Nat Res Page 1.docx

G.R. No. L-48321 August 31, 1946 OH CHO, applicant-appellee, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, oppositor-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Roman Ozaeta and Assistant Solicitor General Rafael Amparo for appellant. Vicente Constantino for appellee. Ferrier, Gomez and Sotelo and J. T. Chuidian as amici curiae. PADILLA, J.: This is an appeal from a judgment decreeing the registration of a residential lot located in the municipality of Guinayangan, Province of Tayabas in the name of the applicant. The opposition of the Director of Lands is based on the applicant's lack of title to the lot, and on his disqualification, as alien, from acquiring lands of the public domain. The applicant, who is an alien, and his predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the lot from 1880 to filing of the application for registration on January 17, 1940. The Solicitor General reiterates the second objection of the opponent and adds that the lower court, committed an error in not declaring null and void the sale of the lot to the applicant. The applicant invokes the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496), or should it not be applicable to the case, then he would apply for the benefits of the Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141). The applicant failed to show that he has title to the lot that may be confirmed under the Land Registration Act. He failed to show that he or any of his predecessors in interest had acquired the lot from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, under the laws, orders and decrease promulgated by the Spanish Government in the Philippines, or by possessory information under the Mortgaged Law (section 19, Act 496). All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant below to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest. (Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S., 449; 53 Law. Ed., 594.) The applicant does not come under the exception, for the earliest possession of the lot by his first predecessors in interest begun in 1880. As the applicant failed to show title to the lot, the next question is whether he is entitled to decree or registration of the lot, because he is alien disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain (sections 48, 49, C.A. No. 141). As the applicant failed to show the title to the lot, and has invoked the provisions of the Public Land Act, it seems unnecessary to make pronouncement in this case on the nature or classifications of the sought to be registered. It may be argued that under the provisions of the Public Land Act the applicant immediate predecessor in interest would have been entitled to a decree of registration of the lot had they applied for its registration; and that he having purchased or acquired it, the right of his immediate predecessor in interest to a decree of registration must be deemed also to have been acquired by him. The benefits provided in the Public Land Act for applicant's immediate predecessors in interest should comply with the condition precedent for the grant of such benefits. The condition precedent is to apply for the registration of the land of which they had been in possession at least since July 26, 1894. This applicant's immediate predecessors in interest failed to do. They did not have any vested right in the lot amounting to the title which was transmissible to the applicant. The only right, if it may thus be called, is their possession of the lot which, tacked to that of their predecessors in interest, may be availed of by a qualified person to apply for its registration but not by a person as the applicant who is disqualified. It is urged that the sale of the lot to the applicant should have been declared null and void. In a suit between vendor and vendee for the annulment of the sale, such pronouncement would be necessary, if the court were of the opinion that it is void. It is not necessary in this case where the vendors do not even object to the application filed by the vendee. Accordingly, judgment is reversed and the application for registration dismissed, without costs. Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Hilado and Bengzon, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 112567. February 7, 2000] THE DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AQUILINO L. CARIO, respondents. DECISION PURISIMA, J.:

At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated November 11, 1993, in CA-G.R. No. 29218, which affirmed the decision, dated February 5, 1990, of Branch XXIV, Regional Trial Court of Laguna, in LRC NO. B-467, ordering the registration of Lot No. 6 in the name of the private respondent. The facts that matter are as follows: On May 15, 1975, the private respondent, Aquilino Cario, filed with the then Branch I, Court of First Instance of Laguna, a petition[1] for registration of Lot No. 6, a sugar land with an area of forty-three thousand six hundred fourteen (43,614) square meters, more or less, forming part of a bigger tract of land surveyed as Psu-108952 and situated in Barrio Sala, Cabuyao, Laguna. Private respondent declared that subject land was originally owned by his mother, Teresa Lauchangco, who died on February 15, 1911,[2] and later administered by him in behalf of his five brothers and sisters, after the death of their father in 1934.[3] In 1949, private respondent and his brother, Severino Cario, became co-owners of Lot No. 6 by virtue of an extra-judicial partition of the land embraced in Plan Psu-108952, among the heirs of Teresa Lauchangco. On July 26, 1963, through another deed of extrajudicial settlement, sole ownership of Lot No. 6 was adjudicated to the private respondent (]AQUILINO L. CARIO) Pertinent report of the Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands (now Bureau of Lands Management), disclosed: "x x x 1. That the land subject for registration thru judicial confirmation of imperfect title is situated in the barrio of Sala, municipality of Cabuyao, province of Laguna as described on plan Psu-108952 and is identical to Lot No. 3015, Cad. 455-D, Cabuyao Cadastre; and that the same is agricultural in nature and the improvements found thereon are sugarcane, bamboo clumps, chico and mango trees and one house of the tenant made of light materials; 2. That the land subject for registration is outside any civil or military reservation, riverbed, park and watershed reservation and that same land is free from claim and conflict; 3. That said land is neither inside the relocation site earmarked for Metro Manila squatters nor any pasture lease; it is not covered by any existing public land application and no patent or title has been issued therefor; 4. That the herein petitioner has been in continuous, open and exclusive possession of the land who acquired the same thru inheritance from his deceased mother, Teresa Lauchangco as mentioned on the Extra judicial partition dated July 26, 1963 which applicant requested that said instrument will be presented on the hearing of this case; and that said land is also declared for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 6359 in the name of the petitioner; x x x"[5] With the private respondent as lone witness for his petition, and the Director of Lands as the only oppositor, the proceedings below ended. On February 5, 1990, on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court granted private respondent's petition, disposing thus: "WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders and declares the registration and confirmation of title to one (1) parcel of land identified as Lot 6, plan Psu-108952, identical to Cadastral Lot No. 3015, Cad. 455-D, Cabuyao Cadastre, situated in the barrio of Sala, municipality of Cabuyao, province of Laguna, containing an area of FORTY THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FOURTEEN (43,614) Square Meters, more or less, in favor of applicant AQUILINO L. CARINO, married to Francisca Alomia, of legal age, Filipino with residence and postal address at Bian, Laguna. After this decision shall have become final, let an order for the issuance of decree of registration be issued. SO ORDERED."[6] From the aforesaid decision, petitioner (as oppositor) went to the Court of Appeals, which, on November 11, 1993, affirmed the decision appealed from. Undaunted, petitioner found his way to this Court via the present Petition; theorizing that: I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NOT SUBMITTED PROOF OF HIS FEE SIMPLE TITLE OR PROOF OF POSSESSION IN THE MANNER AND FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED BY THE LAW TO JUSTIFY CONFIRMATION OF AN IMPERFECT TITLE. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NOT OVERTHROWN THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE LAND IS A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BELONGING TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.[7] The Petition is impressed with merit. The petition for land registration[8] at bar is under the Land Registration Act.[9] Pursuant to said Act, he who alleges in his petition or application, ownership in fee simple, must present muniments of title since the Spanish times, such as a titulo real or royal grant, a concession especial or special grant, a composicion con el estado or adjustment title, or a titulo de compraor title through purchase; and informacion possessoria or possessory information title, which would become a titulo gratuito or a gratuitous title.[10] In the case under consideration, the private respondents (petitioner below) has not produced a single muniment of title to substantiate his claim of ownership.[11] The Court has therefore no other recourse, but to dismiss private respondent's petition for the registration of subject land under Act 496. Anyway, even if considered as petition for confirmation of imperfect title under the Public land Act (CA No. 141), as amended, private respondents petition would meet the same fate. For insufficiency of evidence, its denial is inevitable. The evidence adduced by the private respondent is not enough to prove his possession of subject lot in concept of owner, in the manner and for the number of years required by law for the confirmation of imperfect title. Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141,[12] as amended by R.A. No. 1942 and R.A. No. 3872, the law prevailing at the time the Petition of private respondent was filed on May 15, 1975, provides: "Sec. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of first Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claim and the issuance of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter." (Emphasis supplied) Possession of public lands, however long, never confers title upon the possessor, unless the occupant can prove possession or occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the required period to constitute a grant from the State.[13] Notwithstanding absence of opposition from the government, the petitioner in land registration cases is not relieved of the burden of proving the imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed. In Director of Lands vs. Agustin,[14] this Court stressed that: " x x x The petitioner is not necessarily entiled to have the land registered under the Torrens system simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of his land. He must show, even though there is no opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple. Courts are not justified in registering property under the Torrens system, simply because there is no opposition offered. Courts may, even in the absence of any opposition, deny the registration of the land under the Torrens system, upon the ground that the facts presented did not show that petitioner is the owner, in fee simple, of the land which he is attempting to have registered."[15] There is thus an imperative necessity of the most rigorous scrutiny before imperfect titles over public agricultural lands may be granted judicial recognition.[16] The underlying principle is that all lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the state as part of the public domain. As enunciated in Republic vs. Lee:"[17] "x x x Both under the 1935 and the present Constitutions, the conservation no less than the utilization of the natural resources is ordained. There would be a failure to abide x by its command if the judiciary does not . scrutinize with care applications to private . ownership of real estate. To be granted, they . must be grounded in well-nigh . incontrovertible evidence. Where, as in this . case, no such proof would be forthcoming, . there is no justification for viewing such claim . with favor. It is a basic assumption of our polity . that lands of whatever classification belong to . the state. Unless alienated in accordance . with law, it retains its right over the same as . dominus. x x x"[18] . order that a petition for registration of land may prosper and In . the petitioners may savor the benefit resulting from the issuance . certificate of title for the land petitioned for, the burden is of . upon him (petitioner) to show that he and/or his predecessor-in. interest has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and adverse . possession and occupation of the land sought for registration, for x least thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the at . petition for confirmation of title.[19] . the case under consideration, private respondent can only In . trace his own possession of subject parcel of land to the year . 1949, when the same was adjudicated to him by virtue of an . extra-judicial settlement and partition. Assuming that such a . partition was truly effected, the private respondent has . possessed the property thus partitioned for only twenty-six (26) . years as of 1975, when he filed his petition for the registration . thereof. To bridge the gap, he proceeded to tack his possession . what he theorized upon as possession of the same land by his to . parents. However, other than his unilateral assertion, private . respondent has not introduced sufficient evidence to . substantiate his allegation that his late mother possessed the . land in question even prior to 1911. . Basic is the rule that the petitioner in a land registration case . must prove the facts and circumstances evidencing his alleged . ownership of the land applied for. General statements, which x mere conclusions of law and not factual proof of possession are are unavailing and cannot suffice.[20]

From the relevant documentary evidence, it can be gleaned that the earliest tax declaration covering Lot No. 6 was Tax Declaration No. 3214 issued in 1949 under the names of the private respondent and his brother, Severino Carino. The same was followed by Tax Declaration No. 1921 issued in 1969 declaring an assessed value of Five Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-three (P5,233.00) Pesos and Tax Declaration No. 6359 issued in 1974 in the name of private respondent, declaring an assessment of Twenty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy (P21,770.00) Pesos.[21] It bears stressing that the Exhibit "E" referred to in the decision below as the tax declaration for subject land under the names of the parents of herein private respondent does not appear to have any sustainable basis. Said Exhibit "E" shows that it is Tax Declaration 1921 for Lot No. 6 in the name of private respondent and not in the name of his parents.[22] The rule that findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding upon this Court is not without exceptions. Where, as in this case, pertinent records belie the findings by the lower courts that subject land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of private respondent's predecessor-ininterest, such findings have to be disregarded by this Court. In Republic vs. Court of Appeals,[23] the Court ratiocinated thus: "This case represents an instance where the findings of the lower court overlooked certain facts of substance and value that if considered would affect the result of the case (People v. Royeras, 130 SCRA 259) and when it appears that the appellate court based its judgment on a misapprehension of facts (Carolina Industries, Inc. v. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., et al., 97 SCRA 734; Moran, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 88; Director of Lands v. Funtillar, et al., G.R. No. 68533, May 3, 1986). This case therefore is an exception to the general rule that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this Court. andx x x in the interest of substantial justice this Court is not prevented from considering such a pivotal factual matter that had been overlooked by the Courts below. The Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to review palpable errors not assigned as such if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision."[24] Verily, the Court of Appeals just adopted entirely the findings of the trial court. Had it examined the original records of the case, the said court could have verified that the land involved was never declared for taxation purposes by the parents of the private respondent. Tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership. They are mere indicia of claim of ownership.[25] In Director of Lands vs. Santiago:[26] "x x x if it is true that the original owner and possessor, Generosa Santiago, had been in possession since 1925, why were the subject lands declared for taxation purposes for the first time only in 1968, and in the names of Garcia and Obdin? For although tax receipts and declarations, of ownership for taxation purposes are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder had a claim of title over the property."[27] As stressed by the Solicitor General, the contention of private respondent that his mother had been in possession of subject land even prior to 1911 is self-serving, hearsay, and inadmissible in evidence. The phrase "adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and in concept of owner", by which characteristics private respondent describes his possession and that of his parents, are mere conclusions of law requiring evidentiary support and substantiation. The burden of proof is on the private respondent, as applicant, to prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that the alleged possession of his parents was of the nature and duration required by law. His bare allegations without more, do not amount to preponderant evidence that would shift the burden of proof to the oppositor.[28] In a case,[29] this Court set aside the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals for the registration of a parcel of land in the name of the applicant, pursuant to Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Law; holding as follows: "Based on the foregoing, it is incumbent upon private respondent to prove that the alleged twenty year or more possession of the spouses Urbano Diaz and Bernarda Vinluan which supposedly formed part of the thirty (30) year

period prior to the filing of the application, was open, continuous, exclusive, notorious and in concept of owners. This burden, private respondent failed to discharge to the satisfaction of the Court. The bare assertion that the spouses Urbano Diaz and Bernarda Vinluan had been in possession of the property for more than twenty (20) years found in private respondent's declaration is hardly the 'well-nigh incontrovertible' evidence required in cases of this nature. Private respondent should have presented specific facts that would have shown the nature of such possession. x x x"[30] In Director of Lands vs. Datu,[31] the application for confirmation of imperfect title was likewise denied on the basis of the following disquisition, to wit: "We hold that applicants' nebulous evidence does not support their claim of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of Lot No. 2027-B en concepto de dueno. Although they claimed that they have possessed the land since 1950, they declared it for tax purposes only in 1972. It is not clear whether at the time they filed their application in 1973, the lot was still cogon land or already cultivated land. They did not present as witness their predecessor, Peaflor, to testify on his alleged possession of the land. They alleged in their application that they had tenants on the land. Not a single tenant was presented as witness to prove that the applicants had possessed the land as owners. xxx On the basis of applicants' insubstantial evidence, it cannot justifiably be concluded that they have an imperfect title that should be confirmed or that they had performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant of a portion of the public domain."[32] Neither can private respondent seek refuge under P.D. No. 1073,[33] amending Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, under which law a certificate of title may issue to any occupant of a public land, who is a Filipino citizen, upon proof of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Failing to prove that his predecessors-in-interest occupied subject land under the conditions laid down by law, the private respondent could only establish his possession since 1949, four years later than June 12, 1945, as set by law. The Court cannot apply here the juris et de jure presumption that the lot being claimed by the private respondent ceased to be a public land and has become private property.[34] To reiterate, under the Regalian doctrine all lands belong to the State.[35] Unless alienated in accordance with law, it retains its basic rights over the same as dominus.[36] Private respondent having failed to come forward with muniments of title to reinforce his petition for registration under the Land Registration Act (Act 496), and to present convincing and positive proof of his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of Lot No. 6 en concepto de dueno for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of his petition,[37] the Court is of the opinion, and so finds, that subject Lot No. 6 surveyed under Psu-108952, forms part of the pubic domain not registrable in the name of private respondent. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated November 11, 1993, in CA-G.R. No. 29218 affirming the Decision, dated February 5, 1990, of Branch XXIV, Regional Trial Court of Laguna in LRC No. B-467, is SET ASIDE; and Lot No. 6, covered by and more particularly described in Psu108952, is hereby declared a public land, under the administrative supervision and power of disposition of the Bureau of Lands Management. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

-versus-

AVELINO R. DELA PAZ, ARSENIO R. DELA PAZ, JOSE R. DELA PAZ, and GLICERIO R. DELA PAZ, represented by JOSE R. DELA PAZ, Respondents.

G.R. No. 171631 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, CARPIO-MORALES,* PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ.

Promulgated: November 15, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION PERALTA, J.: Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated February 15, 2006, in CA-G.R. CV No. 84206, which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 167, in LRC Case No. N-11514, granting respondents application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land located in Barangay Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila. The factual milieu of this case is as follows: On November 13, 2003, respondents Avelino R. dela Paz, Arsenio R. dela Paz, Jose R. dela Paz, and Glicerio R. dela Paz, represented by Jose R. dela Paz (Jose), filed with the RTC of Pasig City an application for registration of land[3] under Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529) otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. The application covered a parcel of land with an area of 25,825 square meters, situated at Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, described under survey Plan Ccn-00-000084, (Conversion Consolidated plan of Lot Nos. 3212 and 3234, MCADM 590-D, Taguig Cadastral Mapping). Together with their application for registration, respondents submitted the following documents: (1) Special power of attorney showing that the respondents authorized Jose dela Paz to file the application; (2) Conversion Consolidated plan of Lot Nos. 3212 and 3234, MCADM 590-D, Taguig Cadastral Mapping (Ccn-00-000084) with the annotation that the survey is inside L.C. Map No. 2623 Proj. No. 27-B classified as alienable/disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development, Quezon City on January 03, 1968; (3) Technical Descriptions of Ccn-00-000084; (4) Geodetic Engineer's Certificate; (5) Tax Declaration No. FL-018-01466; (6) Salaysay ng Pagkakaloob dated June 18, 1987; (7) Sinumpaang Pahayag sa Paglilipat sa Sarili ng mga Pagaari ng Namatay dated March 10, 1979; (8) Certification that the subject lots are not covered by any land patent or any public land appilcation; and (9) Certification by the Office of the Treasurer, Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, that the tax on the real property for the year 2003 has been paid. Respondents alleged that they acquired the subject property, which is an agricultural land, by virtue of Salaysay ng Pagkakaloob[4] dated June 18, 1987, executed by their parents Zosimo dela Paz and Ester dela Paz (Zosimo and Ester), who earlier acquired the said property from their deceased parent Alejandro dela Paz (Alejandro) by virtue of aSinumpaang Pahayag sa Paglilipat sa Sarili ng mga Pag-aari ng Namatay[5] dated March 10, 1979. In their application, respondents claimed that they are co-owners of the subject parcel of land and they have been in continuous, uninterrupted, open, public, adverse possession of the same, in the concept of owner since they acquired it in 1987. Respondents further averred that by way of tacking of possession, they, through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, public, adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of the same, in the concept of an owner even before June 12, 1945, or for a period of more than fifty (50) years since the filing of the application of registration with the trial court. They maintained that the subject property is classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.

The case was set for initial hearing on April 30, 2004. On said date, respondents presented documentary evidence to prove compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the law. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the application for registration on the following grounds, among others: (1) that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question for a period of not less than thirty (30) years; (2) that the muniments of title, and/or the tax declarations and tax payments receipts of applicants, if any, attached to or alleged in the application, do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition of the land applied for; and (3) that the parcel of land applied for is a portion of public domain belonging to the Republic not subject to private appropriation. Except for the Republic, there was no other oppositor to the application. On May 5, 2004, the trial court issued an Order of General Default[6] against the whole world except as against the Republic. Thereafter, respondents presented their evidence in support of their application. In its Decision dated November 17, 2004, the RTC granted respondents' application for registration of the subject property. The dispositive portion of the decision states: WHEREFORE, affirming the order of general default hereto entered, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING and CONFIRMING the title of AVELINO R. DELA PAZ, Arsenio R. dela Paz, Jose R. dela Paz and Glicerio R. dela Paz, all married and residents of and with postal address at No. 65 Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, over a parcel of land described and bounded under Plan Ccn-00-000084 (consolidation of Lots No. 3212 and 3234, Mcadm-590-D, Taguig, Cadastral Mapping, containing Twenty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Five (25,825) Square Meters, more or less, situated at Barangay Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, under the operation of P.D. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. After the decision shall have been become final and executory and, upon payment of all taxes and other charges due on the land, the order for the issuance of a decree of registration shall be accordingly undertaken. SO ORDERED.[7] Aggrieved by the Decision, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal.[8] The CA, in its Decision dated February 15, 2006, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA ruled that respondents were able to show that they have been in continuous, open, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject property through themselves andtheir predecessorsin-interest. The CA found that respondents acquired the subject land from their predecessors-in-interest, who have been in actual, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession in the concept of an owner since time immemorial. The CA, likewise, held that respondents were able to present sufficient evidence to establish that the subject property is part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Hence, the instant petition raising the following grounds: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS' APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE SUBJECT LOT CONSIDERING THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN IN OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT LOT IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE REGISTRATION OF THE SUBJECT LOT IN RESPONDENTS' NAME CONSIDERING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FORMALLY OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE SAME IS WITHIN THE ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE AREA OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.[9]

In its Memorandum, petitioner claims that the CA's findings that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, uninterrupted, public, and adverse possession in the concept of owners, for more than fifty years or even before June 12, 1945, was unsubstantiated. Respondents failed to show actual or constructive possession and occupation over the subject land in the concept of an owner. Respondents also failed to establish that the subject property is within the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain. The subject property remained to be owned by the State under the Regalian Doctrine. In their Memorandum, respondents alleged that they were able to present evidence of specific acts of ownership showing open, notorious, continuous and adverse possession and occupation in the concept of an owner of the subject land. To prove their continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject land, they presented several tax declarations, dated 1949, 1966, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1991, 1994 and 2000, issued in the name of their predecessors-in-interest. In addition, respondents presented a tax clearance issued by the Treasurer's Office of the City of Taguig to show that they are up to date in their payment of real property taxes. Respondents maintain that the annotations appearing on the survey plan of the subject land serves as sufficient proof that the land is within the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain. Finally, respondents assert that the issues raised by the petitioner are questions of fact which the Court should not consider in a petition for review under Rule 45. The petition is meritorious. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[10] It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[11] In the present case, the records do not support the findings made by the CA that the subject land is part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain. Section 14 (1) of PD 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree provides: SEC. 14. Who may apply. - The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. From the foregoing, respondents need to prove that (1) the land forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and (2) they, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier.[12] These the respondents must prove by no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence.[13] Under the Regalian doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the inalienable public domain.[14] The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State

ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of theapplication is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable.[15] To support its contention that the land subject of the application for registration is alienable, respondents presented survey Plan Ccn-00-000084[16] (Conversion Consolidated plan of Lot Nos. 3212 & 3234, MCADM 590-D, Taguig Cadastral Mapping) prepared by Geodetic Engineer Arnaldo C. Torres with the following annotation: This survey is inside L.C. Map No. 2623 Proj. No. 27-B clasified as alienable/disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development, Quezon City on Jan. 03, 1968. Respondents' reliance on the afore-mentioned annotation is misplaced. In Republic v. Sarmiento,[17] the Court ruled that the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer on the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Center, that this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B. L.C. Map No. 2623, certified on January 3, 1968 by the Bureau of Forestry, is insufficient and does not constitute incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption that the land remains part of the inalienable public domain. Further, in Republic v. Tri-plus Corporation,[18] the Court held that: In the present case, the only evidence to prove the character of the subject lands as required by law is the notation appearing in the Advance Plan stating in effect that the said properties are alienable and disposable. However, this is hardly the kind of proof required by law. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute. The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable. In the case at bar, while the Advance Plan bearing the notation was certified by the Lands Management Services of the DENR, the certification refers only to the technical correctness of the survey plotted in the said plan and has nothing to do whatsoever with the nature and character of the property surveyed. Respondents failed to submit a certification from the proper government agency to prove that the lands subject for registration are indeed alienable and disposable. Furthermore, in Republic of the Philippines v. Rosila Roche,[19] the Court held that the applicant bears the burden of proving the status of the land. In this connection, the Court has held that he must present a certificate of land classification status issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of the DENR. He must also prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land as alienable and disposable, and that it is within the approved area per verification through survey by the CENRO or PENRO. Further, the applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established by the applicant to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Clearly, the surveyor's annotation presented by respondents is not the kind of proof required by law to prove that the subject land falls within the alienable and disposable zone.Respondents failed to submit a certification from the proper government agency to establish that the subject land are part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to prove that the subject

property is already classified as alienable and disposable, we must consider the same as still inalienable public domain.[20] Anent respondents possession and occupation of the subject property, a reading of the records failed to show that the respondents by themselves or through their predecessors-ininterest possessed and occupied the subject land since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The evidence submitted by respondents to prove their possession and occupation over the subject property consists of the testimonies of Jose and Amado Geronimo (Amado), the tenant of the adjacent lot. However, their testimonies failed to establish respondents predecessors-in-interest' possession and occupation of subject property since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Jose, who was born on March 19, 1939,[21] testified that since he attained the age of reason he already knew that the land subject of this case belonged to them.[22]Amado testified that he was a tenant of the land adjacent to the subject property since 1950,[23] and on about the same year, he knew that the respondents were occupying the subject land.[24] Jose and Amado's testimonies consist merely of general statements with no specific details as to when respondents' predecessors-in-interest began actual occupancy of the land subject of this case. While Jose testified that the subject land was previously owned by their parents Zosimo and Ester, who earlier inherited the property from their parent Alejandro, no clear evidence was presented to show Alejandro's mode of acquisition of ownership and that he had been in possession of the same on or before June 12, 1945, the period of possession required by law. It is a rule that general statements that are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof of possession are unavailing and cannot suffice.[25]An applicant in a land registration case cannot just harp on mere conclusions of law to embellish the application but must impress thereto the facts and circumstances evidencing the alleged ownership and possession of the land.[26] Respondents earliest evidence can be traced back to a tax declaration issued in the name of their predecessors-in-interest only in the year 1949. At best, respondents can only prove possession since said date. What is required is open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession by respondents and their predecessors-in-interest, under a bona fideclaim of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[27] Respondents failed to explain why, despite their claim that their predecessors-in interest have possessed the subject properties in the concept of an owner even before June 12, 1945, it was only in 1949 that their predecessors-in-interest started to declare the same for purposes of taxation. Well settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. The fact that the disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.[28] The foregoing pieces of evidence, taken together, failed to paint a clear picture that respondents by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land, under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Evidently, since respondents failed to prove that (1) the subject property was classified as part of the disposable and alienable land of the public domain; and (2) they and their predecessorsin-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof under a bonafide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier, their application for confirmation and registration of the subject property under PD 1529 should be denied. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 15, 2006, in CA-G.R. CV No. 84206, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167, in LRC Case No. N-11514, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The application for registration and confirmation of title filed by respondents Avelino R. dela Paz, Arsenio R. dela Paz, Jose R. dela Paz, and Glicerio R. dela Paz, as represented by Jose R. dela Paz, over a parcel of land, with a total area of twenty-five thousand eight hundred twenty-five (25,825) square meters situated at Barangay Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, is DENIED.

G.R. No. L-43938 April 15, 1988 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT), petitioner,

vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) and JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents. G.R. No. L-44081 April 15, 1988 BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, VICTORIA, BENJAMIN and EDUARDO, all surnamed DE LA ROSA, represented by their father JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents. G.R. No. L-44092 April 15, 1988 ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, VICTORlA, BENJAMIN and EDUARDO, all surnamed DE LA ROSA, represented by their father, JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents. CRUZ, J.: The Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all natural wealth that may be found in the bowels of the earth even if the land where the discovery is made be private. 1 In the cases at bar, which have been consolidated because they pose a common issue, this doctrine was not correctly applied. These cases arose from the application for registration of a parcel of land filed on February 11, 1965, by Jose de la Rosa on his own behalf and on behalf of his three children, Victoria, Benjamin and Eduardo. The land, situated in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet Province, was divided into 9 lots and covered by plan Psu-225009. According to the application, Lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la Rosa and Lots 6-9 to his children by Mamaya Balbalio and Jaime Alberto, respectively, in 1964. 2 The application was separately opposed by Benguet Consolidated, Inc. as to Lots 1-5, Atok Big Wedge Corporation, as to Portions of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9, and by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Bureau of Forestry Development, as to lots 1-9. 3 In support of the application, both Balbalio and Alberto testified that they had acquired the subject land by virtue of prescription Balbalio claimed to have received Lots 1-5 from her father shortly after the Liberation. She testified she was born in the land, which was possessed by her parents under claim of ownership. 4 Alberto said he received Lots 6-9 in 1961 from his mother, Bella Alberto, who declared that the land was planted by Jaime and his predecessors-in-interest to bananas, avocado, nangka and camote, and was enclosed with a barbed-wire fence. She was corroborated by Felix Marcos, 67 years old at the time, who recalled the earlier possession of the land by Alberto's father. 5 Balbalio presented her tax declaration in 1956 and the realty tax receipts from that year to 1964, 6 Alberto his tax declaration in 1961 and the realty tax receipts from that year to 1964. 7 Benguet opposed on the ground that the June Bug mineral claim covering Lots 1-5 was sold to it on September 22, 1934, by the successors-in-interest of James Kelly, who located the claim in September 1909 and recorded it on October 14, 1909. From the date of its purchase, Benguet had been in actual, continuous and exclusive possession of the land in concept of owner, as evidenced by its construction of adits, its affidavits of annual assessment, its geological mappings, geological samplings and trench side cuts, and its payment of taxes on the land. 8 For its part, Atok alleged that a portion of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9 were covered by the Emma and Fredia mineral claims located by Harrison and Reynolds on December 25, 1930, and recorded on January 2, 1931, in the office of the mining recorder of Baguio. These claims were purchased from these locators on November 2, 1931, by Atok, which has since then been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the said lots as evidenced by its annual assessment work on the claims, such as the boring of tunnels, and its payment of annual taxes thereon. 9 The location of the mineral claims was made in accordance with Section 21 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 which provided that: SEC. 21. All valuable mineral deposits in public lands in the philippine Islands both surveyed and unsurveyed are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration, occupation and purchase and the land in which they are found to occupation and purchase by the citizens of the United States, or of said islands. The Bureau of Forestry Development also interposed its objection, arguing that the land sought to be registered was covered by the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve under Proclamation No. 217 dated February 16, 1929. Moreover, by reason of its nature, it was not subject to alienation under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973. 10 The trial court * denied the application, holding that the applicants had failed to prove their claim of possession and ownership of the land sought to be registered. 11 The applicants appealed to the respondent court, * which reversed the trial

court and recognized the claims of the applicant, but subject to the rights of Benguet and Atok respecting their mining claims. 12 In other words, the Court of Appeals affirmed the surface rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the same time reserving the sub-surface rights of Benguet and Atok by virtue of their mining claims. Both Benguet and Atok have appealed to this Court, invoking their superior right of ownership. The Republic has filed its own petition for review and reiterates its argument that neither the private respondents nor the two mining companies have any valid claim to the land because it is not alienable and registerable. It is true that the subject property was considered forest land and included in the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve, but this did not impair the rights already vested in Benguet and Atok at that time. The Court of Appeals correctly declared that: There is no question that the 9 lots applied for are within the June Bug mineral claims of Benguet and the "Fredia and Emma" mineral claims of Atok. The June Bug mineral claim of plaintiff Benguet was one of the 16 mining claims of James E. Kelly, American and mining locator. He filed his declaration of the location of the June Bug mineral and the same was recorded in the Mining Recorder's Office on October 14, 1909. All of the Kelly claims ha subsequently been acquired by Benguet Consolidated, Inc. Benguet's evidence is that it had made improvements on the June Bug mineral claim consisting of mine tunnels prior to 1935. It had submitted the required affidavit of annual assessment. After World War II, Benguet introduced improvements on mineral claim June Bug, and also conducted geological mappings, geological sampling and trench side cuts. In 1948, Benguet redeclared the "June Bug" for taxation and had religiously paid the taxes. The Emma and Fredia claims were two of the several claims of Harrison registered in 1931, and which Atok representatives acquired. Portions of Lots 1 to 5 and all of Lots 6 to 9 are within the Emma and Fredia mineral claims of Atok Big Wedge Mining Company. The June Bug mineral claim of Benguet and the Fredia and Emma mineral claims of Atok having been perfected prior to the approval of the Constitution of the Philippines of 1935, they were removed from the public domain and had become private properties of Benguet and Atok. 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 v. 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 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 afterwards included in a reservation, such inclusion or reservation does not affect 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. (Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337; Van Mess v. Roonet, 160 Cal. 131; 27 Cyc. 546). "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." (St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 650; 655; 43 Law ed., 320, 322.) "When a location of a mining claim is perfected it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession, with the right to the exclusive enjoyment of all the surface ground as well as of all the minerals within the lines of the claim, except as limited by the extralateral right of adjoining locators; and this is the locator's right before as well as after the issuance of the patent. While a lode locator acquires a vested property right by virtue of his location made in compliance with the mining laws, the fee remains in the government until patent issues."(18 R.C.L. 1152) (Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Hon. Eulogio Rodriguez, Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce, and Quirico Abadilla, Director of the Bureau of Mines, 66 Phil. 259, 265-266) It is of no importance whether Benguet and Atok had secured a patent for as held in the Gold Creek Mining Corp. Case, for all physical

purposes of ownership, the owner is not required to secure a patent as long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws; his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent. We agree likewise with the oppositors that having complied with all the requirements of the mining laws, the claims were removed from the public domain, and not even the government of the Philippines can take away this right from them. The reason is obvious. Having become the private properties of the oppositors, they cannot be deprived thereof without due process of law. 13 Such rights were not affected either by the stricture in the Commonwealth Constitution against the alienation of all lands of the public domain except those agricultural in nature for this was made subject to existing rights. Thus, in its Article XIII, Section 1, it was categorically provided that: SEC. 1. 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 natural resources of the Philipppines 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 60% 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 lands, 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 25 years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which case beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant. Implementing this provision, Act No. 4268, approved on November 8, 1935, declared: Any provision of existing laws, executive order, proclamation to the contrary notwithstanding, all locations of mining claim made prior to February 8, 1935 within lands set apart as forest reserve under Sec. 1826 of the Revised Administrative Code which would be valid and subsisting location except to the existence of said reserve are hereby declared to be valid and subsisting locations as of the date of their respective locations. The perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land and under the laws then in force removed it from the public domain. 14 By such act, the locators acquired exclusive rights over the land, against even the government, without need of any further act such as the purchase of the land or the obtention of a patent over it. 15As the land had become the private property of the locators, they had the right to transfer the same, as they did, to Benguet and Atok. It is true, as the Court of Appeals observed, that such private property was subject to the "vicissitudes of ownership," or even to forfeiture by non-user or abandonment or, as the private respondents aver, by acquisitive prescription. However, the method invoked by the de la Rosas is not available in the case at bar, for two reasons. First, the trial court found that the evidence of open, continuous, adverse and exclusive possession submitted by the applicants was insufficient to support their claim of ownership. They themselves had acquired the land only in 1964 and applied for its registration in 1965, relying on the earlier alleged possession of their predecessors-in-interest. 16The trial judge, who had the opportunity to consider the evidence first-hand and observe the demeanor of the witnesses and test their credibility was not convinced. We defer to his judgment in the absence of a showing that it was reached with grave abuse of discretion or without sufficient basis. 17 Second, even if it be assumed that the predecessors-in-interest of the de la Rosas had really been in possession of the subject property, their possession was not in the concept of owner of the mining claim but of the property as agricultural land, which it was not. The property was mineral land, and they were claiming it as agricultural land. They were not disputing the lights of the mining locators nor were they seeking to oust them as such and

to replace them in the mining of the land. In fact, Balbalio testified that she was aware of the diggings being undertaken "down below" 18 but she did not mind, much less protest, the same although she claimed to be the owner of the said land. The Court of Appeals justified this by saying there is "no conflict of interest" between the owners of the surface rights and the owners of the sub-surface rights. This is rather doctrine, for it is a well-known principle that the owner of piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height. 19 Under the aforesaid ruling, the land is classified as mineral underneath and agricultural on the surface, subject to separate claims of title. This is also difficult to understand, especially in its practical application. Under the theory of the respondent court, the surface owner will be planting on the land while the mining locator will be boring tunnels underneath. The farmer cannot dig a well because he may interfere with the operations below and the miner cannot blast a tunnel lest he destroy the crops above. How deep can the farmer, and how high can the miner, go without encroaching on each other's rights? Where is the dividing line between the surface and the sub-surface rights? The Court feels that the rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. In the instant case, as already observed, the land which was originally classified as forest land ceased to be so and became mineral — and completely mineral — once the mining claims were perfected. 20 As long as mining operations were being undertaken thereon, or underneath, it did not cease to be so and become agricultural, even if only partly so, because it was enclosed with a fence and was cultivated by those who were unlawfully occupying the surface. What must have misled the respondent court is Commonwealth Act No. 137, providing as follows: Sec. 3. All mineral lands of the public domain and minerals 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 60% 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 government established under the Constitution. SEC. 4. The ownership of, and the right to the use of land for agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential, or for any purpose other than mining does not include the ownership of, nor the right to extract or utilize, the minerals which may be found on or under the surface. SEC. 5. The ownership of, and the right to extract and utilize, the minerals included within all areas for which public agricultural land patents are granted are excluded and excepted from all such patents. SEC. 6. The ownership of, and the right to extract and utilize, the minerals included within all areas for which Torrens titles are granted are excluded and excepted from all such titles. This is an application of the Regalian doctrine which, as its name implies, is intended for the benefit of the State, not of private persons. The rule simply reserves to the State all minerals that may be found in public and even private land devoted to "agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential or (for) any purpose other than mining." Thus, if a person is the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals without the permission of the State to which such minerals belong. The flaw in the reasoning of the respondent court is in supposing that the rights over the land could be used for both mining and non-mining purposes simultaneously. The correct interpretation is that once minerals are discovered in the land, whatever the use to which it is being devoted at the time, such use may be discontinued by the State to enable it to extract the minerals therein in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative. The land is thus converted to mineral land and may not be used by any private party, including the registered owner thereof, for any other purpose that will impede the mining operations to be undertaken therein, For the loss sustained by such owner, he is of course entitled to just compensation under the Mining Laws or in appropriate expropriation proceedings. 21 Our holding is that Benguet and Atok have exclusive rights to the property in question by virtue of their respective mining claims

which they validly acquired before the Constitution of 1935 prohibited the alienation of all lands of the public domain except agricultural lands, subject to vested rights existing at the time of its adoption. The land was not and could not have been transferred to the private respondents by virtue of acquisitive prescription, nor could its use be shared simultaneously by them and the mining companies for agricultural and mineral purposes. WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent court dated April 30, 1976, is SET ASIDE and that of the trial court dated March 11, 1969, is REINSTATED, without any pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.