UNGAY MALOBAGO MINES, INC. v. HON.
Funtilar,
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
G.R. No. L-69997, Sept 30, 1987
FACTS: On July 20, 1962, the President of the
Philippines executed eight mining patents on mineral
claims located at Ungay Malobago, Rapu-Rapu, Albay,
four of which were granted to petitioner Ungay
Malobago Mines, Inc. and the other four to a John
Canson, Jr. and Carlos Stilianopulos, who subsequently
assigned their rights to their mining claims in favor of
petitioner.
The assignment of rights was recorded in the Office of
the Mining Recorder of Albay on December 2, 1959 and
after the issuance on July 20, 1962, the patents were
recorded to the same office. Consequently, the
Register of Deeds of Albay issued the respective
original certificates of titles in the names of John
Canson, Jr., Carlos Stilianopulos, and petitioner.
From 1968 to 1974, six free patents, covering portions
of the land covered by the patents belonging to
petitioner, were granted by the Director of Lands and
original certificates of titles were issued by the Register
of Deeds in favor of private respondents.
Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc. filed a complaint for
annulment and cancellation of patents against the
private respondents and prayed that all the free
patents issued in their favor be declared null and void,
since original certificates of title were already issued in
favor of Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc.
The Director of Lands filed his answer alleging, among
others, that Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc. has no
personality to institute the cancellation proceedings
inasmuch as the government is the grantor and not the
petitioner. In such case, it should be the grantor who
should institute the cancellation proceedings.
On January 25, 1980, the trial court dismissed the
complaint, ruling that since the disputed properties
from part of the disposable land of the public domain,
the action for reversion should be instituted by the
Solicitor General in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines. In other words, Ungay Malobago Mines,
Inc. lacked the personality to institute said annulment
proceedings. This decision was reaffirmed by the
Intermediate Appellate Court.
ISSUES:
1. Did the appellate court commit an error of law
when it ruled that the lands in question belong
to the public domain? NO
2. Did the appellate court err in dismissing the
complaint on the ground that petitioner had no
personality to institute the same? NO
HELD: On both issues, the Court ruled in the negative.
As held in the case of Director of Lands v.
every application for a concession of public land has to
be viewed in the light of its peculiar circumstances.
In the case at bar, although the original certificates of
titles of the petitioner were issued prior to the titles of
the private respondents, the former cannot prevail
over the latter for the provisions of the 1935
Constitution prohibited the alienation of mineral lands
of the public domain, absent any showing of sufficient
proof that the mining claims were executed before the
1935 Constitution.
The Appellate Court did not commit an error in ruling
that the lands belong to the public domain. Nowhere in
the records was there any mention of a date before
November 15, 1935 as to when essential acts
regarding petitioner’s mining claims were executed.
A mere mention in the Torrens title that the provisions
of the Philippine Bill of 1902 were followed is
insufficient. The Philippine Bill of 1902 provides the
procedures for the perfection of mining claims but not
the dates when such procedures were undertaken by
any prospector or claimant. In the absence of proof
that petitioner’s claims were perfected prior to the
1935 Constitution, the provision of the latter with
regard to inalienable lands of the public domain, as
provided under Article XIII, Section 1 thereof, will
apply.
The Supreme Court concludes that the issuance of the
lode patents on mineral claims by the President of the
Philippines in 1962 in favor of the petitioner granted to
it only the right to extract or utilize the minerals which
may be found on or under the surface of the land. On
the other hand, the issuance of the free patents by the
Director of Lands in 1979 in favor of the private
respondents granted to them the ownership and the
right to use the land for agricultural purposes,
excluding the ownership of, and the right to extract or
utilize the minerals which may be found on or under
the surface.
Moreover, it was established that patents and land
grants are construed favorably in favor of the
Government and most strongly against the grantee.
Any doubt as to the intention or extent of the grant, or
the intention of the Government, is to be resolved in
its favor. In the absence of proof that the petitioner
acquired the right of ownership over the mineral lands
prior to the 1935 Constitution, the titles issued in its
favor must be construed as conveying only the right to
extract and utilize the minerals thereon, and not the
ownership of the land itself.
The appellate court did not likewise err in concluding
that the petitioner has no personality to institute the
proceedings. The mineral lands over which it has a
right to extract minerals remained part of the
inalienable lands of the public domain and thus, only
the Solicitor General or the person acting in his stead
can bring an action for reversion.