Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 872 views

    Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43938 (April 15, 1988) Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Paulino Belga III
    This case involved a dispute over surface and subsurface rights to a parcel of land between landowners and two mining companies. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the landowners had surface rights while reserving subsurface rights to the mining companies for their mining claims. The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, finding that under Article 437, the owner of a piece of land has rights to everything above and below the surface. Once a land is classified as mineral land due to mining claims, it remains completely mineral in nature as long as mining operations are being undertaken. The rights cannot be divided between surface and subsurface.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43938 (April 15, 1988) Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Paulino Belga III
    872 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over surface and subsurface rights to a parcel of land between landowners and two mining companies. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the landowners had surface rights while reserving subsurface rights to the mining companies for their mining claims. The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, finding that under Article 437, the owner of a piece of land has rights to everything above and below the surface. Once a land is classified as mineral land due to mining claims, it remains completely mineral in nature as long as mining operations are being undertaken. The rights cannot be divided between surface and subsurface.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Republic V

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over surface and subsurface rights to a parcel of land between landowners and two mining companies. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the landowners had surface rights while reserving subsurface rights to the mining companies for their mining claims. The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, finding that under Article 437, the owner of a piece of land has rights to everything above and below the surface. Once a land is classified as mineral land due to mining claims, it remains completely mineral in nature as long as mining operations are being undertaken. The rights cannot be divided between surface and subsurface.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    872 views2 pages

    Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43938 (April 15, 1988) Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Paulino Belga III
    This case involved a dispute over surface and subsurface rights to a parcel of land between landowners and two mining companies. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the landowners had surface rights while reserving subsurface rights to the mining companies for their mining claims. The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, finding that under Article 437, the owner of a piece of land has rights to everything above and below the surface. Once a land is classified as mineral land due to mining claims, it remains completely mineral in nature as long as mining operations are being undertaken. The rights cannot be divided between surface and subsurface.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

    L-43938 (April 15,


    1988) Case Digest
    Surface Rights of Landowner (Article 437)

    Facts:

    Jose dela Rosa filed an application for registration of a parcel of land on his own
    behalf and on behalf of his children. This application was separately opposed by
    Benguet Consolidated, Inc. (Benguet) and Atok Big Wedge Corporation (Atok).

    The petitioners claimed that they have acquired the land from their parents and
    that they have been in possession of the land ever since. Benguet and Atok
    opposed on the ground that they have mineral claims covering the property and
    had been in actual, continuous and exclusive possession of the land in concept
    of owner.

    The trial court denied the application while the Court of Appeals reversed the
    decision of the trial court and recognized the claims of the applicant but subject
    to the rights of Benguet and Atok respecting their mining claims. 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.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the CA's ruling was correct.

    Held:

    No, the CA was incorrect.

    Art. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of
    everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make any
    plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to
    servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of
    the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.

    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?
    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.

    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. 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.

    You might also like