ATOK BIG-WEDGE MINING CO. V.

IAC AND TUKTUKAN SAINGAN

FACTS
Tuktukan Saingan sought the registration of a parcel of land with an area of 41,296 sqm in Itogon, Benguet. He was 70 years old
when he testified that he acquired the land from his father-in-law, Dongail, when he married his daughter at the age of 18. He lived
on the land since his marriage up to the present.
o He also paid taxes during and before the Japanese occupation. To support this claim he submitted tax declarations dated
1948. Unfortunately, all the records on real property of the municipality of Itogon were burned and destroyed during WW2.
o He was never disturbed in possession
Atok Big-Wedge opposed by showing the registration of its mining claims in the Mining Recorder of Benguet dating back to 1931.
The trial court ruled in favour of Atok, saying that the registration of its mining claims over the mineral lands segregated the
subject property from the public domain and the beneficial ownership thereof became vested in him.
The IAC however, reversed the TC after finding that the mere recording of pets mining claims in the Mining Recorder of Beguet
and its payment of annual assessment fees were inadequate to vest in petitioner the ownership rights over the land in question.
o Witness for Atok admitted not having worked on the land. The only time they actually went to the land was in 1962. Also,
Atok has not introduced any improvement on the property. It only paid the minimum annual assessment fee of P200. No
evidence of alleged factual possession of the property.
o On the contrary, respondent Saingan constructed various improvements on the land consisting of his 3 residential
houses, fruit trees, ricefields and other permanent improvements.
o In sum the IAC held that the ritual of paying the assessment fee is not enough evidence that assessment work is actually
made. EO 131 made it mandatory that the payment of fees is not enough; there must be actual continuous assessment
work done on the surface of the mineral claims.
o Moreover, in 1978, Atok converted its application on mineral claims in question into a mining lease only in compliance
with PD 1214. Hence, it has no right on the surface rights of such mineral claims.

ISSUES:
1. WoN private resp has been in possession of subject parcel of land in concept of owner for more than 30 years YES
Aside from Saingans testimony, the court commissioner during the ocular inspection of the subject land in 1969 also found that
the land is almost 90% improved with numerous irrigated rice terraces and others planted with vegetables and fruit bearing trees
that are about one half meter in diameter.
Petitioner also failed to contradict Saingans proof of ownership of the land.

2. WoN petitioner has mining claims under EO 141 and PD 1214 NO

Petitioner largely anchored its case on its alleged vested rights under the mandate of Philippine Bill of 1902 and the ruling in
McDaniel v. Apacible and Cuisia.
On the Philippine Bill of 1902:
o It contained provisions for the open and free exploration, occupation and purchase of mineral deposits and the land
where they may be found. The locator of a mineral claim may have his claim recorded in the mining recorder within 30
days after the location thereof. NOTE: this takes out the mining claims from the regalian doctrine
o To implement this provision of the Bill of 1902, Act No. 624 was passed in 1903, prescribing the regulations and manner
of recording mining claims. One of the continuing requirements for the subsistence of the mining claim is the
performance of labor and the undertaking of improvements every year. Failure to comply with this requirement shall
forfeit the recording of the mining claim.
o Contrary to the principle in the Bill of 1902, the 1935 Consti recognized the regalian doctrine; however, this was
qualified as to the existing right, grant, lease or concession at the time the Consti was established. Hence, not all natural
resources were considered part of public domain bec the mining claims acquired before 1935 continued to be in effect.
o in 1968, Pres. Marcos issued EO 141 which precisely declared that in maintaining and preserving possessory title
to mining claims, there must be continuous performance of the required assessment work, not merely the fling
of an affidavit or payment of assessment fees.
o the 1973 Constitution recognized the regalian doctrine without any qualifications.
o In 1977, PD1214 was passed requiring all holders of unpatented mining claims to secure mining lease contracts.
Holders of subsisting and valid patentable mining claims located under the Philippine Bill of 1902 were given 1
year to file mining lease applications. Said application is considered a waiver of the holders rights to the
issuance of mining patents for their claims. Corollarily, non-filing of applications of mining lease would cause
forfeiture of all rights to their claims.
On McDaniel v. Apacible and Cuisia:
o In this 1922 case, the US Supreme Court held that when a locator of mineral deposit successfully records his claim, he
gains an exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of the mineral lands; said lands are also exempted from lands
of the public domain that may be alienated to other persons. The doctrine in this case was reiterated in subsequent cases
o However, there was also a line of cases which held that the rights of the holder of a mining claim under the Philippine Bill
of 1902 are not absolute or are not strictly of ownership. It was ruled that the intent of the lawmakers was to require the
holder of the claim to faithfully and consistently comply with the requirements for and improvements.
IN THIS CASE:
o Petitioner failed to sufficiently show compliance with the annual work requirement on its mining claims. There were also
no improvements introduced by petitioner on the subject land. No mining infrastructure could be found therein. In fact, the
land has been used solely for agricultural purposes under the possession by private respondent.
o Also, petitioner indeed applied for a mining lease under PD1214. Hence, it has in effect waived its right to secure a
patent. Hence, private respondent Saingan already has a better title to the land, having adverse and open possession of
the subject land for more than 30 years.