[Solved] Minerals are still owned by the state even if discovered from a private land.

Q.	Minerals are still owned by the state even if discovered from a private land.
A.	Yes, provided the land is not titled.
B.	Yes, because the constitution so provides.
C.	No, if the land is titled to a private person.
D.	No, it will violate property and property rights.
Answer» B. Yes, because the constitution so provides.

1.6k

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

A and B are married. A, with the use of fraud, sold a parcel of land belonging to them in 1990. B discovered it in 2011. Can he still file an action to declare the sale void?
Mr. Ayco offered to sell his land to Mr. Cruz for P300,000. Mr. Cruz accepted the offer and paid Mr. Ayco the purchase price. Mr. Ayco delivered the owner’s duplicate of the Transfer Certificate of title of the land. Mr. Cruz wants to register the land in his name but the Register of Deeds asks Mr. Cruz for the Deed of Sale. What can Mr. Cruz do?
X executed a will instituting his heirs. It was discovered 15 years after his death, hence, the heirs consulted you whether they can still file a petition for its probate, considering that they have already extrajudicially settled his estate. What is your advice?
Which provision of the Condominium Act (RA 4796) is correct? 1. A condominium corporation shall not, during its existence, sell, exchange, and lease or otherwise dispose of the common areas owned by or held by in the condominium project unless authorized by the affirmative vote of all the stockholders or members. 2. Whenever real property has been divided into condominiums, each condominium separately owned shall be separately assessed, for purposes of real property taxation and other tax purposes, to the owners thereof and tax on each such condominium shall constitute a lien solely thereon.
Miss X, is a passenger in a jeepney driven by Mr. D and owned by Mr. O. The jeepney was rear-ended by another jeep owned by Mr. TP. Investigations disclosed that the fault was due to the driver of Mr. TP. Which is not correct?
A husband by chance discovered hidden treasures on the paraphernal property of his wife, who owns the discovered treasure.
.Mr. X lost heavily in a private gambling with Mr. Y. He still owes Mr. Y P250,000 representing losses. Which is not true?
X and Y entered into a contract of sale over a parcel of land with an area of 4,000 square meters more or less. When the title was issued, it was 14,475 sq. meters. The buyer contended that he owned the whole lot of 14,475 sq. meters as it was sold in lump sum, hence, the seller should deliver the whole lot. Is the buyer correct?
A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by a TCT No. 1. B stole the title, forged his signature and transferred it under his name. TCT No. 2 was issued under his name. He sold it to C who registered under his name. When returned to the Philippine in 2010, he discovered that his title was transferred to another. Can he recover the same?
Santos owes Maria P5 million. The debt is secured by a mortgaged on the house of Santos. No. 1 - If before the due date, the security is lost through no one’s fault, Maria can declare the debt due and demandable even before the original maturity date. No. 2 - If the house was burned up to 25% its value through the fault of Santos, the debt may be declared due by Maria even before the original maturity date but she cannot do so if the impairment was without the fault of Santos.