DISCOURSE:

1. The Regalian doctrine in this case stood firm in its principle. Regalian doctrine is
anchored on the principle that State owns all lands and waters of the public
domain. The doctrine is the foundation of the principle of land ownership that all
lands that have not been acquired by purchase or grant from the Government
belong to the public domain. The Regalian doctrine is strictly applied to Filipino
citizens. If a natural born filipino citizen goes through a lot of process before he or
she can acquire a land in the Philippines it is indeed justified that a foreigner who
desires to acquire the same must be prohibited in a stricter sense.

2. The Regalian doctrine bents when it comes to ownership of lands of ICC’S/IPs.

In the dissenting opinion of Justice Panganiban recognition that ancestral domain
and ancestral lands are not public lands and have never been owned by the State
violates and contravenes the Constitution since it recognizes or, worse, grants
rights of ownership over "lands of the public domain, waters, and other natural
resources" which, under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, "are owned by
the State" and "shall not be alienated." I

3. The Regalian doctrine in this case was justifiably applied. It is a well settled rule
that all lands that have not been acquired by purchase or grant from the
Government belong to the public domain. It was evident in the case Valentin Susi
had already acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant
of the Government

4. The purpose of Regalian Doctrine in this case was diminished. As stated in the
dissenting opinion of Justice Panganiban, ICCs/IPs cannot maintain their
ownership of lands and domains by insisting on their concept of "native title"
thereto. It would be plain injustice to the majority of Filipinos who have abided by
the law and, consequently, deserve equal opportunity to enjoy the country’s
resources.

5. The Regalian Doctrine states that “All lands not otherwise appearing to be
clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State”, one of the
classifications of land that belongs to the state provided for by the constitution is
mineral land. One way of disposing of such land is by granting mineral claims to a
person. As seen in the case and as ruled by the supreme court The discovery of
minerals in the ground by one who has a valid mineral location perfects his claim
and his location not only against third person, but also against the Government.

6. It is insisted that one who claims mineral land under the act of Congress in
force in these Islands must define the site of the ground with such certainty as
may be necessary to prevent mistake on the part of the Government and on the
part of citizens who may be asking a like benefit. This requirement placed upon all
persons claiming mineral lands is but a reasonable and necessary requirement in
order to justify administer the law, and therefore a description of the location of
mineral lands which is indefinite and uncertain, for the purposes of holding a
particular tract of land, is void.

7. The acquisition of the Philippines was not for the purpose of acquiring the lands
occupied by the inhabitants, and under the Organic Act of July 1, 1902, providing
that property rights are to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants, one
who actually owned land for many years cannot be deprived of it for failure to
comply with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the Philippine
Commission or by the Spanish law. We hesitate to suppose that it was intended to
declare every native, who had not a paper title, a trespasser and to set the claims
of all the wilder tribes afloat. Whatever the law upon these points may be, every
presumption is and ought to be against the government in the case like the
present." Mr. Justice Holmes adds: "If there is doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish
law, we ought to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt

8. The right of possession in accordance with common law — that is to say, civil
law — remains at all times subordinate to the Spanish administrative law,
inasmuch as it could only be of force when pertaining to royal transferable or
alienable lands, which condition and the determination thereof is reversed to the
government, which classified and designated the royal alienable lands for the
purpose of distinguishing them from those lands strictly public, and from forestry
lands which could at no time pass to private ownership nor be acquired through
time even after the said royal decree of February 13, 1894.
9. Although the law provides that all lands of the public domain belong to the
State. Also all lands not otherwise subject to appropriation by private persons are
presumed to belong to the State, but this rule accept some exception, like in this
case that applicants and their predecessors in interests had been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation for more than 30
years, of the land which subject to litigation.

10.

11.

12. The supreme court’s decision is in accordance with the regalian doctrine, the
land is owned by the state and the government thru its authorized persons and
agencies, only has the power to reclassify the land and have it alienated by its
people.

13. Although the state owns all the land, and has the power to classify them and
allow these lands to be alienated, once it has been acquired by a person or an
entity in accordance with law and has become private, the government cannot
just reacquire these lands but needs to be taken back with just compensation and
for public use, if not; then the taking would be unlawful.

14. Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise clearly appearing to be privately-
owned are presumed to belong to the State. Forest lands, like mineral or timber
lands which are public lands, are not subject to private ownership. In the absence
of classification, the land remains unclassified public land until released and
rendered open to disposition. The classification should also be with authority and
the classification should be agricultural land which is alienable and disposable.

15. The mere fact that a tract of land has trees upon it or has
mineral within it is not of itself sufficient to declare that one is
forestry land and the other, mineral land. There must be some proof
of the extent and present or future value of the forestry and of the
minerals. While, as we have just said, many definitions have been
given for "agriculture," "forestry," and "mineral" lands, and that in
each case it is a question of fact, we think it is safe to say that in
order to be forestry or mineral land the proof must show that it is
more valuable for the forestry or the mineral which it contains than
it is for agricultural purposes. 

It is not sufficient to show that there exists some trees upon

the land or that it bears some mineral. Land may be classified as
forestry or mineral today, and, by reason of the exhaustion of the
timber or mineral, be classified as agricultural land tomorrow. And
vice-versa, by reason of the rapid growth of timber or the discovery
of valuable minerals, lands classified as agricultural today may be
differently classified tomorrow. Each case must be decided upon the
proof in that particular case, having regard for its present or future
value for one or the other purposes.

16. No discourse regarding this case

17. Section 1 of Article XII of the Constitution reads as follows:

SECTION 1. All agriculture, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and
their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to
citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing
right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the
Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the
exception of public agriculture land, shall not be alienated, and no license,
concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the
natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation,
water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water
power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the
grant.
Notwithstanding the above cited Constitutional provision, 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 reservations
of public lands cannot be made so as to include prior mineral perfected locations;
and, of course, if a valid mining location is made upon public lands afterward
included in a reservation, such inclusion or reservation does not effect the validity
of the former location. By such location and perfection, the land located is
segregated from the public domain even as against the Government.

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. "Where there is a valid location of a mining
claim, the area becomes segregated from the public domain and the property of
the locator.