Court decisionSource checked
Cruz and Europa v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
G.R. No. 135385 · 2000 · Indigenous peoples and ancestral domains
Source checked. The source check identifies the document; it does not verify every transcribed word or its current legal effect. Recovered or scanned text may contain errors. Compare the wording and subsequent history with the linked legal source.
DIGITAL P. 98 / 101
[129] 40 Phil. 1017 (1909), 215 US 16, 54 L Ed 72.
[130] Ibid. The facts of the case were discussed in Fianza vs. Reavies, (7 Phil. 610 [1909]) thus: Jose Fianza, et
al., members of the Igorot tribe, claimed that he and his predecessors had, for more than fifty years prior to
1901, possessed a certain parcel of mineral land on which were found two gold mines. The same parcel of land
was also claimed by an American, J.F. Reavies, who entered the land in 1901 and proceeded to locate mining
claims according to the mining laws of the United States. The Philippine Supreme Court held that Fianza, et al.
were the rightful owners of the mineral lands pursuant to Section 45 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 which in sum
states that where a person have held or worked on their mining claims for a period equivalent to ten years,
evidence of such possession and working of the claims for such period shall be sufficient to establish a right to a
patent thereto. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Philippine Supreme
Court and held that the indigenous peoples were the rightful owners of the contested parcel of land, stating that
the possession and working by Fianza, et al. of the mining claim in the Philippine Islands for the time required
under the Section 45 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 to establish the right to a patent, need not have been under a
claim of title.
[131] Memorandum of Intervenors Flavier, et al., Rollo, p. 918.
[132] Article I of the Decree of Superior Civil Government of January 29, 1864 provided that "The supreme
ownership of mines throughout the kingdom belong to the crown and the king. They shall not be exploited
except by persons who obtained special grant from this superior government and by those who may secure it
thereafter, subject to this regulation." (FRANCISCO, PHILIPPINE LAWS ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 2nd
ed. [1956], p. 14, citing the unpublished case of Lawrence v. Garduno, G.R. No. 19042.)
Article 2 of the Royal Decree of May 14, 1867 (the Spanish Mining Law), the law in force at the time of the
cession of the Philippines to the United States contained a similar declaration, thus:
The ownership of the substances enumerated in the preceding article (among them those of
inflammable nature) belongs to the state, and they cannot be disposed of without an authorization
issued by the Superior Civil Governor.
The Spanish Civil Code contained the following analogous provisions affirming the State's ownership over
minerals:
Art. 339. Property of public dominium is--
x x x
2. That belonging exclusively to the State which, without being of general public use, is employed
in some public service, or in the development of the national wealth, such as walls, fortresses, and
other works for the defense of the territory, and mines, until granted to private individuals.
Art. 350. The proprietor of land is the owner of the surface and of everything under it and may
build, plant or excavate thereon, as he may see fit, subject to any existing easements and to the
provisions of the Laws on Mines and Waters and to police regulations.
After the Philippines was ceded to Spain, the Americans continued to adhere to the concept of State-ownership
of natural resources. However, the open and free exploration, occupation and purchase of mineral deposits and
If your browser cannot display the PDF, use Download original. Original access follows the same document permissions.