Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 02 - Comilang Vs CA - Aqui

    Uploaded by

    Isabella Siggaoat
    25 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata applied in this case. In two previous cases, the Court had affirmed that the respondents owned 1.5 hectares of residential land and that the petitioner's mineral lode patent only conveyed mineral rights, not surface rights. The current case involved the same parties and subject matter of the mineral claims over the 1.5 hectares. Therefore, the Court of First Instance did not have the power to re-adjudicate the parties' ownership rights over the surface area, which had already been decided.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    02_Comilang vs CA_Aqui

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata applied in this case. In two previous cases, the Court had affirmed that the respondents owned 1.5 hectares of residential land and that the petitioner's mineral lode patent only conveyed mineral rights, not surface rights. The current case involved the same parties and subject matter of the mineral claims over the 1.5 hectares. Therefore, the Court of First Instance did not have the power to re-adjudicate the parties' ownership rights over the surface area, which had already been decided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views2 pages

    02 - Comilang Vs CA - Aqui

    Uploaded by

    Isabella Siggaoat
    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata applied in this case. In two previous cases, the Court had affirmed that the respondents owned 1.5 hectares of residential land and that the petitioner's mineral lode patent only conveyed mineral rights, not surface rights. The current case involved the same parties and subject matter of the mineral claims over the 1.5 hectares. Therefore, the Court of First Instance did not have the power to re-adjudicate the parties' ownership rights over the surface area, which had already been decided.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Citation:

    Date: 15 JULY 1975

    Petitioners: MARCOS B. COMILANG

    Respondents: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (5TH DIVISION), ABDON


    DELENELA, GUILLERMO PEREZ, DOMINGA COMILANG, AND ESTEBAN
    COMILANG

    Syllabus Topic: LAW OF THE CASE

    Thesis Statement: THE DOCTRINE AND RULE OF THE LAW OF THE CASE

    Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Baguio has the power to adjudicate
    anew the rights of ownership of the parties over the ground surface to the extent of 1-
    ½ hectares of the Bua Fraction Lode Mineral Claim.

    The Facts of the Case:


    1. There were three (3) cases brought on appeal to the Supreme Court to
    challenge the respondents’ ownership and possession of 1-1/2 land hectares
    and the inclusion of mineral claims under it:

    a. The first case was the appeal of Maxima Nieto de Comilang, wife of
    petitioner Marcos Comilang, from the decision of the Court of First
    Instance of Baguio City in Civil Case No. 897;
    b. The second is the appeal of Marcos Comilang from the Order of the
    Court of First Instance of Baguio City in Civil Case No. 1440; and
    c. The third is the case at bar.

    2. In the first case, the Court affirmed the Order of the Baguio Court
    insofar as it sanctioned the ownership and possession of the respondents
    Guillermo Perez and Abdon Delenela over the 1-½ hectare residential
    lot. Resolving the issue on mineral claims, the Court stated that the
    property sold at public auction included the residential land alone,
    without including the mineral claims.

    3. In the subsequent case, the petitioner claimed that the issuance of the
    mineral lode patent covering the mineral claim over the land which
    included the said 1-½ hectares, conveyed full ownership, not only of the
    mineral rights, but also of title over the surface of the ground. However,
    the Court declared 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.

    4. An action for partition was brought by the petitioner to the Court of


    First Instance of Baguio and Benguet against the respondents of the
    mineral claims known as Bua Fraction Lode Mineral Claim, the
    identical mineral claim involved in the two Supreme Court decisions
    abovementioned. 

    5. The Court of First Instance ordered the partition of the Bua Fraction
    Lode Mineral Claim among the petitioner and respondents on the
    grounds of old mining law (Act No. 624 of Phil. Commission) and
    Original Certificate of Title No. P-404 stating that the locator is the
    owner not only of the minerals but also the surface grounds.

    RTC:

    CA:

    Petitioner’s Contention:

    Respondent’s
    Contention:

    SC Ruling: Whereas, there is an identity of parties and subject matter between the first two cases
    and the case at bar, thus, the doctrine of res judicata applies.

    The Court of First Instance, therefore, had neither power nor authority to adjudicate
    anew the rights of ownership of the parties over the ground surface to the extent of 1-
    ½ hectares of the Bua Fraction Lode Mineral Claim.

    The petition was denied due to lack of merit.

    Other/Notes: Ponente Justice Antonio

    You might also like