G.R. No. 3897
ZACARIAS OMO, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, respondents-appellants.
August 10, 1908

FACTS:
The Civil Governor, by Executive Order No. 34 (series of 1903) and under Act No. 648 , reserved a specific part of Batan Island as public domain for governmental coal mining purposes, thereby designating it as mineral land. Proceedings were initiated to register this reservation under the Land Registration Act. Within this reserved area, petitioner Zacarias Omo filed a petition to be inscribed as the owner of a 35,000 square meter tract, claiming continuous possession and cultivation as agricultural land for more than ten years. He initially sought registration under the Land Registration Act, then amended his petition to avail of the benefits of Act No. 926 .

The Solicitor-General, on behalf of the Government, opposed, asserting that the land was mineral land (coal land), not agricultural, and thus Act No. 926 (which applies only to agricultural lands) was inapplicable. The lower court (Court of Land Registration) agreed that Act No. 926 was inapplicable but ruled in favor of Omo, granting him title based on his prescriptive possession for over ten years, applying the benefits of Act No. 648 in connection with Act No. 627 (which refers to the 10-year prescriptive period for real estate under Act No. 190 , the Code of Civil Procedure). The Government appealed this decision.

ISSUE:
Can title to public mineral land (specifically, coal land) be acquired through ordinary prescription (10 years of agricultural possession) under Acts No. 648 and No. 627, when the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, explicitly governs the acquisition of rights over public mineral lands?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Land Registration.

1. Coal lands are mineral lands: The Court affirmed that coal lands are definitively mineral lands under the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902.
2. Act No. 926 is inapplicable to mineral lands: Act No. 926 , particularly Section 54, paragraph 6, pertains exclusively to agricultural lands. Thus, the lower court correctly denied Omo’s claim under this Act.
3. Acts No. 648 and 627 are inconsistent with the Act of Congress for mineral lands: While Acts No. 648 and No. 627 (which incorporate the 10-year prescriptive period from Act No. 190 ) may be valid for acquiring title to agricultural lands within reservations, they are inconsistent with, and thus void concerning, public mineral lands. The Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, specifically provides the exclusive means for acquiring mining rights in public lands. Section 61 of the Act of Congress states that “mining rights of public lands in the Philippine Islands shall, after the passage of this Act, be acquired only in accordance with its provisions.”
4. Petitioner’s claim invalid: Omo’s claim of title was based on agricultural possession for over ten years, not on compliance with the specific provisions for acquiring mineral rights under the Act of Congress. The Act of Congress’s own prescriptive clause for mineral lands (Section 45) requires that the land be “held and worked” as mineral land, not merely occupied for agricultural purposes.
To allow title to public mineral land to be acquired through general prescription under Acts of the Philippine Commission (Acts 648, 627, 190) would directly contravene the explicit and exclusive method of acquisition for mineral lands prescribed by the superior Act of Congress. Therefore, Zacarias Omo could not acquire title to the coal land through his claimed agricultural possession.