Comilang vs Buendia

MARCOS B. COMILANG vs. HON. GENEROSO A. BUENDIA G.R. No. L-24757

October 25, 1967

Facts: •

•

Nicolas Comilang staked a mining claim known as the "Bua Fraction Mineral Claim" over a parcel of land in Tuding, Benguet, Mountain Province, with an area of 76,809 square meters, more or less. He stopped the exploration but continue to live in the house built on a portion of the land with his wife and other relatives. In 1918, Macario Comilang and his relatives also settled on a portion of the land with an area of about one (1) hectare, for residential and agricultural purposes. Surface rights over the area embraced in the original Bua Fraction Mineral Claim of Nicolas Comilang soon became the subject of litigation in an action to quiet title filed in RTC of Baguio by the other heirs against Macario claiming that they bought the rights and interest of Nicolas Comilang in the old mining claim.

•

The court dismissed both claims of ownership of petitioner and respondent declaring the area as a public land, but recognized the possession of Macario Comilang over 1½ hectares which was declared for taxation purposes but later on levied and sold at a public auction to satisfy a money judgment obtained by spouses Jose Coloma and Eugenia Rumbaoa against Macario filed in the RTC of Baguio. The spouses were the purchasers in the auction and the certificate of sale was issued in favor of them.

•

In the meantime, an application for lode patent covering the Bua Fraction Mineral Claim was filed with the Bureau of Mines. Abdon Delenela and his co-heirs filed their opposition to the application. Pending application, Delenela filed an action for the determination of their rights on the land in the RTC of Baguio to which the said court awarded one-half in undivided share in the mineral claim in favor of Marcos and the other half also in undivided share in favor of Abdon Delenela and co-heirs. Delenela, with the knowledge and conformity of Marcos Comilang, redeemed and bought from the Coloma spouses, the latter's rights, title, interest and claim to the 1-1/2 hectares of land acquired under the certificate of sale. A writ of possession was issued in their favor.

•

In a petition for certiorari with PI filed in the RTC of Baguio, the wife of Marcos questioned the power of municipal court to issue said writ of possession on two grounds (1) that conjugal property had been levied upon and sold in the execution sale, and her share therein is affected; and (2) that there can be no severance of surface rights over a mineral claim located under the Philippine Bill of 1902, and petitioner argued that the sheriff could not have validly sold the surface rights in the execution sale of June 1, 1957. The court rendered a decision in said case, holding that the writ of possession issued by the respondent Municipal Judge was within his competence and jurisdiction. On appeal, the decision became final.

•

For a second time, a petition for certiorari and mandamus with PIwas instituted by Marcos Comilang in the RTC of Baguio City seeking the annulment of the order granting the alias writ of possession in favor of Delenela and Perez, and again the Court of First Instance of Baguio threw out the petition in its order dated October 22, 1964. Hence the petition.

Issue: whether or not the final certificate of sale conveying the land described in Tax Declaration No. 4771 to the purchasers in the execution sale is not a valid disposition of a portion of the public domain, and specially in view of the subsequent issuance of a mineral lode patent over the Bua Mineral Claim by the Director of Mines (Patent issued on November 7, 1966) whereby full ownership not only of the minerals therein but also of the surface ground have been conveyed to the patentee thereof, and, therefore, the Municipal Court of Baguio City may no longer eject them from the land. Held: no. The 1-½ hectares portions of the Bua Fraction Mineral Claim described in Tax Declaration No. 4771 in the name of herein appellant was levied upon and sold at public auction to satisfy the money judgment against him in Civil Case No. 1433 of the Municipal Court of Baguio City, and the corresponding certificate of sale was issued in favor of the judgment creditors. Interest acquired under like certificates of sale alone has been described as more than a lien on the property, more than an equitable estate, an inchoate legal title to the property. The validity of that sale was questioned when the Municipal Court ordered the eviction of appellant from the land sold on execution, and the Supreme Court declared in L-18897 that the sale was valid. The sale operated to divest appellant of his rights to the land which vested in the purchasers at the auction sale. The parties herein subsequently litigated their rights to the mineral claim in Civil Case No. 735 of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City, and on the basis of their amicable agreement (appellant was a party in the case), the court declared the Bua Mineral Claim co-ownership property of the parties thereto "except the improvements existing thereon". There is no room for doubt, therefore, that the right to possess or own the surface ground is separate and distinct from the mineral rights over the same land. And when the application for lode patent to the mineral claim was prosecuted in the Bureau of Mines, the said application could not have legally included the surface ground sold to another in the execution sale. Consequently, We have to declare that the patent procured thereunder, at least with respect to the 1-½ hectares sold in execution pertains only to the mineral right and does not include the surface ground of the land in question.