Susi vs. Razon and Director of Lands, 48 Phil.

Reports 427 (1925)

Facts:
Susi seeks to annul the sale between the Director of Lands and Razon for the
reason that the property is private which belongs to him. The property in question
previously belonged to Pinlac who sold the property to Garcia and Mendoza on 18
December 1880. On 5 September 1899, Garcia and Mendoza sold the property to
Susi. The possession and occupation of the property has been in open, continuous,
adverse and public, without any interruption except during the revolution and when
Razon filed an action to recover the property on 13 September 1913. The court
ruled in favour of Susi. The failure of Razon prompted her to obtain the land by
purchasing it through the Director of Lands which occurred on 15 August 1914.
Susi filed an action to annul the sale.
Issue:
Who has better right to the property in question between Susi and Razon?
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Susi. The case of Cario vs.
Government of the Philippine Islands (212 U. S., 449 ), is applicable here.In favor
of Valentin Susi, there is, moreover, the presumption juris et de jure established in
paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926, that all the
necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were complied with, for he
has been in actual and physical possession, personally and through his
predecessors, of an agricultural land of the public domain openly, continuously,
exclusively and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to a certificate of title to
said land under the provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela
Razon applied for the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by
operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is
not necessary that certificate of title should be issued in order that said grant may
be sanctioned by the courts, an application therefore is sufficient, under the
provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874. If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had
acquired the land in question by a grant of the State, it had already ceased to be the
public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption, of

Valentin Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands. Consequently, in selling
the land in question to Angela Razon, the Director of Lands disposed of a land over
which he had no longer any title or control, and the sale thus made was void and of
no effect, and Angela Razon did not thereby acquire any right.

McDaniel vs. Apacible and Cuisa, 42 Phil. Reports 749

Facts:
Petitioner filed a writ of prohibition ordering the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources to discontinue the leasing of the three mineral claims in
question. Petitioner contended that he was in open and continuous possession of
said three mineral claims and that he was deprived of due process of law.
Apacible contended that he acted within the given authority under Act No.
2932.
Issue:
Whether or not Act No. 2932 regarding the leasing of the mineral claims
constitutional.
Held:
The court held that Act No. 2932 is in conflict with section 3 of Jones Law
and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
It will be noted from the provisions of said Act No. 2932 that "all public
lands containing petroleum, etc., on which no patent, at the date this Act takes
effect (August 31, 1920), has been issued, are hereby withdrawn from sale and are
declared to be free and open to exploration, location, and lease," with a
preference, however, in favor of those who had therefore filed claims for such
lands. It will be further noted, from the provisions of said Act, that "all public lands
containing petroleum, etc., are hereby withdrawn from sale and are declared to be
free and open to exploration, location and lease," without any preference to any
claim or right which citizens of the Philippine Islands or the United States had
therefore acquired in any public lands, and that the only right left to them is one of
"preference," and that even the preference was limited for a period of six months
from the 31st day of August, 1920.
There is no pretense in the present case that the petitioner has not complied
with all the requirements of the law in making the location of the mineral placer
claims in question, or that the claims in question were ever abandoned or forfeited
by him. The respondents may claim, however, that inasmuch as a patent has not

been issued to the petitioner, he has acquired no property right in said mineral
claims. But the Supreme Court of the United States, in the cases of Union Oil Co.
vs. Smith (249 U.S., 337), and St. Louis Mining and Milling Co. vs. Montana
Mining Co. (171 U.S., 650), held that even without a patent, the possessory right of
a locator after discovery of minerals upon the claim is a property right in the fullest
sense, unaffected by the fact that the paramount title to the land is in the United
States. There is no conflict in the rulings of the Court upon that question. With one
voice they affirm that when the right to a patent exists, the full equitable title has
passed to the purchaser or to the locator with all the benefits, immunities, and
burdens of ownership, and that no third party can acquire from the Government
any interest as against him. (Manuel vs. Wulff, 152 U.S., 504, and cases cited.)

Reavis vs. Fianza, 40 Phil. Reports 1017 (1909)

Facts:
Fianza and his company filed an injunction prohibiting the setting up of title
to certain gold mines in the province of Benguet. The trial court granted the decree
of injunction. They are Igorrots who have been in possession of said mines for
more than fifty (50) years. Fianza is claiming the title under the Philippine Act of
July 1, 1902 which states:
That where such person or association, they and their grantors, have held
and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of
limitations of the Philippine Islands, evidence of such possession and working of
the claims for such period shall be sufficient to establish a right to a patent thereto
under this act, in the absence of any adverse claim but nothing in this act shall be
deemed to impair any lien which may have attached in any way whatever prior to
the issuance of a patent.
Issue:
Whether or not the possession of Fianza is under a claim of title.
Held:
The court held that the possession of Fianza was not under a claim of title.
No title can be obtained under the Spanish law. In view of the laws before July 1,
1902, there are no rights which can be acquired. However, the intention of the
Congress is to respect the occupation of public lands. Thus, the court finds no
reason to reverse the decision of the trial court.