Atok-big wedge mining company, inc. vs.

court of appeals, and liwan consi

Facts:

Fideral Mineral claim of about nine (9) hectares situated in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet was
acquired by A. I. Reynold in accordance of Philippine Bill of 1902, in so-called Declaration of
Location.Later on, such claims was sold to Atok- Big Wedge Mining Company, Inc.

Fredia mineral claim with other mineral claims owned by Atok declared under Tax Declaration
No. 9535 and in view of PD No. 1214 an application for lease was filed by Atok covering the Fredia
mineral claim.

On the other hand, private respondent Liwan Consi has a lot below the land of a certain Mr.
Acay at Tuding Slide, Itogon, Benguet.He constructed an house thereon sometime in 1964. The lot is
covered by Tax declaration No. 9462. He has been paying taxes on said land with his father before him
had occupied. On March 1, 1984, a complaint for forcible entry and detainer was filed by Atok against
Liwan Consi.

However, the Court of Appeals further ruled that both COnsi and ATOK are of equal legal footing
with regards the subject lot. Both hold possessory titles to the land in question the petitioner through
his long term occupancy of the same, the respondent mining firm by virtue of its being the claim locator
and applicant for a lease on the mineral claim.

Issue:

Whether or not an individuals long term occupation of land of the public domain vests him with
such rights over the same as to defeat the rights of the owner of the claim.

Held:

In the case at bar, the evidence on record pointed that the petitioner ATOK has faithfully
complied with all the requirements of the law regarding the maintenance of the Fredia Mineral Claim.
The Perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land and under the laws then in
force removed it from public domain. By such act, the locators acquired exclusive right over the land,
against even the govt., without need of any further act such as the purchase of the land or the obtention
of a patent over it.

Atok has exclusive right 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 land of the public
domain except agricultural lands, subject to vested rights existing at the time of its adoption.
 Atok has been in continuous and exclusive possession of the Fradia mineral claim while private
respondents possession only sometime in 1964 when he constructed a house thereon. Clearly, ATOK
has superior possession right than private respondent, LiwanConsi. Petitioner having the actual
possession of the property yet having been deprived of the possessuin by the private respondent has
every right to sue for ejectment.

Premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned decision of the Court of
Appeals dated March 13, 1989 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of RTC of Baguio and
Benguet is REINSTATED.

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 115104 October 12, 1998

FACTS: The Supreme Court recognized the possessory right of Macawiwili and Omico over
mining claims in Benguet as against Philex Mining Corp. On the surface of these mining claims,
Philex owned improvements consisting of roads, facilities, and bunkhouses that were used by
Philex in its other mining claims. Philex sought to expropriate the surface of the area where
these improvements were located pursuant to Section 59 of PD 463.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent (Philex Mining) has no right to expropriate petitioner mineral areas
under PD 463.

HELD:

The land cannot be expropriated. Expropriation demands that the land be private land.
When the Supreme Court awarded the possessory rights over the land to Macawiwili and
Omico, it stripped the land of its private character and gave it its public character to be utilized
for mining operations. Property already devoted to public use may be expropriated only if done
directly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to the delegate. The
authority granted by PD 463 is merely general and will not suffice.
G.R. No. 71412 August 15, 1986

BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., (now Benguet Corporation), petitioners,

vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:

On 1958, the Republic of the Philippines filed with the CFI of Benguet and Baguio a complaint for
expropriation against ten (10) defendants and among them is the Benguet Consolidated, Inc.

The Republic stated that it needed the property for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a
permanent site for the PMA, a training institution for officers in the AFP, under the direct authority and
supervision of the Department of National Defense

The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Republic did not need and has not
occupied the areas covered by the above-mentioned mining claims and neither have improvements been
made on the said areas and that the area covers ground which is rugged in terrain which could have no
use to the PMA.

By way of separate and special grounds for dismissal, petitioner also alleged that the authority given by
the President of the Philippines for the expropriation proceedings refers to privately owned mineral lands,
mining interests, and other private interests of private and that the expropriation of Benguet Consolidated,
Inc.'s mineral claims is in violation of law.

Issues:

W/N the power of the government to exercise power of imminent domain is barred upon the perfection of
the mining claim.

WON the amount of just compensation which should be paid by the respondent to the petitioner for the
condemned properties.

HELD;

1. The petitioner's arguments have no merit. The filing of expropriation proceedings recognizes the
fact that the petitioner's property is no longer part of the public domain. The power of eminent
domain refers to the power of government to take private property for public use. If the mineral
claims are public, there would be no need to expropriate them. The mineral claims of the
petitioner are not being transferred to another mining company or to a public entity interested in
the claims as such. The land where the mineral claims were located is needed for the Philippine
Military Academy, a public use completely unrelated to mining. The fact that the location of a
mining claim has been perfected does not bar the Government's exercise of its power of eminent
domain. The right of eminent domain covers all forms of private property, tangible or intangible,
and includes rights which are attached to land.
The petitioner next raises a procedural point-whether or not in expropriation proceedings an order of
condemnation may be entered by the court before a motion to dismiss is denied. The petitioner claims
that this cannot be done.

In its original decision, the lower court overlooked an award of just compensation for the petitioner. This
triggered off the filing of the following motions by the petitioner: (1) motion for clarification praying that an
order be issued clarifying the decision insofar as the compensation to be paid to the petitioner is
concerned; (2) motion for new trial and/or reconsideration on the ground that the court did not award just
compensation for the properties of the petitioner; (3) motion to re-open case on the ground that the issues
insofar as the petitioner is concerned have not been joined since its motion to dismiss has not been
resolved; and (4) a second motion for clarification

Under these circumstances, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the proceedings of condemnation
followed by the court. We cannot condone the inconsistent positions of the petitioner. (See Republic v.
Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 505). it is very clear from the statements of the petitioner that it had already
abandoned its earlier stand on the propriety of expropriation and that its intent shifted to the just
compensation to be paid by the plaintiff for its condemned properties.

2. The petitioner assails the appellate court's approval of the Commissioners' Report which fixed the
amount of P7,532.46 as just compensation for the mineral claims. The petitioner contends that
this amount is by any standard ridiculously low and cannot be considered just and that in fact the
commissioners' report was rejected by the trial court.

The petitioner's mining claims were classified as non-producing unpatented claims. It was
established that the area of the mineral claims belonging to the petitioner and included in the
Philippine Military Reservation was 25.1082 hectares. Hence, the commissioners arrived at the
total amount of P7,532.46 (25.1082 x P300.00) as just compensation to be paid to the petitioner
for its mining claims

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is MODIFIED in that the
government is directed to pay the petitioner the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
THIRTY-TWO PESOS) and 46/100 (P7,532.46) plus 6% interest from May 6, 1950 to July 29, 1974 and
12% thereafter until fully paid, and AFFIRMED in all other respects.