G.R. No. 88883 ; January 18, 1991
ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and LIWAN CONSI, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atok-Big Wedge Mining Company (Atok) traces its claim to the Fredia Mineral Claim, located in 1930-1931 under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and recorded in 1931. Atok acquired the claim by deed of sale in 1931 and has since maintained continuous possession, paid taxes and occupation fees, and filed an application for a mining lease. Private respondent Liwan Consi occupied a portion of the land, constructing a house in 1964, and has also paid realty taxes. In 1984, Atok discovered Consi’s construction and filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer. The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the case, but the Regional Trial Court reversed, ordering Consi to vacate. The Court of Appeals then reversed the RTC, dismissing the ejectment action and holding that both parties held possessory titles—Atok by virtue of its mining claim and Consi through long-term occupancy.

ISSUE

Whether an individual’s long-term occupation of land classified as mineral can vest possessory rights that defeat the rights of a valid mining claim holder.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the RTC decision. The legal logic is anchored on the classification of the land and the nature of possessory rights under mining law. The Court held that the land in question is mineral land, as established by Atok’s valid location and compliance with mining laws since 1931. Under established jurisprudence, a valid mining location segregates the land from the public domain, and the locator’s possessory right is as good as ownership for all practical purposes, even without a patent, as long as legal requirements are met. Consequently, Consi’s possession, regardless of duration, was in the concept of an agricultural owner over land that was not agricultural. Such possession could not ripen into ownership or confer a possessory title superior to Atok’s because the land was not alienable for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, applying Article 538 of the Civil Code on possession, Atok, having been in possession since 1931, is the possessor longer in possession compared to Consi who entered only in 1964. Therefore, Atok has superior possessory rights and was the party in actual physical possession entitled to bring an ejectment suit. The Court concluded that Atok has the exclusive right to the property.