Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 352 views

    Mcdaniel V Apacible and Cuisia

    Uploaded by

    Eduardo Reyes
    1) On June 7, 1916, E. W. Mcdaniel located three petroleum placer mineral claims called "Maglihi No. 1," "Maglihi No. 2," and "Maglihi No. 3" on unoccupied public land in San Narciso, Tayabas and recorded the claims. 2) In 1921, Juan Cuisia applied for a lease over the same land, which included Mcdaniel's three claims. Mcdaniel protested the inclusion of his claims. 3) The court ruled that Mcdaniel's valid and perfected appropriation of the claims under the law gave him a property right over the claims, and the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mcdaniel V Apacible and Cuisia

    Uploaded by

    Eduardo Reyes
    352 views2 pages
    1) On June 7, 1916, E. W. Mcdaniel located three petroleum placer mineral claims called "Maglihi No. 1," "Maglihi No. 2," and "Maglihi No. 3" on unoccupied public land in San Narciso, Tayabas and recorded the claims. 2) In 1921, Juan Cuisia applied for a lease over the same land, which included Mcdaniel's three claims. Mcdaniel protested the inclusion of his claims. 3) The court ruled that Mcdaniel's valid and perfected appropriation of the claims under the law gave him a property right over the claims, and the

    Original Description:

    LTD case

    Original Title

    Mcdaniel v Apacible and Cuisia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) On June 7, 1916, E. W. Mcdaniel located three petroleum placer mineral claims called "Maglihi No. 1," "Maglihi No. 2," and "Maglihi No. 3" on unoccupied public land in San Narciso, Tayabas and recorded the claims. 2) In 1921, Juan Cuisia applied for a lease over the same land, which included Mcdaniel's three claims. Mcdaniel protested the inclusion of his claims. 3) The court ruled that Mcdaniel's valid and perfected appropriation of the claims under the law gave him a property right over the claims, and the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    352 views2 pages

    Mcdaniel V Apacible and Cuisia

    Uploaded by

    Eduardo Reyes
    1) On June 7, 1916, E. W. Mcdaniel located three petroleum placer mineral claims called "Maglihi No. 1," "Maglihi No. 2," and "Maglihi No. 3" on unoccupied public land in San Narciso, Tayabas and recorded the claims. 2) In 1921, Juan Cuisia applied for a lease over the same land, which included Mcdaniel's three claims. Mcdaniel protested the inclusion of his claims. 3) The court ruled that Mcdaniel's valid and perfected appropriation of the claims under the law gave him a property right over the claims, and the

    Copyright:

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

    Mcdaniel v Apacible and Cuisia

    Facts:
    On or about June 7, 1916, E. W. Mcdaniel entered upon and located, in
    accordance with the provisions of Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, as well as the
    provisions of Act No. 624 of the Philippine Commission, three petroleum placer
    mineral claims on an unoccupied public land in San Narciso, Tayabas. He recorded in
    the office of the mining recorder in the municipality of Lucena notices of location of
    the aforesaid three placer claims under the names of "Maglihi No. 1," "Maglihi No.
    2," and "Maglihi No. 3. Since of June 17, 1916, Mcdaniel has remained in open and
    continuous possession of said three mineral placer claims. In the year 1917 and in
    each year thereafter, he performed not less than two hundred pesos (P200) worth of
    labor on each of the said three mineral claims. In 1918, he drilled five wells on the
    said three mineral claims, and by means of such wells made discoveries of
    petroleum on each of three claims. On or about June 18, 1921, Juan Cuisia made
    application to Galicano Apacible, as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
    under Act No. 2932, for a lease of a parcel of petroleum land in the municipality of
    San Narciso, Tayabas, which said parcel of land included within its boundaries the
    three said mineral claims "Maglihi No. 1," "Maglihi No. 2," and "Maglihi No. 3,". Upon
    the filing of the application for lease, Mcdaniel protested in writing to Apacible
    against the inclusion of the three mineral claims which the latter denied. Hence,
    the petition for writ of prohibition.

    Issue:
    Whether a perfected and valid appropriation of a mineral land give rise to
    acquisition of property rights over the said mineral land.
    Ruling:
    Yes, the general rule is that a perfected, valid appropriation of public mineral
    lands operates as a withdrawal of the tract from the body of the public domain, and
    so long as such appropriation remains valid and subsisting, the land covered
    thereby is deemed private property. A mining claim perfected under the law is

    property in the highest sense, which may be sold and conveyed and will pass by
    descent. It has the effect of a grant (patent) by the United States of the right of
    present and exclusive possession of the lands located. And even though the locator
    may obtain a patent to such lands, his patent adds but little to his security.
    Actual and continuous occupation of a valid mining location, based upon
    discovery, is not essential to the preservation of the possessory right. The right is
    lost only by abandonment as by nonperformance of the annual labor required.
    The moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral deposit on the lands
    located, and perfected his location in accordance with law, the power of the United
    States Government to deprive him of the exclusive right to the possession and
    enjoyment of the located claim was gone, the lands had become mineral lands and
    they were exempted from lands that could be granted to any other person.
    Inasmuch as the petitioner had located, held and perfected his location of the
    mineral lands in question, and had actually discovered petroleum oil therein, he had
    acquired a property right in said claims; that said Act No. 2932, which deprives him
    of such right, without due process of law, is in conflict with section 3 of the Jones
    Law, and is therefore unconstitutional and void. The writ of prohibition is granted.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy