri!hts or reservations had alread' been eAistin! ith respect to certain "inin! lands 33, apparentl' alludin! to the ri!hts of "inin! clai" holders under the Philippine (ill of )*+,. Knder the Philippine (ill of )*+,, the procedure as that a "inin! clai" locator need not appl' for a patent soon after locatin! the "ine. The patent "a' co"e later, and the said locator, for as lon! as he co"plies ith the annual actual or$ re/uire"ent, en1o'ed possessor' ri!hts ith respect to such "inin! clai" ith or ithout a patent therefor. It has alread' been stated that under C.O. No. )9), unpatented "inin! clai"s shall be dee"ed abandoned upon a findin! that the holders thereof had not been actuall' perfor"in! an' or$ or labor or underta$in! an' i"prove"ent at the "ine site not ithstandin! their havin! reli!iousl' filed annual affidavits of assess"ent. Cven under P.D. 953 hich as enacted in )*?9, the possessor' ri!hts of "inin! clai" holders under the Philippine (ill of )*+, re"ained effective for as lon! as said holders co"plied ith the annual actual or$ re/uire"ent. (ut on October )9, )*??, P.D. No. ),)9 re/uired all the holders of unpatented "inin! clai"s to secure "inin! lease contracts under P.D. No. 953. Faced ith the !rave conse/uence of forfeiture of all their ri!hts to their clai"s, holders of subsistin! and valid patentable "inin! clai"s located under the Philippine (ill of )*+, ere to file "inin! lease applications therefor ithin one 2)4 'ear fro" the effectivit' of the said decree. 3+The filin! of such "inin! lease application as considered a aiver of the holders. ri!hts to the issuance of "inin! patents for their clai"s 35. #orollaril', non;filin! of applications for "inin! lease b' the holders thereof ithin the one;'ear period ould cause the forfeiture of all their ri!hts to their clai"s. 36 0!ainst the bac$drop of the aforechronicle evolution of the pertinent "inin! la s, past and present, in this 1urisdiction, e no proceed to resolve the controllin! issue in this case% &hether or not the o nership of sub1ect land had lon! been vested on petitioner after it had alle!edl' located and recorded its "inin! clai" in accordance ith the pertinent provisions of the Philippine (ill of )*+,. This issue is certainl' not a novel one. It has been first ruled upon b' this court in the )*,, case of McDaniel vs.Apacible and Cuisia 3,. There, appl'in! 0"erican precedents, e stated% The "o"ent the locator discovered a valuable "ineral deposit on the lands located, and perfected his location in accordance ith la , the po er of the Knited States Govern"ent to deprive hi" of the eAclusive ri!ht to the possession and en1o'"ent of the located clai" as !one, the lands had beco"e "ineral lands and the' ere eAe"pted fro" lands that could be !ranted to an' other person. The reservations of public lands cannot be "ade so as to include prior "ineral perfected located locations@ and of course, if a

valid "inin! location is "ade upon public lands after ard included in a reservation, such inclusion or reservation does not affect the validit' of the for"er location. (' such location and perfection, the land located is se!re!ated fro" the public do"ain even as a!ainst the Govern"ent. . . 38 &e reiterated this rulin! in the subse/uent cases of Gold Creek Mining vs. Rodriguez 2)*3<4, 39 Salacot Mining Company vs. Abadilla 2)*3*4, +- Salacot Mining Company vs. Rodriguez 2)*3*4, +1 ambao vs. !ednicky +2 2)*5)4, Comilang vs. uendia 2)*5?4, +3 enguet Consolidated" #nc. vs. Republic 2)*<54, ++ Republic vs.Court of Appeals 2)*<<4 +5 and Atok$ ig %edge Mining Co., #nc. vs. Court of Appeals 2)**)4. +6 Not ithstandin! our rulin! in the aforecited cases, ho ever, there ca"e about thereafter a catena of cases here e declared that the ri!hts of the holder of a "inin! clai" located under the Philippine (ill of )*+,, are not absolute or are not strictl' of o nership. This declaration as a necessar' pre"ise in our affir"ation of the constitutionalit' of P.D. No. ),)9 in the )*<? case of Santa Rosa Mining Co., #nc. vs. !eido" &r. +, here e stated% Mere location does not "ean absolute o nership over the affected land or "inin! clai". It "erel' se!re!ates the located land or area fro" the public do"ain b' barrin! other ould;be locators fro" locatin! the sa"e and appropriatin! for the"selves the "inerals found therein. To rule other ise ould i"pl' that location is all that is needed to ac/uire and "aintain ri!ths over a located "inin! clai". This, e cannot approve or sanction because it is contrar' to the intention of the la "a$er that the locator should faithfull' and consistentl' co"pl' ith the re/uire"ents for annual or$ and i"prove"ents in the located "inin! clai". +8 0nd our rulin! there as upheld in tradition of stare decisis in the subse/uent cases of Director of !ands vs. 'ala(i #nvestments" #nc. 2)*<*4, +9 )ambales C(romite Mining Company" #nc . vs. !eido &r. 2)*<*4, 5-*oe Mining Association vs. Garcia 2)**)4, 51 +nited *aracale Mining Company" #nc. vs. De !a Rosa2)**34, 52 and Manuel vs. #ntermediate Appellate Court 2)**64. 53 &hile petitioner ada"antl' insists that there is onl' one construction of the provisions of the Philippine (ill of )*+, as re!ards his "inin! clai" ri!hts, and this is that the sa"e are absolute and in the nature of o nership, private respondent posits the ulti"ate /uestion of hich bet een the aforecited see"in!l' inconsistent rulin!s is the correct interpretation of the Philippine (ill of )*+, in relation to C.O. No. )9) and P.D. ),)9 insofar as the ri!hts of "inin! clai" holders under the said (ill are concerned.

This is not the first ti"e either that e are as$ed to, in all a areness of the precedents, resolve these postulation of this court that are perceived to be contradictor'. In the )**9 case of +nited *aracale Mining Company vs. Court of Appeals, 5+ posed before us b' petitioner therein as the sa"e /uestion that herein private respondent as$s us to resolve in the ulti"ate. &e noted in that case% DThe /uer' of petitionerD D&hat is actuall' the ri!ht of a locator of "inin! clai" located and perfected under the Philippine (ill of )*+,. Does he have an absolute ri!ht of o nership, or "erel' a ri!ht to possess and clai"-D Petitioner contends that there are t o 2,4 conflictin! rulin!s "ade b' this #ourt on the sa"e issue. In Director of !ands vs. 'ala(i #nvestments" #nc. 2)5* S#R0 5<34, a locator of "inin! clai"s perfected under the Philippine (ill of )*+, has been held not to have an absolute ri!ht of o nership over said clai"s but "erel' a possessor' ri!ht thereto. In Atok$ ig %edge Mining Company" #nc. vs. Court of Appeals and !i,an Consi 2)*3 S#R0 ?)4, ho ever, a locator of "inin! clai" perfected under the Philippine (ill of )*+,, the #ourt has ruled, does have an absolute ri!ht of o nership over his clai" bein! thereb' re"oved fro" the public do"ain. 55 In that case +nited *aracale Mining, it ould have been pre"ature for us to rule on the /uer', not all indispensable parties therein havin! been 1oined. That is not the situation in this present controvers', ho ever, and so e shall forth ith resolve the "atter at hand once and for all. The earlier chronicle of the evolution of the "inin! la s, past and present, in this 1urisdiction as not ithout a predeter"ined purpose. The detailin! of the provisions of those la s, especiall' of the Philippine (ill of )*+,, as certainl' deliberate. It is undeniable at this point that the deter"ination of the ri!hts of a "inin! clai" holder under the said (ill is best underta$en on the basis of the ver' source of those ri!hts, that is, the (ill itself. 0nd an' alteration of chan!e in the nature of those ri!hts "ust be conceded for as lon! as such is statutoril' and constitutionall' sanctioned, for even vested ri!hts "a' be ta$en a a' b' the State in the eAercise of its absolute police po er. Knder the Philippine (ill of )*+,, the "inin! clai" holder, upon locatin! and recordin! of his clai", has the ri!ht to ac/uire for hi"self all "ineral deposits found ithin his clai" to the eAclusion of ever'one, includin! the Govern"ent. Such ri!hts are necessaril' possessor' as the' are essentiall' utilitarian and eAploitative. Such ri!hts accruin! to the "inin! clai" locator are personal to hi" in the sense that no conclusion as to the nature of the land "a' definitivel' be "ade based solel' on the fact that a "inin! clai" has been recorded as re!ards

a particular land. Fo ever, insofar as his ri!hts are eAclusive and no other person "a' underta$e "inin! activities on a recorded "inin! clai", unless the sa"e has been abandoned or the or$s thereon not done, the "inin! locator.s ri!hts also protected a!ainst adverse "inin! clai"s of this persons. Fe also has the ri!ht to i""ediatel' or eventuall' secure a patent on his "inin! clai" and in the event that he postpones securin! a patent, his ri!hts to eAclusive possession and eAploitation of his "inin! clai" subsist for as lon! as he co"plies ith the continuin! re/uire"ent of annuall' perfor"in! or$ or underta$in! i"prove"ents at the "ine site. Insofar as the Philippine (ill of )*+, does not provide a specific ti"e ithin hich the "inin! clai" holder "ust secure a patent, his ri!hts to possession and use of the "inin! land appear to be unconditional, the option not at all to secure a patent bein! available to hi" in the absence of a deadline or ulti"atu" therefor. The Philippine (ill of )*+,, ho ever, did not foreclose a subse/uent act on the part of the State to li"it the ti"e ithin hich the said patent "ust be secured under threat of forfeiture of ri!hts provided for under the Philippine (ill of )*+,. Thus, in the sense that the ri!hts of a "inin! clai" holder "a' in the future be curtailed b' failure to obtain a patent, especiall' if e recall that Section 35 of the said (ill itself foretold the subse/uent pro"ul!ation of re!ulations re!ardin! "inin! clai"s, such ri!hts cannot also be said to be trul' unconditional or absolute. &e also learn fro" our readin! of our past and present "inin! la s in their proper historical perspectives, that the process of recordin! "inin! clai"s could not have been intended to be the operative act of classif'in! lands into "ineral lands. The recordin! of a "inin! clai" onl' operates to reserve to the re!istrant eAclusive ri!hts to underta$e "inin! activities upon the land sub1ect of the clai". The po er to classif' lands into "ineral lands into "ineral lands could not have been intended under the Philippine (ill of )*+, to be vested in 1ust an'one ho records a "inin! clai". In fact, this stren!thens our holdin! that the ri!hts of a "inin! clai"ant are corfined to possessin! the land for purposes of eAtractin! therefro" "inerals in eAclusion of an' or all other persons hose clai"s are subse/uent to the ori!inal "inin! locator. Thus, if no "inerals are eAtracted therefro", not ithstandin! the recordin! of the clai", the land is not "ineral and re!istration thereof is not precluded b' such recorded clai". Thus, in the case at bench, the "inin! clai"ant, ho had failed to co"pl' ith the annual "ini"u" labor re/uire"ent, could not, all the "ore, be eApected to have eAtracted "inerals fro" the "inin! location. Ktter lac$ of proof of even its potential deposits on the part of the petitioner, thus, does not surprise us at all. Thus, it can be said 2)4 that the ri!hts under the Philippine (ill of )*+, of a "inin! clai" holder over his clai" has been "ade sub1ect b' the said (ill itself to the strict re/uire"ent that he actuall' perfor"s or$ or underta$es i"prove"ents on the "ine ever' 'ear and does not "erel' file his affidavit of annual assess"ent, hich re/uire"ent as correctl' identified and declared in C.O. No. )9)@ and 2,4 that the sa"e ri!hts have been ter"inated b' P.D. No. ),)9, a police po er enact"ent, under hich non;application for "inin! lease a"ounts

to aiver of all ri!hts under the Philippine (ill of )*+, and application for "inin! lease a"ounts to aiver of the ri!ht under said (ill to appl' for patent. In the li!ht of these substantial conditions upon the ri!hts of a "inin! clai" holder under the Philippine (ill of )*+,, there should re"ain no doubt no that such ri!hts ere not, in the first place, absolute or in the nature of o nership, and neither ere the' intended to be so. 0ppl'in! the aforecited rulin! to the facts of this case, e find that, not onl' has petitioner failed to sufficientl' sho co"pliance ith actual annual or$ re/uire"ent on its "inin! clai"s but also that credible are the transcribed observations of the trial co""issioner that no here on the sub1ect land could be found tan!ible or$s or i"prove"ents of an eAtent that ould have eAisted has petitioner reall' co"plied ith the annual or$ re/uire"ent fro" )*3) hen it alle!edl' first located said "inin! clai"s. In fact, no "inin! infrastructure or e/uip"ent of an' sort can be found on the area. Knderstandable thus is the action of the Director of :ands not to further appeal fro" respondent court.s decision, Director of :ands eventuall' concedin! the sub1ect land to be re!istrable, considerin! petitioner.s non;perfor"ance of "inin! or$s thereon, private respondent.s adverse possession of the sub1ect land "ore than thirt' 23+4 'ears and its use thereof for as "an' 'ears solel' for a!ricultural purposes. C/uall' borne out b' the records is the fact that petitioner has indeed applied for a "inin! lease under P.D. No. ),)9. For that reason, it has, in effect, aived its ri!ht to secure a patent and it shall have been !overned, if private respondent.s clai" of adverse and open possession of the sub1ect land for "ore than 3+ 'ears ere not established, b' P.D. No. 953 in its activities respectin! its "inin! lease. &FCRCFORC, the petition is FCRC(H DISMISSCD, petitioner. SO ORDCRCD. *adilla" ellosillo" -itug and 'apunan" &&." concur. ith costs a!ainst