Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
37Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Digest

Digest

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,611|Likes:
Published by Hazel Dalus

More info:

Published by: Hazel Dalus on Jun 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, DOCX, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

09/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
1.
 
G.R. No. 48066. January 31, 1989.*THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner-appellee, vs. KALAHI INVESTMENTS, INC.,claimant-appellant.
FACTS:This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance (now Regional TrialCourt) of Pampanga, denying the application of Kalahi Investments, Inc. (Kalahi, for short) forregistration of Lot No. 1851-B of the FloridablancaCadastre.
“Kalahi ab
andoned its former claim over the entire area of Lot No. 1851-B, covering anarea of 886,021,588 square meters (Psd2387-D). It limited its present claim to 1,730 hectares,known as Lot No. 1 of Plan Sgs-3690, a portion of Lot 2210, FloridablancaCadastre, formerly apart of Lot No. 1851-B. It is in this Lot No. 1 of Plan Sgs-3690, with an area of 1.284.2340hectares, and in Lot No. 2, with an area of 446.0870 hectares, giving a total of 1,720 hectareswhere the alleged 123 lode mining claims are said to be existing and where the alleged 500,000
coffee plants were planted.”
Kalahi presented evidence to support perfected mining rights over the 123 mineralclaims. These were, however, not considered by the court a quo as basis sufficient in law and infact for the registration of title under act 496.ISSUES:a.
 
Do mining claims, acquired, registered, perfected, and patentable under the OldMining Law, mature to private ownership which would entitle the claimant-applicantto the ownership thereof?
 
2
b.
 
Which agency has the authority to examine, process, and find out whether or not therequirements of the Act of Congress of 1902 have been complied with, by theapplicant
 — 
the courts or the Bureau of Mines?RULING:NO. The right of a locator of a mining claim is a property
right, “this right is notabsolute”. Mere location does not mean absolute ownership over the affected land or the located
claim. It merely segregates the located land or area from the public domain by barring otherwould-be locators from locating the same and appropriating for themselves the minerals foundtherein. To rule otherwise would imply that location is all that is needed to acquire and maintainrights over a located mining claim.Bureau of Mines is qualified to rule on whether there has been full and faithfulcompliance with the requirements of the Philippine Bill of 1902 as amended.
2.
 
No. L-49109. December 1, 1987.*SANTA ROSA MINING COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. MINISTER OFNATURAL RESOURCES JOSE J. LEIDO, JR. AND DIRECTOR OF MINES JUANITOC. FERNANDEZ, respondents.
FACTS:Petitioner is a mining corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of thePhilippines. It alleges that it is the holder of fifty (50) valid mining claims situated in JosePanganiban, Camarines Norte, acquired under the provisions of the Act of the U.S. Congressdated 1 July 1902 (Philippine Bill of 1902).On 14 October 1977, Presidential Decree No. 1214 was issued, requiring holders of subsisting and valid patentable mining claims located under the provisions of the Philippine Billof 1902 to file a mining lease application within one (1) year from the approval of the Decree.Petitioner accordingly filed a mining lease application, but "under protest," on 13 October 1978,with a reservation annotated on the back of its application that it is not waiving its rights over itsmining claims until the validity of Presidential Decree No. 1214 shall have been passed upon bythis Court.ISSUE:Is Presidential Decree No. 1214 unconstitutional?RULING:
 
3
Presidential Decree No. 1214 is not unconstitutional. It is a valid exercise of thesovereign power of the State, as owner, over lands of the public domain, of which petitioner'smining claims still form a part, and over the patrimony of the nation, of which mineral depositsare a valuable asset. It may be underscored, in this connection, that the Decree does not cover allmining claims located under the Phil. Bill of 1902, but only those claims over which theirlocators had failed to obtain a patent. And even then, such locators may still avail of therenewable twenty-five year (25) lease prescribed by Pres. Decree No. 463, the MineralDevelopment Resources Decree of 1974.Constitutional mandate of PD 1214 is found in Sec. 2, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution,which declares: "All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and othermineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna,and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, allother natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of 
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State….
 
3.
 
No. L-58867. June 22, 1984.*DIRECTOR OF LANDS and DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT, petitioners, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO VALERIANO, GABRIELA VALERIANOVDA. DE LA CRUZ, LETICIA A. VALERIANO and MARISSA VALERIANO DE LAROSA, respondents.
FACTS:In their application for registration filed on May 10, 1976, private respondents(Applicants, for brevity) claimed that they are the co-owners in fee simple of the land applied forpartly through inheritance in 1918 and partly by purchase on May 2, 1958; that it is not withinany forest zone or military reservation; and that the same is assessed for taxation purposes intheir names.The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the Bureau of ForestDevelopment opposed the application on the principal ground that the land applied for is withinthe unclassified region of Obando, Bulacan, per BF Map LC No. 637 dated March 1, 1927; andthat areas within the unclassified region are denominated as forest lands and do not form part of the disposable and alienable portion of the public domain.After hearing, the Trial Court ordered registration of the subject land in favor of theApplicants. This was affirmed on appeal by respondent Appellate Court.ISSUE:

Activity (37)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
julesyves liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Fatten Hinay liked this
shesheguerrero liked this
Lorenie Bucayong liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->