[ G.R. No. 2940. March 06, 1907 ] 7 Phil. 610
[ G.R. No. 2940. March 06, 1907 ]
JOSE FIANZA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. J. F. REAVIS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
The plaintiffs brought this action in the court below to enjoin the defendant from interfering with two gold mines alleged to be the property of the plaintiffs. A temporary injunction was granted as prayed for in the complaint; the case was tried in the court below and the injunction made perpetual. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he has brought the case here by bill of exceptions. The court below found, among other things, substantially as follows:
More than fifty years prior to the commencement of this suit one Toctoc, an Igorot, and the grandfather of Jose Fianza, one of the plaintiffs, was in the sole and exclusive possession of certain mineral lands containing gold quartz, situated in Antamoc, in the jurisdiction of Itogon, in the Province of Benguet. These lands, being the same in dispute in this case, were of irregular boundaries and contained about 183,000 square meters, and were situated on the slope of the mountain or hill called “Antamoc Mountain,” and were divided into two parts by a small arroyo called Antamoc, the mine on one side being known as “Antamoc” and on the other as “Ampasit.” The two mines were connected and formed one tract.
These lands or mines during the lifetime of Toctoc were opened and developed mines and worked from year to year after the style and manner of Igorot miners and their customs of mining; the said Toctoc claiming the ownership of said mines, and his title and ownership thereto were generally known and recognized by the people of the community and the vicinity.
Toctoc had no paper title to said mines under the Spanish Government. No title or concession was ever granted to Toctoc or his heirs and successors, and the plaintiffs have no such paper title thereto.
On the death of Toctoc his son, Dominguez, succeeded him in the possession and ownership of said mines, in all respects as his father had held and claimed them, and continued to so hold and claim and work them to the exclusion of any and all others, and without dispute, interference, or interruption until the date of his death, which occurred about ten years prior to the commencement of this suit. Upon the death of Dominguez, the plaintiff, Jose Fianza, and his coplaintiffs, as heirs at law of the said Toctoc and Dominguez, came into the possession of said mines under like claims of title and ownership, possessing, working, and claiming them as owners, to the exclusion of any and all other claimants, and without interference or adverse claims of any kind, and continued to do so up to the date of the commencement of this suit, except as stated thereafter in said decision.
The court further found that as in the case of Toctoc and Dominguez, the ownership of these heirs and claimants to these mines was well known and understood among the natives and residents generally of the province, including the Spanish officials, and generally recognized and their possession respected. For more than fifty years these mines were held and worked in this Igorot family, and at the time of the American occupation were well-known, discovered, improved, and developed mines, and had produced gold for many years, and were still producing gold. During all the time covered by the disputes that have arisen between the parties to this suit, some of the parties have been living upon and next to the lands in dispute, and holding possession thereof and working the same for themselves and their coclaimants. Three of the plaintiffs were there living in possession of said mines prior to the arrival of the defendant Reavis. They have continued since that time to so live upon and possess the same up to the date of the commencement of this suit, and without interruption, save by the acts of the defendant Reavis as thereinafter stated in said decision.
The court further found that in the month of March, 1901, the defendant Reavis entered upon the lands embraced in and next to the mines of the plaintiffs and upon the alleged information that said mines of the plaintiffs had been located under the Spanish Mining Law by one Hans Holman in the year 1896, and that said lands and mines were abandoned by the said Holman and were vacant mineral and public lands, proceeded to stake and locate three claims under the mining laws in force in the United States, and including the mines of the plaintiffs, which claims were named by the said Reavis the “Otek,” the “Texas,” and the “Clayton.” Immediately after this act of Reavis, the plaintiff, Fianza, for himself and his coplaintiffs, protested against the placing by Reavis of the stakes upon his mines, and made a formal protest to H. P. Whitmarsh, then governor of Benguet. In May, 1902, the plaintiff, Fianza, again made a formal protest to William F. Pack, then governor of the Province of Benguet, of the trespass and usurpation of Reavis upon the mines in question. A hearing was had before the governor, in which Reavis took part, and it was agreed between the plaintiffs and Reavis that Reavis would not interfere with the actual possession of the plaintiffs and their working of the mines, and that the plaintiffs should not prevent Reavis from coming upon the land from time to time for the purpose of doing assessment work, and that this should continue until the questions in dispute between them could be submitted to the Court of First Instance for decision. A few days after this, and before July 1, 1902, the plaintiffs caused the boundaries of their claims and mines to be distinctly marked by substantial posts and monuments. These posts were placed by the plaintiffs prior to the locations under which the defendant Reavis now claims. Prior to July 1, 1902, Fianza placed upon a building standing upon the property in question a wooden sign with a printed notice thereon stating that they were his mines. A few days thereafter Reavis removed the sign and broke it up. On the 10th day of October, 1902, Reavis made and caused to be recorded in the office of the provincial secretary of Benguet three several declarations for claims or mines named by him “Otek,” “Clayton,” and “Texas,” covering the same ground as his three previous attempts to locate under the United States mining laws.
Reavis having presented evidence to show that Vicente Carrera in the year 1896, and Hans Holman in the same year, denounced these mines in accordance with the Spanish mining laws, the court found that neither of these alleged denouncements were in fact made at any time, and that no denouncement, location, or entry upon the lands in question had ever been made by any person under the Spanish mining laws in force in these Islands.
The court further found that Reavis entered upon the mines in the year 1901 and staked out his three claims in the honest, though mistaken, belief that the same were included in an abandoned and forfeited Spanish grant of Holman’s, and that at the time of his entry thereon and the setting of his stakes he had no actual knowledge that the Igorots, who were then living upon the lands, claimed the ownership of said mines, but that within a few days after this entry he received notice of the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership and before he had expended any considerable amount of either time, labor, or money thereon. When he made his locations and filed the declarations, under which he now claims, he had full knowledge of the claims of ownership of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs were at that date, and for a long time prior thereto, and before the passing and approval of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, had been in the actual possession and working of said mines.
Up to the month of May, 1902, Reavis was not in the actual and continuous possession of the lands embraced in his attempted locations and his only possession was when he entered thereon from time to time to do assessment and development work, and his possession for such purposes was maintained by threats and intimidation and against the protest of the plaintiffs.
In the year 1901 the plaintiffs took from the said mines gold of the weight of 40 silver pesos; in the year 1902, the weight of 70 silver pesos; and in the year 1903, the weight of 90 silver pesos.
The above statement of facts found by the court below is not complete, but it is sufficient, we think, for the purposes of this decision.
The first defense to the action is, according to the brief of the appellant, that the land sued for is not described in the complaint with sufficient certainty or definiteness to support a judgment for the plaintiff.
During the trial in the court below, the complaint was, by leave of the court and against the objection and exception of the defendant, amended so that the first paragraph should read as follows:
“First. For many years, the number of which is unknown to your orators, they and their ancestors have owned, possessed, and worked two gold mines lying in the barrio of Antamoc, in the township of Itogon, Province of Benguet, the description of which mines appears in plaintiff’s Exhibit C, which is hereby made a part of this complaint, the boundaries of which mines are marked by posts set in the ground, which boundaries are well known to all of your orators’ neighbors, said mines being well developed, open mines called ‘Antamoc’ and ‘Ampasit.’”
Exhibit C which is thus made a part of the complaint is a plan made by a surveyor. It gives the courses and distances of the boundary lines, the boundaries by reference to natural objects, and the relation of such objects by distances to the lines of the survey. According to the brief of the defendant, the land described in this plan is 1,542 feet on one side, 1,075 feet on the second side, 887 feet on another side, and 742 feet on the fourth side, and there can be no doubt that the tract of land described in this Exhibit C can be accurately located upon the ground. There is, therefore, no doubt that the description contained in the amended complaint is sufficient.
The real objection is that the court erred in allowing the amendment. In view of the provisions of sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to amendments, this objection can not be sustained.
The second defense, according to the appellant’s brief, is that the record does not disclose how or in what way the land claimed by plaintiffs conflicts with defendants locations.
More or less evidence was offered to show where the defendant’s claims were. It is apparent that all or nearly all of the defendant’s location “Otek” is outside of the land claimed by the plaintiffs. It is also proven that some if not all of the other two locations are within the land claimed by the plaintiffs. We do not see how it is important to determine exactly the location of the defendant’s claims. The location of the plaintiffs’ land is determined with accuracy and the judgment of the court below prohibits the defendant from interfering with that well-defined and well-ascertained tract of land, and there can be no trouble in enforcing that judgment so far as the description of the property is concerned.
The third defense, according to the appellant’s brief, is that the plaintiffs have never possessed or mined any particular tract of ground under claim of ownership to the exclusion of all others.
It will be noticed that the court below found to the contrary of what is stated in this defense. We can not reverse the judgment unless it appears that this and other findings of fact, made by the court below, are plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. (De la Rama vs. De la Rama, 201 U S., 303.) We are entirely satisfied that no such conclusion can be reached and we are also satisfied that the evidence not only is not contrary to the findings, but that the latter are supported by the preponderance of proof.
So much stress is laid upon this point by the appellant that it seems necessary to consider in some detail the evidence. The appellant upon this point claims, first, that there never were any mines, as that word is properly understood, on the land in question, but merely slight excavations which were abandoned practically as soon as made, and, second, that plaintiffs have not, in any event, been in the continuous possession of the mines.
Upon the first question, as to whether these were real mines or not, it appears from the record that on the 31st of January, 1901, and before Reavis ever appeared in Antamoc, Fianza, one of the plaintiffs, made written declarations “relativas a las dos partidas de Minas de oro, que radican en Antamoc, de esta jurisdiccion, las cuales venian disfrutando desde mas de veintidos años, habiendolas recibido como herencia, de sus antepasados.” These declarations were made for the purposes of taxation, and on the 11th of February, 1901, he paid the taxes on this and other property, as he did also in 1902 and 1903.
That these were certain, definite, and well-known mines is proved by the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses. Vicente Carrera, who said that he had denounced the mines, testified: “I denounced the mines which are situated at the eastern part of the houses named Antamoc and I also denounced the mines situated on the western part of the houses which were called Ampasit.
* * * * *
“Q. What work, if any, did you ever do on that ground after you denounced them?
“A. Nothing, because they were not ceded to us, with the exception of the road we made which goes to the mines. * * * We had to build a road from the main trail to the mouth of the mine.”
He testified also that he bought gold from Dominguez, and when asked where Dominguez got this gold he said:
“A. I don’t know, but I think he got it from Antamoc, because I know the nature of the fineness of the gold from these mines.
“Q. And then the people were already working these mines you denounced?
“A. Yes. * * *
“Q. Do you know who, according to public rumor was the owner of those mines?
“A. Public rumor among the Igorots was that they were the mines and property of Dominguez.”
Robiera, another witness for the defendant testified:
“I have seen the excavations from a distance. From a distance I saw where dirt had been thrown up out of the excavations, but I never have been up to the mines.”
Francisco Velancio, another witness for the defendant, testified:
“Q. How many times did you see Fianza and his father go up to these mines in Antamoc?
“A. I saw his father going up there often.
“Q. How often did you see Fianza going up to the mines?
“A. Sometimes I saw him in the mines at Antamoc.”
Hans Holman, another witness for the defendant, on whose adverse claim to this same property the defendant relies to defeat the prescription alleged by the plaintiffs, shows the existence of well-defined mines. He testified:
“A. We denounced that mine and the papers which we made out were burnt up in the comandancia during the Spanish Government. We commenced the denouncement of that mine in 1896.”
H. P. Whitmarsh, a witness for the defendant, testified:
“A. Yes. The first trip I made up to the Trinidad I went over to Antamoc. I went there to get information about the mines and the country. I was a newspaper reporter then. * * *
“Q. Did you have any talk with him (Fianza) in reference to mines in Antamoc?
“A. All about the mines in the vicinity. He advised me to go over to Antamoc to look at them.”
J. E. Kelly, a witness for the defendant, testified that he became acquainted with the property now claimed by Reavis in January, 1901, when he first arrived in Benguet; that having learned that Holman had an interest therein he went to Manila to see him in March or April of the same year “with a view to purchasing his Antamoc holdings.” Holman then told him that he had a mine there.
Reavis knew of Holman’s claim, and before he did anything at all upon the property went to see him and was told by Holman that he, Holman, had a certain number of meters there and that anyone could tell him where the property was. Reavis made no further investigation, and a few days thereafter, and in March, 1901, made his first entry upon the land. The following question was asked Reavis by his counsel:
“Q. What induced you to locate upon land which had been pointed out to you as Holman’s grant?
“A. Because I had learned previously that there were no grants in this part of the country, and thinking that Mr. Holman had not complied with any of the laws and didn’t intend to, I thought I would go into it and see what chance I had with it.”
Commenting apparently upon this answer, the court below in its decision said:
“He went to Antamoc to stake out land for himself that he believed was then claimed by another—in the vernacular of the miner, to ‘jump Hans Holman’s claim.’ He was not prospecting for a mine and for hidden minerals; he went to locate a mine already discovered and mineral uncovered and worked for more than a half a century. He found honest American miners and prospectors already there with claims staked all about the land that they believed was claimed by another and for the protection of which the opened, developed, and worked mine the rumor of an owner was amply sufficient to protect it from invasion and trespass.”
Reavis was asked this question:
“Q. How long did you prospect at Antamoc before you discovered a mine?
“A. About half an hour or an hour; I discovered that it was a mineral country.”
William Knouber, another witness for the defendant, testified that while a soldier in the American Army at Bautista he became acquainted with a Spaniard, Teodoro Miguel, who had been in Benguet. He brought Miguel to Manila and afterwards took him to Baguio and was at Antamoc on the 9th of January, 1900. He was asked this question:
“Q. Did you make any inquiries as to whether or not there were any mining claims in Antamoc?
“A. Yes, sir. That is mostly what I went there for.
* * * * *
“A. The Spaniard and I went down to Itogon. We looked for the president or someone that knew of this mine or property, who it belonged to, and who was supposed to own it. This man Fianza said he knew the property and knew it belonged to Mr. Holman. * * * Of course we couldn’t do anything, so when I went back to Manila I went to see Mr. Holman about it and he showed me maps and papers of the different pieces of property.”
Knouber testified that he went out to the property with Fianza, who pointed out Holman’s stakes, and that he then saw men digging upon the land included within the stakes.
That this claim of Holman’s is the same land now claimed by the plaintiffs is proved by the testimony of Holman himself. Exhibit C having been shown him, he stated:
“Q. Is this paper, plaintiffs’ Exhibit C, the plan of the ground you located?
“A. It is.
“Q. How do you know this is the same land you denounced?
“A. I went there myself.
“Q. By what mark do you recognize that as the same land?
“A. It is the same upon which I placed stakes.
“Q. Were your stakes placed in the same position as the stakes indicated on this map?
“A. Yes.”
Fianza testified that he pointed out to the surveyor the boundaries indicated by the posts and designated on the plan, and added that they were the same boundaries which were shown to him by his father.
It is, therefore, well established by the evidence that Holman’s claim related to well-known mines and that these are the same mines which are now claimed by the plaintiffs. Nearly every witness interested in mining presented by the defense, upon arrival in Benguet went at once to Antamoc and made inquiries about these precise mines, and Kelly, Reavis himself, and Knouber saw Holman, apparently for the purpose of making some contract with him in reference thereto.
The defendant relies very much upon the testimony of certain American miners who at the time of the trial had been in the country about three years, and who undertook to testify as to the mining customs of the Igorots, saying that they mined one day in one place and that if they found no gold they mined somewhere else, and that they never made any claim to the exclusive ownership of any tract of land. All of these witnesses had mining claims similar to that of Reavis. The claim of Clyde adjoins that of Reavis. It is to be observed that in their testimony they made no reference to this particular tract of land. They did not say that, as to this particular tract of land, there never had been any claim made by an Igorot to exclusive ownership. But in no event could this general testimony overcome the positive testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, many having been presented who testified that the land was worked exclusively by Fianza and his ancestors, and that other people were kept off.
Fianza’s statement, quoted by the appellant, to the effect that “our custom is if we do not find gold in 1 fathom or 2 fathoms, we make another place until we do find something” is entirely consistent with his claim to the exclusive ownership of this property. The fact that he and his ancestors moved around and dug holes in different places upon this property appears from the evidence. The witnesses testified that on the property there were a great many excavations.
The property in question being certain well-known and well-defined mines, the next question is, Did the plaintiffs and their ancestors have the exclusive possession and control of the same? The testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses is positive and direct that Toctoc and Dominguez worked these mines and that no one else did, and that since the death of Dominguez, Fianza has worked them in the same way. The defendant claims, however, that this possession has been interrupted. The first interruption relied upon, apparently, is what was done by Vicente Carrera in 1896, but it is apparent from the testimony of Carrera, already quoted, that whatever he might have done in relation to filing papers in the government office at Baguio, he never did anything upon the land itself. The building of his trail, 1 meter wide, up to the mines could in no sense be called an interruption of the possession of Fianza and his associates. It was a mere casual trespass.
Neither did the claim of Holman interrupt this possession of the plaintiffs. He never obtained any concession from the Government. None of the acts required by the law, then in force, were done by him except perhaps the presentation of one paper in the office at Baguio, and the payment of certain fees. Under the said laws, these acts could not in any way interrupt the possession then held by Fianza. If in pursuance of this attempt he had actually entered upon the land and had ousted Fianza and kept the possession himself, it might be claimed that there had been an interruption of the latter’s possession, but his own evidence shows that nothing of that kind was ever done. The only thing which he did do was to survey the land and place stakes thereon. This act was not an interruption of the possession of Fianza. (Balpiedad vs. Insular Government,[1] 4 Off. Gaz., 390.) Just what Holman did appears from his own testimony. He said:
“Q. Did you buy these gold mines from the Igorots or anyone else?
“A. No; I only denounced them to the Spanish Government.
* * * * *
“Q. What is the reason you didn’t continue your denuncia?
“A. I was afraid. I left that mine because I am not a miner.
“Q. Was it in 1898 or 1899 when you quit the mines then?
“A. No, I didn’t work the mines. I didn’t care to. I only bought the gold.
“Q. Did you ever hire any work done on these mines?
“A. No; no one.
“Q. Did anyone pay for the work for you?
“A. They worked for me. I didn’t pay for their work, but the gold.
“Q. In what capacity did you make contracts with the Igorots to work those mines?
“A. I didn’t make any contracts.
“Q. Didn’t I understand you to say that you made contracts with certain Igorots to mine there and they gave you a certain part of the gold as owner of the mine?
“A. No.
“Q. Did you have any contracts with Igorots at all?
“A. No.
“Q. I mean after you denounced the mines of Antamoc?
“A. Yes; I told the Igorots that were working there that they must give the gold to me and not sell to any other one. That was the contract.”
It is very clear that these acts constituted no interruption of the possession of Fianza. And so Fianza’s possession continued up to the time of Reavis. Reavis entered upon the land and staked the claims in March, 1901. Fianza at once protested to Governor Whitmarsh. Governor Whitmarsh testified that Fianza “came and said that some American had taken up property which he claimed and he wanted me to throw the American off. I told him, as far as I knew, there was no law under which he could do anything at that time and I advised him to put the matter off until something more definite was provided. At that time I was the governor under the Civil Government and very little was done under the laws.”
Whitmarsh having refused to do anything, when Governor Pack arrived, Fianza, in 1902, made a written protest to him. Reavis was summoned before the governor, a hearing was had, and an agreement was made as stated in the findings of the court.
On the 9th of May, 1902, Fianza’s claim was staked by Wagner, who testified that he found there old stakes, evidently those of Holman’s, and Wagner then made out for Fianza a written claim to the mines, which was filed in Baguio. Fianza posted a notice on the property, which Reavis tore down and broke to pieces. While Reavis says in several places that none of the Igorots made any protest, yet having testified that he did not know the Igorot language, he was asked:
“Q. Then, if you couldn’t understand him, you didn’t know whether he ever protested to you about the Igorot mines which you claim?
“A. I think he did. Yes.”
That Fianza and his associates were in possession of the mines in 1901, 1902, and 1903 is proved by the fact that during those years they took therefrom gold to the amount indicated in the findings of the court in that respect. We have not been able to find any evidence to the effect that Reavis took any gold at all from this property during those years. The work that Reavis did was evidently that which he thought was required by the law. Most of it appears from the evidence to have been done on the claim called “Otek,” which is outside of the boundaries of the plaintiffs’ claim. The fact that some of the Igorots worked for Reavis is not important, because that work might have been and probably was done upon the claim “Otek,” upon which was situated Reavis’ house, and where, as said before, the principal part of his work was done.
A great many witnesses for the defendant testified that they had talked with Fianza and that he did not make any claim to this land, and said that it was Holman’s. Evidence of these admissions is not sufficient to show that the findings of the court below as to plaintiffs’ ownership is plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Fianza denied the making of such admissions. Most of the witnesses did not speak or understand Igorot, and under such circumstances no great weight can be given to such alleged admissions. For example, Reavis testified:
“Q. If you don’t know his language and he doesn’t know yours, how, then, could you understand him?
“A. I believe that a man can understand a word or two. It would seem to me that he could explain it by saying ‘vamoose’ or something like that and I could understand it.”
The essential findings of fact made by the court below being sustained by the evidence, it remains to consider what, in view of such facts, are the legal rights of the parties.
Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant ever acquired any title to this property by virtue of the provisions of the Spanish law. It was, therefore, at the time the Islands were ceded to the United States, public property, and these lands are public lands to which the provisions of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, are applicable. (32 U. S. Stat. L., 691.) Section 45 of that act is as follows:
“SEC. 45. That where such person or association, they and their grantors have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of limitations of the Philippine Islands, evidence of such possession and working of the claims for such period shall be sufficient to establish a right to a patent thereto under this act, in the absence of any adverse claim; but nothing in this act shall be deemed to impair any lien which may have attached in any way whatever prior to the issuance of a patent.”
This is the provision of law upon which the court below decided the case in favor of the plaintiffs. This view of that court must, in our opinion, be sustained. The statute of limitations of the Philippine Islands in force on July 1, 1902, was ten years. According to the evidence and the findings, the plaintiffs had held and worked these claims for more than that length of time prior to the 1st day of July, 1902. They had for more than forty years prior to that date been in the possession thereof. That possession had been open, notorious, continuous, and under a claim of ownership.
That possession has not been interrupted. It is certain that neither Carrera nor Holman nor Reavis ever dispossessed the plaintiffs. They remained in possession and worked these mines during all the years 1901, 1902, and 1903 while Reavis was in Antamoc. Whatever he did upon the land was done while the plaintiffs still remained in the actual possession thereof. As before stated, the court found that Reavis’s only possession was when he entered on the land from time to time to do assessment and development work, and his possession for such purposes was maintained by threats and intimidation, and against the protests of the plaintiffs.
It is claimed by the appellant that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit of this section 45 because they made no location of the property ten years before the passing of the act. We do not understand that such a location is required by the terms of that section. In the case of Belk vs. Meagher (104 U. S., 279) the court said, at page 287:
“Under the provisions of the Revised Statutes relied on, Belk could not get a patent for the claim he attempted to locate unless he secured what is here made the equivalent of a valid location by actually holding and working for the requisite time.”
Whether the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, took effect in these Islands at the time it was signed by the President (Gardner vs. The Collector, 6 Wall., 499) or when it was promulgated, it is not necessary to determine, for in either case the rights of the plaintiffs were fixed by that act before Reavis, in October, 1902, took any proceedings thereunder. When the act took effect the plaintiffs became entitled to a patent thereto from the Government.
It is suggested by the defendant that section 45 does not apply because it relates to cases in which there is no adverse claim, and that in the present case there exists the adverse claim of Reavis. It is evident that if a person is otherwise entitled to a tract of land in accordance with the provisions of said section 45, his right can not be taken away by the mere fact that some other person makes a claim adverse to his. If such were the construction to be placed upon the section, its object might be entirely defeated, for in every case adverse claims, entirely unfounded, could be presented for that purpose only. It is plain that that provision in section 45 indicates merely that the proceedings for the delivery of the patent shall be delayed until the validity of the adverse claim is determined in the courts of justice. When locations are regularly made under the act and adverse claims are filed thereto, section 39 provides that all proceedings “shall be stayed until the controversy shall have been settled or decided by a court of competent jurisdiction or the adverse claim waived.” The provisions of section 39 undoubtedly are in this respect applicable to such adverse claim as is mentioned in section 45.
It appears from the evidence and the findings of the court that some time in the spring of 1901 four or five American miners living in Benguet undertook to establish the “Antamoc mining district,” and to appoint a mining recorder. With this mining recorder Reavis filed certain locations on a part of the property in question. These steps were taken and these proceedings were had in accordance with what the organizers of this district thought to be the laws in force in the United States in regard to mines. These laws were not in force in the Philippine Islands at that time and the proceedings of the persons who thus organized the “Antamoc mining district” were entirely null and void.
The locations made by Reavis in accordance with the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, were not made until October of that year. They were made after the rights of the plaintiffs had become vested in accordance with the provisions of said section 45, and therefore such locations can not prejudice the plaintiffs. The court below held that even these locations were invalid, in accordance with the said act. It is not necessary, however, to determine this question.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, and Mapa, JJ., concur.