Title
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-43938
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1988
A land registration dispute over nine lots in Benguet, contested by mining companies and the Republic, hinged on perfected mining claims pre-1935 Constitution, leading to the Supreme Court ruling the land as mineral, denying the applicants' claim of ownership through prescription.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-43938)

Factual Background and Title Application

Jose de la Rosa and his children applied for Torrens registration of nine lots allegedly acquired in 1964: Lots 1–5 from Mamaya Balbalio, Lots 6–9 from Jaime Alberto. Both vendors claimed acquisition by prescription. Balbalio presented tax declarations and receipts (1956–1964); Alberto presented tax evidence (1961–1964) and witness testimony on their family’s open, continuous occupation and cultivation.

Oppositions: Mining Claims and State Reservation

Benguet Consolidated opposed as to Lots 1–5 on the ground of its June Bug mineral claim located in 1909 and continuously developed and taxed. Atok-Big Wedge opposed for portions of Lots 1–5 and all of Lots 6–9, citing its Emma and Fredia mineral claims located in 1930–31, worked by tunnels, trenching and assessments. The Republic, through the Bureau of Forestry Development, objected to registration of all nine lots, asserting inclusion in the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve and non-alienability of mineral land.

Trial and Court of Appeals Decisions

The court of first instance denied registration for failure to prove ownership and possession; applicants appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, granting surface rights to the de la Rosas while reserving subsurface mineral rights to Benguet and Atok under their perfected claims.

Issue: Surface vs. Subsurface Rights Division

The Appeals Court held that surface rights could coexist with separate subsurface mineral rights—effectively classifying the lots as both agricultural (surface) and mineral (subsurface).

Regalian Doctrine and Indivisibility of Land

Under the Regalian Doctrine—as reflected in the 1987 Constitution—all minerals belong to the State unless validly alienated. When private parties perfect mining claims under pre-1935 laws, the land becomes mineral in entirety, segregated from the public domain and vested in claimants against all comers, including the State.

Effect of Pre-Constitutional Perfected Mineral Claims

James E. Kelly’s and Harrison & Reynolds’s pre-November 15, 1935 mining claims (June Bug, Emma, Fredia) were legalized by Commonwealth Act No. 137 and Act No. 4268 despite forest reserve status. Valid location conferred full possessory rights akin to ownership, without need for patent. These rights persisted under the Commonwealth Constitution’s Art. XIII, Sec. 1 (“subject to any existing right…at the time of the inauguration of government”), and are fully recognized under the 1987 Constitution.

On Acquisitive Prescription and Insufficiency of Possession

Even if predecessors of the de la Rosas had open, continuous possession since Liberation, they held under an agricultural concept that conflicted with the mineral classification. The trial court’s finding—after evaluating testimony and demeanor—that possession did not meet the standard for prescription was not shown to be a grave abuse of discretion.

Rejection of Dual

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.