Mcdaniel vs apacble

Facts:

The petitioner 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, each of an area of 64 hectares, on an unoccupied public land in the
municipality of San Narciso, Province of Tayabas, Philippine Islands.

the plaintiff recorded in the office of the mining recorder in the municipality of Lucena, Province of
Tayabas, Philippine Islands, notices of location of the aforesaid three placer claims under the names
of "Maglihi No. 1," "Maglihi No. 2," and "Maglihi No. 3.

The plaintiff, at all times since the 7th day of June, 1916, has remained in open and continuous
possession of said three mineral placer claims. In the year 1918 plaintiff drilled five wells on the said
three mineral claims, and by means of such wells in the said year (1918) made discoveries of
petroleum on each of the said three claims

The respondent Juan Cuisia made application to the respondent Galicano Apacible, as Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, under the provisions of Act No. 2932 of the Philippine
Legislature, for a lease of a parcel of petroleum land in the municipality of San Narciso, Province of
Tayabas, Philippine Islands, which said parcel of land included within its boundaries the three said
mineral claims "Maglihi No. 1," "Maglihi No. 2," and "Maglihi No. 3," which said three mineral placer
claims had therefore been located as above indicated and held by the plaintiff.

upon the filing of the said application for lease, as described in the paragraph immediately
preceding, by the said Juan Cuisia, the petitioner herein protested in writing to the respondent
Galicano Apacible against the inclusion in the said lease of the said three mineral claims "Maglihi
No. 1," "Maglihi No. 2," and "Maglihi No. 3," located and held by him.

Galicano Apacible, as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources deny petitioner's said protest.

Upon the foregoing facts the petitioner contends that said Act No. 2932, in so far as it purports to
declare open to lease, lands containing petroleum oil on which mineral claims have been validly
located and held, and upon which discoveries of petroleum oil have been made, is void and
unconstitutional, in that it deprives the petitioner of his property without due process of law and
without compensation.

Issue:

Won the petitioner had acquired a property right in said claims

Held:

From all of the foregoing arguments and authorities we must conclude that, 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. Therefore the demurrer herein is
hereby overruled, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that, unless the respondents answer the
petition herein within a period of five days from notice hereof, that a final judgment be entered,
granting the remedy prayed for in the petition. So ordered.