Title
Comilang vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-37312
Decision Date
Jul 15, 1975
A decades-long dispute over surface and mineral rights to the Bua Fraction Mineral Claim, involving conflicting claims, prior Supreme Court rulings, and res judicata.
dispute
ownership
mineral claim
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-37312)

Factual Background: The Mining Claim and the Surface Portion

The dispute traced its origins to staking in 1908 of a mining claim known as the “Bua Fraction Mineral Claim” by Nicolas Comilang over a parcel of land in Tuding, Benguet, Mountain Province, with an area of 76,809 square meters, more or less. Nicolas Comilang’s exploration ceased relatively early, although he continued residing in a house he built on part of the property with his wife and siblings.

In 1918, Macario Comilang also settled on a portion of the land of about one (1) hectare for residential and agricultural purposes. After his death, his daughter, Fabiana Comilang Perez, continued living in the house. Other relatives later built houses on other portions, including a house acquired by Abdon Delenela, who thereafter resided there along with other Comilang heirs.

As time passed, surface rights over the portion encompassed by the original Bua Fraction Mineral Claim became the subject of litigation. A Court of First Instance of Baguio City case (Civil Case No. 250, an action to quiet title) was instituted by Comilang heirs against Marcos Comilang, who claimed to have bought Nicolas Comilang’s rights and interest. In a decision dated November 26, 1952, the court dismissed both parties’ claims of ownership and declared the area public land, while recognizing the possession of the parties over specified portions. Among them was about one and one-half (1-12) hectares in Marcos Comilang’s possession, declared for taxation in his name. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in CA-G.R. No. 11157-R on October 29, 1955.

The Sheriff’s Sale and Subsequent Co-Ownership Arrangement

The 1-12 hectares portion, covered by Tax Declaration No. 4771 in Marcos Comilang’s name, was levied upon and sold at public auction by the sheriff of Mountain Province to satisfy a judgment in Civil Case No. 1433 in the Court of First Instance of Baguio. The judgment creditors were the spouses Jose Coloma and Eugenia Rumbaoa. A certificate of sale was executed in favor of the purchasers on June 1, 1957.

In the meantime, an application for a lode patent over the Bua Fraction Mineral Claim was filed with the Bureau of Mines. Delenela and co-heirs opposed the application. Pending the controversy before the Bureau of Mines, they instituted Civil Case No. 735 for determination of their rights in the Court of First Instance of Baguio City. The parties entered an amicable settlement recognizing co-ownership among themselves of the Bua Mineral Claim. In a decision dated March 3, 1958 in Civil Case No. 735, the court awarded one-half in undivided share to Marcos Comilang and the other half to Abdon Delenela and co-heirs.

Thereafter, Abdon Delenela and Guillermo Perez, with Marcos Comilang’s knowledge and conformity, redeemed and bought from the Coloma spouses the latter’s rights, title, interest, and claim to the 1-12 hectares, acquired under the June 1, 1957 certificate of sale. The redemption sale was executed on June 11, 1958.

On February 9, 1959, the Director of Mines recommended the issuance of a lode patent over the Bua Mineral Claim in favor of Marcos Comilang, Delenela, and other claimants in the proportions of one-half in undivided share for Marcos Comilang and one-half for Delenela and other heirs pursuant to the March 3, 1958 decision. On August 12, 1959, upon motion of Delenela and Perez, who had thus acquired the Coloma spouses’ rights on the 1-12 hectares, the Municipal Court of Baguio City issued a writ of possession directing the sheriff to evict Marcos Comilang and his wife from the 1-12 hectares sold in execution.

Prior Supreme Court Decisions Defining Surface vs. Mineral Rights

The subsequent appellate history involved three Supreme Court-related cases, with the first two shaping the controlling rulings for the partition case that followed.

In the first Supreme Court case (an appeal of Maxima Nieto de Comilang, wife of Marcos Comilang), the Court ruled on whether the execution sale of residential land, later redeemed by Delenela and Perez, included the mineral claim. The Court answered in the negative, emphasizing that the execution sale and writ of possession expressly included a residential land alone and not the mineral claim known as the Bua Mineral Claim. It further held that there was no express or implied taking away of mineral rights, and no express act of Marcos Comilang consenting to the redemption of mineral ownership. It reasoned that the only property actually sold was the residential land of about 1-1/2 hectares, together with improvements, without including the Bua Mineral Claim or Marcos Comilang’s undivided half-right to it.

In the same first case, the Court nonetheless affirmed the order insofar as it sanctioned the ownership and possession of Delenela and Perez over the 1-12 hectare residential lot, while holding that the mineral rights remained separate.

In the later Supreme Court case of Comilang vs. Buendia, et al. (promulgated on October 25, 1967), Marcos Comilang raised the issue again by contending that the issuance of a mineral lode patent covering the mineral claim over land including the 1-12 hectares conveyed full ownership not only of mineral rights but also of title over the surface ground. He insisted that no severance of surface rights could occur for a mineral claim located under the Philippine Bill of 1902, and he challenged the validity of the final certificate of sale conveying the 1-12 portion to Delenela and Perez.

The Court rejected these contentions and reiterated the earlier ruling. It declared that the right to possess or own the surface ground was separate and distinct from the mineral rights. It held that the lode patent application could not legally include the surface ground sold to another, so the patent—at least with respect to the 1-12 hectares sold in execution—pertained only to the mineral right and did not include the surface ground.

The Partition Case in the Trial Court and Its Departure From the Supreme Court Rulings

Following the execution-related disputes and the mineral-right rulings, Civil Case No. 848 was filed on December 15, 1968 in the Court of First Instance of Baguio City and Benguet, presided over by Judge Pio R. Marcos. The action was for partition of the mineral claims known as the Bua Fraction Lode Mineral Claim, which was the identical mineral claim involved in the earlier Supreme Court decisions.

The trial court’s decision deviated from the controlling distinctions made by the Supreme Court. The defendants (including Delenela and Perez) argued that partition should be limited to the mineral rights and should exclude the surface rights, which they claimed to possess exclusively by virtue of the sale from the Colomas to them. The plaintiff, Marcos Comilang, maintained that the issuance of Lode Patent No. V-24 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. P-404 included not only minerals but also surface rights.

The trial court accepted the plaintiff’s position. It reasoned that under the Old Mining Law (Act No. 624 of the Philippine Commission), the locator was the owner not only of the minerals but also of all the surface ground. It further held that defendants’ claimed purchase of surface rights was erroneous because the acquisition allegedly did not appear in the certificate of title. It additionally treated defendants as barred for failing to file their claim with the Director of Mines or the Mining Recorder after the issuance of the mineral patent application, despite their opposition to the application.

On that basis, the trial court disregarded defendants’ claimed surface rights over the referenced 1-12 hectares and ordered partition of the Bua Fraction Lode Mineral Claim among the co-owners in the proportion previously agreed by them, granting one-half (1-2) to the plaintiff and one-half (1-2) to the defendants (as stated in the decision’s stated proportional outcome: “12 to the plaintiff and 1/2 to the defendants,” in the text).

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, premised on alleged contravention of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Comilang vs. Buendia, was denied on March 11, 1969. A petition for relief from judgment was likewise denied on September 8, 1969. The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeals on October 6, 1969.

Court of Appeals Ruling and the Issue Raised in the Petition

The Court of Appeals, in its decision promulgated on June 20, 1973, set aside the trial court’s partition decision for the reason that the Supreme Court’s decision in Marcos Comilang vs. Generoso A. Buendia, et al., G.R. No. L-24757, promulgated on October 25, 1967, constituted res adjudicata as far as the partition case was concerned.

In describing its rationale, the Court of Appeals observed that the trial court also totally ignored another Supreme Court decision: Maxima Nieto de Comilang vs. Abdon Delenela, et al., which was later reiterated and reaffirmed. It stated that the Supreme Court had finally settled that the appellants Delenela and Perez were the absolute owners of the surface ground of the property in question.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

On review, the petitioner, Marcos Comilang, argued in effect that the trial court could adjudicate a definite portion of the ground surface for partition notwithstanding the prior Supreme Court rulings. He emphasized, among others, that respondents allegedly “never filed any pleading” asserting res judicata arising from the decision in G.R. No. L-24757.

The respondents, however, maintained that the trial court’s action was foreclosed by prior Supreme Court rulings. The Court’s narrative also indicates that respondents had already raised the defense of res judicata earlier by asserting, as an affirmative defense in their Supplemental Answer on September 7, 1964, that the cause of action was barred by prior judgments, pointing to the Supreme Court decision in Comilang vs. Delenela, et al. in G.R. No. L-18897 promulgated on M

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms