Separate Concurring Opinion 29 G.R. No. 224469 possession of which belonged to an Igorot named Toctoc. The gold mines were developed by Igorot miners in accordance with their customs. 143 Toctoc neither had any paper title over the mines nor was he granted concession by the Spanish Government. This notwithstanding, Toctoc's "title and ownership thereto were generally known and recognized by the people of the community[,]" including the Spanish officials. 144 Upon Toctoc's death, the mines' possession and ownership passed on to his heirs, which included Fianza. Toctoc's heirs continued to live and work on the mines without interruption. However, in 1901, Reavis entered upon the subject mines and proceeded to stake his claims on them. Reavis was in the honest but mistaken belief that the mines were part of the abandoned and forfeited Spanish grant of a certain Holman. Insisting ownership over the mines, Fianza filed a formal protest against Reavis. 145 When the case reached the United States Supreme Court, it sustained Fianza's claim of ownership of the mines and decreed: The appellees are Igorrots [sic], and it is found that, for fifty years, and probably for many more, Fianza and his ancestors have held possession of these mines. He now claims title under the Philippine act of July 1, 1902, chap. 1369, 45, 32 Stat. at L. 691. This section reads as follows: '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.' It is not disputed that this section applies to possession maintained for a sufficient time before and until the statute went into effect. . . . The period of prescription at that time was ten years. . . Therefore, as the United States had not had the sovereignty of the Philippines for ten years, the section, notwithstanding its similarity to Rev. Stat. 2332, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1433, must be taken to refer to the conditions as they were before the United States had come into power. Especially must it be supposed to have had in view the natives of ... the islands, and to have intended to do liberal justice to them. By 16, their occupancy of public lands is respected and made to confer rights. In dealing with an Igorrot [sic] of the provinee of' Benguet, it would be absurd to expect technical niceties, and the courts below were quite justified in their liberal mode of dealing with the evidence of possession and the possibly rather gradual 143 144 145 Fianza v. Reavis, 7 Phil. 610, 613-614 (1907) [Per J. Willard, En Banc]. Id. at 614. Id. at 615.