Carino vs.

Insular Government

Facts:

Mateo Cariño, the appellant herein, on the 23d of February, 1904, filed his petition in the Court of Land
Registration praying that there be granted to him title to a parcel of land consisting of 40 hectares, 1 are,
and 13 centares, and situated in the town of Baguio, Province of Benguet.

In or about the years 1898 Cariño abandoned the property of Whitmarsh and located on the property
described in the plan attached to expediente No. 561, having constructed a house thereon in which he
now lives, and which house is situated in the center of the property, as is indicated on the plan; and since
which time he has undoubtedly occupied some portion of the property now claimed by him.

The Insular Government opposed the granting of these petitions, alleging that the whole parcel of land is
public property of the Government and that the same was never acquired in any manner or through any
title of egresion from the State.

RTC: Therefore the court finds that Cariño and his predecessors have not possessed exclusively and
adversely any part of the said property prior to the date on which Cariño constructed the house now there
— that is to say, for the years 1897 and 1898, and Cariño held possession for some years afterwards of
but a part of the property to which he claims title. Both petitions are dismissed and the property in
question is adjudged to be public land.

Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, in accordance with the provisions contained in Act No. 190,
as a basis for obtaining the right of ownership.

Issue: w/n Carino is entitle for a land title by reason of his occupancy and use thereof from time
immemorial.

Ruling:

The said act admits such prescription for the purpose of obtaining title and ownership to lands "not
exceeding more that sixteen hectares in extent." (Sec. 6 of said act.) The land claimed by Cariño is 40
hectares in extent, if we take into consideration his petition, or an extension of 28 hectares, according to
the possessory information, the only thing that can be considered. Therefore, it follows that the judgment
denying the petition herein and now appealed from was strictly in accordance with the law invoked
herein.

Under the express provisions of law, a parcel of land, being of common origin, presumptively belonged
to the State during its sovereignty, and, in order to perfect the legitimate acquisition of such land by
private persons, it was necessary that the possession of the same pass from the State. And there is no
evidence or proof of title of egresion of this land from the domain of the Spanish Government, nor is there
any possessory information equivalent to title by composicion or under agreement.

Gold Creek Mining vs. Rodriguez

Facts:

The petition alleges that petitioner owns the Nob Fraction mineral claim, situated in the barrio of Gomok,
municipality of Itogon, sub-province of Benguet.
That petitioner by itself and its predecessors in interest, has been in continuous and exclusive possession
of said claim from the date of location thereof: that prior to August 9, 1933, petitioner filed in the office
of the Director of Lands an application for an order of patent survey of said claim, which survey was duly
authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce and performed by a mineral land surveyor in
the former divisions of mines, Bureau of Science, from August 9, 1933, to April 30, 1934.

petitioner filed with the mining recorder an application for patent, together with a certificate showing
that more than P1,600, worth of labor and/or improvements had been expended by the petitioner upon
said claim, and with the plat and field notes above mentioned; having previously posted a copy of such
plat, together with notice of said application for patent in a conspicuous place upon said claim; and filed
a copy of such plat and of such notice in the office of said mining recorder, as well as an affidavit of two
persons that such notice had been duly posted; that prior to November 15, 1935, the notice of petitioner's
application for patent was forwarded by the mining recorder to the division of mines, so that the latter
could order the publication of said notice was made once a week for a period of sixty days in the
"Philippines Herald," "El Debate," and the Official Gazette, commencing February 13, 1936; that the sum
of P113.59 was tendered to respondents, as payment for the purchase price of said claim, the area of
which is 4.5434 hectares; and that petitioner has requested the respondents, as Secretary of Agriculture
and Commerce and as director of the Bureau of Mines, respectively, to approve its application for patent,
and to prepare the necessary papers relative to the issuance thereof and to submit such papers for the
signatures of the President of the Philippines, but the respondents have failed and refused, and still fail
and refuse, to do so.

Respondents, in their answer, admit some allegations of the petition and deny others, and, by way of
special defense, allege that "petitioner was not and is not entitled as a matter of right to a patent to the
'Nob Fraction' claim because the Constitution provides that 'natural resources, with the exception of
public agriculture land, shall not be alienated.

Issue: W/N the petitioner is entitle the right to a mining claim.

Ruling:

The legal effect of a valid location of a mining claim is not only to segregate the area from the public
domain, but to grant to the locator the beneficial ownership of the claim and the right to a patent therefor
upon compliance with the terms and conditions prescribed by law.

It is not disputed that the location of the mining claim under consideration was perfected prior to
November 15, 1935, when the Government of the Commonwealth was inaugurated; and according to the
laws existing at that time, as construed and applied by this court in McDaniel vs. Apacible and Cuisia (42
Phil., 749), a valid location of a mining claim segregated the area from the public domain. Said the court
in that case: "The moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral deposit on the lands located, and
perfected his location in accordance with law, the power of the United States Government to deprive him
of the exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of the located claim was gone, the lands had
become mineral lands and they were exempted from lands that could be granted to any other person.

The petition was denied.

Atok Big Wedge Mining vs. IAC

Facts:

Petitioner Atok Big Wedge Mining Company appeals from the decision1 of the Court of Appeals2 which
reversed the decision3 of the then Court of First Instance of Baguio City4 in a land registration
case.5 The court a quo denied and correspondingly dismissed the application for registration of title filed
by private respondent Tuktukan Saingan, finding no merit in Saingan's claim of adverse, open and
continuous possession in concept of an owner of the tract of land applied for by him, which happened to
be claimed by petitioner as part of its mining duly recorded by the Mining Recorder of Benguet.
Respondent appellate court found petitioner to have abandoned its mining claim over the said tract of
land and, on the other hand, adjudged private respondent to be the owner thereof by virtue of his
having possessed the same under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least thirty (30) years prior to
the filing of his land registration application in 1965.

The evidence for the applicant [private respondent] who was 70 years old at the time he testified shows
that he acquired the land from his father-in-law, Dongail, when he married his daughter; that he was
then 18 years old; that at the time of his acquisition, it was planted with camotes, casava [sic], langka,
gabi, coffee and avocados; that he lived on the land since his marriage up to the present; that he has
been paying the taxes during the Japanese occupation and even before it; that he was never disturbed
in his possession. Supporting his oral testimony, applicant [private respondent] submitted tax
declarations.

Issue: W/N the petitioner’s prayer be approved by the court.

Ruling:

Mere location does not mean absolute ownership over the affected land or mining claim. It merely
segregates the located land or area from the public domain by barring other would-be locators from
locating the same and appropriating for themselves the minerals found therein. To rule otherwise would
imply that location is all that is needed to acquire and maintain rigths over a located mining claim. This,
we cannot approve or sanction because it is contrary to the intention of the lawmaker that the locator
should faithfully and consistently comply with the requirements for annual work and improvements in
the located mining claim.

Applying the aforecited ruling to the facts of this case, we find that, not only has petitioner failed to
sufficiently show compliance with actual annual work requirement on its mining claims but also that
credible are the transcribed observations of the trial commissioner that nowhere on the subject land
could be found tangible works or improvements of an extent that would have existed has petitioner
really complied with the annual work requirement from 1931 when it allegedly first located said mining
claims. In fact, no mining infrastructure or equipment of any sort can be found on the area.
Understandable thus is the action of the Director of Lands not to further appeal from respondent court's
decision, Director of Lands eventually conceding the subject land to be registrable, considering
petitioner's non-performance of mining works thereon, private respondent's adverse possession of the
subject land more than thirty (30) years and its use thereof for as many years solely for agricultural
purposes.