UNGAY MALOBAGO MINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATECOURT, DIRECTOR OF

LANDS, GREGORIA BOLANOS, AUREA
ARAOJO,GERVACIO ARAOJO, MARIA BERNAL, FELIX
DETECIO, JESUS ASUNCION,MELANIO ASUNCION and
BIENVENIDO ASUNCION, respondents.

G.R. No. 69997. September 30, 1987

FACTS:

On July 20, 1962, the President of the Philippines granted mining

patents on mineral claims located at Ungay Malobago, Rapu-
Rapu, Albay to herein petitioners and other private individuals.

Way back on October 30, 1959, John Canson, Jr. and Carlos
Stilianopulos assigned their rights to their mining claims in favor
of the petitioner. The assignment of rights was recorded in the
Office of the Mining Recorder of Albay on December 2, 1959.

The aforestated mining patents, after their issuance on July 20,

1962, were all recorded in the Office of the Mining Recorder of
Albay on August 28, 1962 and transcribed on September 4,
1962 in the Registration Book of the Registry of Deeds
of Albay. Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Albay issued the
respective original certificates of titles pursuant to Section 122 of
Act No. 496 in the names of John Canson, Jr., Carlos Stilianopulos,
and the petitioner.

Subsequently, or from 1968 to 1974, tree patents were granted

by the respondent Director of Lands and the corresponding
original certificates of titles were issued by the Register of Deeds
to private respondents.

All of the above patents covered portions of the lots covered by

the patents belonging to the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of
patents against the private respondents and prayed that all the
free patent titles issued in their favor for properties over which
original certificates of title had already been issued in its favor be
declared null and void.

The trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint.

The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

a) Whether or not the lands in question belong to the public

domain;

b) Whether or not the appellate court erred in dismissing the

complaint on theground that the petitioner had no personality to
institute the same.

RESOLUTION:

No. Article XIII, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution provides: "All

agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal,petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, and other naturalresources 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 agricultural 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." (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, applying the aforequoted provision to the case at bar,

we conclude that the issuance of the lode patents on mineral
claims by the President of the Philippines in1962 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
respondent 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 but excluding the ownership of,
and the right to extract or utilize, the minerals which may be
found on or under the surface.

There is no basis in the records for the petitioner's stand that it

acquired the right to the mineral lands prior to the effectivity
of the 1935 Constitution, thus, making such acquisition
outside its purview and scope.

Anent the second issue, the petitioner has no personality to

institute the action below for annulment and cancellation of
patents. 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.