<PAGE>
                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549



                                    Form 10-Q


                Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
                     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


                  For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2002


                           Commission File No. 1-8032


                          SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

                 Texas                                       75-6279898
      (State or other jurisdiction                        (I.R.S. Employer
   of incorporation or organization)                     Identification No.)


                        Bank One, N.A., Trust Department
                                 P. O. Box 2604
                             Fort Worth, Texas 76113
                    (Address of principal executive offices)
                                   (Zip Code)

                          Telephone Number 817/884-4630
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X]  No [ ]

Number of Units of beneficial interest outstanding at May 14, 2002:  46,608,796


                                  Page 1 of 15
<PAGE>



                          SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

                                     PART I
                              FINANCIAL INFORMATION


ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The condensed financial statements included herein have been prepared by Bank
One, N.A. as Trustee for the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the "Trust"), without
audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in
annual financial statements have been condensed or omitted pursuant to Rule
10-01 of Regulation S-X promulgated under the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, although the Trustee believes that the disclosures are adequate to make
the information presented not misleading. These condensed financial statements
should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes
thereto included in the Trust's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001. In the opinion of the Trustee, all adjustments, consisting
only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary to present fairly the assets,
liabilities and trust corpus of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust at March 31,
2002, and the distributable income and changes in trust corpus for the
three-month periods ended March 31, 2002 and 2001 have been included. The
distributable income for such interim periods is not necessarily indicative of
the distributable income for the full year.






                                       2
<PAGE>





SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS

<Table>
<Caption>

                                                                MARCH 31,       DECEMBER 31,
ASSETS                                                            2002               2001
                                                               (UNAUDITED)

<S>                                                           <C>               <C>
Cash and short-term investments ............................  $   3,118,543     $     191,620
Net overriding royalty interest in producing
   oil and gas properties (net of accumulated
   amortization of $95,796,483 and $95,415,779
   at March 31, 2002 and December 31, 2001, respectively)        37,479,045        37,859,749
                                                              -------------     -------------

                                                              $  40,597,588     $  38,051,369
                                                              =============     =============
LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS

Distribution payable to Unit holders .......................  $   3,003,685     $         -0-
Cash reserves ..............................................        114,858           191,620
Trust corpus - 46,608,796 Units of beneficial
   interest authorized and outstanding .....................     37,479,045        37,859,749
                                                              -------------     -------------

                                                              $  40,597,588     $  38,051,369
                                                              =============     =============
</Table>



CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTABLE INCOME (UNAUDITED)

<Table>
<Caption>

                                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                     MARCH 31,
                                                           -----------------------------
                                                               2002             2001

<S>                                                        <C>              <C>
Royalty income .......................................     $  3,925,355     $ 37,489,972
Interest income ......................................              746           59,067
Decrease in cash reserves ............................           76,761               --
                                                           ------------     ------------
                                                              4,002,862       37,549,039

General and administrative expenditures ..............          475,850          286,524
                                                           ------------     ------------

Distributable income .................................     $  3,527,012     $ 37,262,515
                                                           ============     ============

Distributable income per Unit (46,608,796 Units) .....     $    .075673     $    .799474
                                                           ============     ============
</Table>

The accompanying notes to condensed financial statements are an integral part of
these statements.




                                       3
<PAGE>




SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN TRUST CORPUS (UNAUDITED)

<Table>
<Caption>

                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                              MARCH 31,
                                                    ------------------------------
                                                         2002              2001
<S>                                                 <C>               <C>
Trust corpus, beginning of period                   $ 37,859,749      $ 40,686,854
Amortization of net overriding royalty interest         (380,704)       (1,167,692)
Distributable income                                   3,527,012        37,262,515
Distributions declared                                (3,527,012)      (37,262,515)
                                                    ------------      ------------

Total corpus, end of period                         $ 37,479,045      $ 39,519,162
                                                    ============      ============
</Table>

The accompanying notes to condensed financial statements are an integral part of
these statements.




                                       4
<PAGE>




SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

NOTES TO CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.       BASIS OF ACCOUNTING

         The San Juan Basin Royalty Trust was established as of November 1,
         1980. The financial statements of the Trust are prepared on the
         following basis:

         o        Royalty income recorded for a month is the amount computed and
                  paid by the working interest owner, Burlington Resources Oil &
                  Gas Company LP f/k/a Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company
                  ("BROG"), to the Trustee for the Trust. Royalty income
                  consists of the amounts received by the owner of the interest
                  burdened by the net overriding royalty interest ("Royalty")
                  from the sale of production less accrued production costs,
                  development and drilling costs, applicable taxes, operating
                  charges, and other costs and deductions, multiplied by 75%.

         o        Trust expenses recorded are based on liabilities paid and cash
                  reserves established from Royalty income for liabilities and
                  contingencies.

         o        Distributions to Unit holders are recorded when declared by
                  the Trustee.

         o        The conveyance which transferred the overriding royalty
                  interest to the Trust provides that any excess of production
                  costs over gross proceeds must be recovered from future net
                  profits.

         The financial statements of the Trust differ from financial statements
         prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in
         the United States of America ("GAAP") because revenues are not accrued
         in the month of production; certain cash reserves may be established
         for contingencies which would not be accrued in financial statements
         prepared in accordance with GAAP; and amortization of the Royalty
         calculated on a unit-of-production basis is charged directly to trust
         corpus.

2.       FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

         For federal income tax purposes, the Trust constitutes a fixed
         investment trust which is taxed as a grantor trust. A grantor trust is
         not subject to tax at the trust level. The Unit holders are considered
         to own the Trust's income and principal as though no trust were in
         existence. The income of the Trust is deemed to have been received or
         accrued by each Unit holder at the time such income is received or
         accrued by the Trust rather than when distributed by the Trust.

         The Royalty constitutes an "economic interest" in oil and gas
         properties for federal income tax purposes. Unit holders must report
         their share of the revenues of the Trust as ordinary income from oil
         and gas royalties and are entitled to claim depletion with respect to
         such income. The Royalty is treated as a single property for depletion
         purposes.

         The Trust has on file technical advice memoranda confirming the tax
         treatment described above.

         The Trust began receiving royalty income from coal seam gas wells
         beginning in 1989. Under Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code, coal
         seam gas production from wells drilled prior to



                                       5
<PAGE>

         January 1, 1993 (including certain wells recompleted in coal seam
         formations thereafter), generally qualifies for the federal income tax
         credit for producing non-conventional fuels if such production and the
         sale thereof occurs before January 1, 2003. For 2001, this tax credit
         was approximately $1.08 per MMBtu. The Trust also receives production
         from wells producing from a tight sands formation. These wells must
         have been drilled after November 5, 1990, or must have been committed
         or dedicated to interstate commerce (as defined in Section 2(18) of the
         Natural Gas Policy Act as in effect November 5, 1990) as of April 20,
         1977. This credit is not adjusted for inflation, so the credit remains
         fixed at .517241 per MMBtu. To benefit from the credit, each Unit
         holder must determine from the tax information they receive from the
         Trust, their pro rata share of qualifying production of the Trust,
         based upon the number of Units owned during each month of the year, and
         the amount of available credit per MMBtu for the year, and then apply
         the tax credit against their own income tax liability, but such credit
         may not reduce their regular tax liability (after the foreign tax
         credit and certain other nonrefundable credits) below their alternative
         minimum tax. Section 29 also provides that any amount of Section 29
         credit disallowed for the tax year solely because of this limitation
         will increase their credit for prior year minimum tax liability, which
         may be carried forward indefinitely as a credit against the taxpayer's
         regular tax liability, subject, however, to the limitations described
         in the preceding sentence. There is no provision for the carryback or
         carryforward of the Section 29 credit in any other circumstances.

         The Trustee is provided summary Section 29 tax credit information
         related to Trust properties by BROG, which information is then passed
         along to the Unit holders. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
         10th Circuit upheld the position of the Internal Revenue Service and
         the Tax Court that nonconventional fuel such as coal seam gas does not
         qualify for the Section 29 credit unless the producer has received an
         appropriate well category determination from the Federal Energy
         Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). The FERC's certification authority
         expired effective January 1, 1993. However, on July 14, 2000, the FERC
         issued a final ruling amending its regulations to reinstate certain
         regulations involving well category determinations for all wells and
         tight formation areas that could qualify for the Section 29 tax credit.
         BROG has informed the Trustee that it has identified approximately 250
         wells as non-certified. Of those, BROG has determined that six do not
         qualify for the Section 29 tax credit. BROG has applied to the FERC for
         certification of the approximately 100 qualified wells operated by it,
         and is in communication with the operators of the remaining qualified
         wells to encourage the filing by those operators of applications for
         certification.

         The classification of the Trust's income for purposes of the passive
         loss rules may be important to a Unit holder. As a result of the Tax
         Reform Act of 1986, royalty income will generally be treated as
         portfolio income and will not reduce passive losses.

3.       CONTINGENCIES

         See Part II - Item 1, "Legal Proceedings" concerning the status of
         litigation matters.

4.       SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS RELATING TO GAS IMBALANCE

         In June 2000, the Trust and BROG entered into a partial settlement of
         claims relating to a gas imbalance with respect to production from
         mineral properties currently operated by BROG. Under the terms of the
         partial settlement BROG paid the Trust $3,490,000 to settle the
         imbalance insofar as it relates to some of the wells located on the
         subject properties. The remainder of the imbalance is to be addressed
         through volume adjustments whereby the Trust's net overriding royalty
         interest will be applied to 50% of the overproduced parties' interest,
         on a monthly basis, until the imbalance is corrected. The Trust is in
         communication with BROG in order to determine the estimated value of



                                       6
<PAGE>

         the volume adjustments and the time during which the remainder of the
         imbalance will be corrected. Such volume adjustments will be monitored
         by the Trust's consultants.

5.       COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

         At December 31, 2001, BROG had incurred excess production costs of
         $2,259,628 on the underlying properties due primarily to high capital
         costs. The Trust conveyance provides for the deduction of excess
         production costs in determining royalty income until such costs are
         fully recovered and allows for interest to be charged on excess
         production costs at the prime rate. Interest in the amount of $10,545
         was added to such excess production costs. Of the total, $1,702,630 is
         attributable to the Trust and has been deducted in determining royalty
         income for the three months ended March 31, 2002.




                                       7
<PAGE>




ITEM 2. TRUSTEE'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS.

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION.

Certain information included in this report contains, and other materials filed
or to be filed by the Trust with the Securities and Exchange Commission (as well
as information included in oral statements or other written statements made or
to be made by the Trust) may contain or include, forward-looking statements
within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933. Such forward-looking statements may
be or may concern, among other things, capital expenditures, drilling activity,
development activities, production efforts and volumes, hydrocarbon prices and
the results thereof, and regulatory matters. Such forward-looking statements
generally are accompanied by words such as "may," "will," "estimate," "expect,"
"predict," "anticipate," "goal," "should," "assume," "believe," "plan,"
"intend," or other words that convey the uncertainty of future events or
outcomes. Such statements reflect BROG's current view with respect to future
events; are based on our assessment of, and are subject to, a variety of factors
deemed relevant by the Trustee and BROG and involve risks and uncertainties.
Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties occur, actual results may
vary materially and adversely from those anticipated.

THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2002 AND 2001:

The Trust received royalty income of $3,925,355 and interest income of $746
during the first quarter of 2002. In addition, cash reserves decreased $76,761.
After deducting administrative expenses of $475,850, distributable income for
the quarter was $3,527,012 ($.075673 per Unit). In the first quarter of 2001,
royalty income was $37,489,972, interest income was $59,067, administrative
expenses were $286,524 and distributable income was $37,262,515 ($.799474 per
Unit). The tax credit relating to production from coal seam and tight sand wells
totaled approximately $.01 per Unit for the first quarter of 2002 and $.04 per
Unit for the first quarter of 2001. For further information concerning this tax
credit, Unit holders should refer to the Trust's Annual Report for 2001. Based
on 46,608,796 Units outstanding, the per Unit distributions during the first
quarter of 2002 were as follows:

<Table>

<S>                                <C>
January ......................     $    .000000
February .....................          .011228
March ........................          .064445
                                   ------------

Quarter Total ................     $    .075673
                                   ============
</Table>

The royalty income distributed in the first quarter of 2002 was lower than that
distributed in the first quarter of 2001, primarily due to a decrease in the
average gas price from $5.81 per Mcf for the first quarter of 2001 to $2.20 per
Mcf for the first quarter of 2002. Interest earnings for the quarter ended March
31, 2002, as compared to the quarter ended March 31, 2001, were lower, primarily
due to lower interest rates and a decrease in funds available for investment.
Administrative expenses were higher primarily as a result of differences in
timing in the receipt and payment of these expenses but also as a result of
expenses incurred in an arbitration proceeding involving BROG and the Trust
undertaken to resolve certain gas marketing issues.

The capital costs attributable to the properties from which the Trust's 75% net
overriding royalty ("Royalty") was carved (the "Underlying Properties") for the
first quarter of 2002 were reported by BROG as approximately $11.3 million. BROG
has advised the Trust that it has reduced its projections for capital
expenditures for the Underlying Properties for 2002 from an estimated $17.1
million to an estimated $12.4 million. Capital expenditures were approximately
$6.3 million for the first quarter of 2001. Approximately $33.0 million in
capital expenditures were used in calculating the Royalty for the year 2001.
However, BROG's capital expenditure budget for the Underlying Properties in 2001
was $38.8 million.




                                       8
<PAGE>

Because projects included within the significantly higher 2001 capital budget
have extended into 2002, and because of delays in the ordinary course of
business in the payment of expenses relative to the 2001 budget, distributions
during the first quarter of 2002 have been negatively impacted by the size of
the capital budget for 2001. In February 2002, BROG informed the Trust that for
2002 it anticipates drilling 43 new wells to be operated by BROG and 26 new
wells to be operated by third parties. Of the new BROG operated wells, 36 are
projected to be conventional wells completed in the Pictured Cliffs, Mesaverde
and/or Dakota formations, and the remaining seven are projected as coal seam
wells completed in the Fruitland Coal formation. BROG projects approximately
$9.6 million to be spent on the new wells, and $2.8 million to be expended in
working over existing wells and in the maintenance and improvement of production
facilities.

BROG previously informed the Trust that increases in its capital program,
particularly in 2000 and 2001, were designed to offset the natural decline in
production from the Underlying Properties. BROG has reported favorable results
in this effort in that natural gas production for calendar 2001 averaged
approximately 121 MMcf per day, as compared to average production of
approximately 116 MMcf per day for calendar 2000 and 113 MMcf per day for
calendar 1999. BROG has reported that natural gas production for the first
quarter of 2002 averaged approximately 124 MMcf per day.

BROG indicates its budget for 2002 reflects continued, significant developments
in which the Trust's net overriding royalty interest is relatively high, as well
as a sustained focus in conventional formations, including infill drilling to
the Mesaverde and Dakota formations, development of the Fruitland Coal formation
and multiple formation completions.

BROG has informed the Trust that lease operating expenses and property taxes
were $4,136,247 and $75,567 respectively, for the first quarter of 2002, as
compared to $3,278,436 and $83,940, respectively, for the first quarter of 2001.

BROG has also informed the Trustee that 43 gross (15.01 net) conventional wells,
18 gross (8.26 net) conventional recompletions, two gross (1.74 net)
miscellaneous capital projects, nine gross (1.81 net) coal seam wells, three
gross (0.90 net) miscellaneous coal seam capital projects, one gross (0.02 net)
coal seam recavitation, and four gross (0.14 net) coal seam recompletions were
completed as of March 31, 2002.

During the first quarter of 2002, 64 gross (13.23 net) conventional wells, 25
gross (7.32 net) conventional recompletions, five gross (0.51 net) miscellaneous
capital projects, 10 gross (0.50 net) restimulations and five gross (2.73 net)
payadds were in progress. Seven gross (4.07 net) coal seam wells, nine gross
(5.18 net) coal seam recompletions, one gross (0.04 net) miscellaneous coal seam
capital project, and one gross (0.007 net) coal seam restimulation were in
progress as of March 31, 2002. "Gross" acres or wells, for purposes of this
discussion, means the entire ownership interest of all parties in such
properties, and BROG's interest therein is referred to as the "net" acres or
wells.



                                       9
<PAGE>






Royalty income for the quarter ended March 31, 2002 is associated with actual
gas and oil production during November 2001 through January 2002 from the
Underlying Properties. Gas and oil sales from the Underlying Properties for the
quarters ended March 31, 2002 and 2001 were as follows:


<Table>
<Caption>

                                                  2002             2001
<S>                                          <C>              <C>
Gas:
   Total sales (Mcf) ...................       11,470,975       11,264,710
   Mcf per day .........................          124,685          122,443
   Average price (per Mcf) .............     $       2.20     $       5.81

Oil:
   Total sales (Bbls) ..................           23,454           24,809
   Bbls per day ........................              255              270
   Average price (per Bbl) .............     $      15.78     $      26.90
</Table>

Gas and oil sales attributable to the Royalty for the quarters ended March 31,
2002 and 2001 were as follows:

<Table>
<S>                                          <C>              <C>
Gas sales (Mcf) ........................        1,925,143        6,917,945
Oil sales (Bbls) .......................            4,324           15,086
</Table>

Sales volume attributable to the Royalty are determined by dividing the net
profits received by the Trust and attributable to oil and gas, respectively, by
the prices received for sales volumes from the Underlying Properties, taking
into consideration production taxes attributable to the Underlying Properties.
Since the oil and gas sales attributable to the Royalty are based on an
allocation formula that is dependent on such factors as price and cost,
including capital expenditures, the aggregate production volumes from the
Underlying Properties may not provide a meaningful comparison to volumes
attributable to the Royalty.

During the first quarter of 2002, average gas prices were less than half the
average prices reported during the first quarter of 2001. The average price per
barrel of oil during the first quarter of 2002 was $11.12 per barrel lower than
that received for the first quarter of 2001 due to decreases in oil prices in
world markets generally, including the posted prices applicable to oil sales
attributable to the Royalty.

Prior to April 1, 2002, all volumes of gas which were subject to the Royalty
(the "Trust gas") were sold under a contract dated November 10, 1999 between
BROG and Duke Energy and Marketing L.L.C. That contract, as amended, provided
for the delivery of Trust gas at various delivery points over a period
commencing January 1, 2000, and ending March 31, 2002, and provided for the sale
of Trust gas at prices which fluctuated in accordance with published indices for
gas sold in the San Juan Basin of New Mexico. On March 13, 2002, BROG entered
into two contracts for the sale of all Trust gas after April 1, 2002. The new
contracts provide for the sale of all Trust gas in two packages to Duke Energy
and Marketing, L.L.C. and PNM Gas Services, respectively. These contracts
provide for the delivery of Trust gas at various delivery points over a period
commencing April 1, 2002, and ending March 31, 2004, and provide for the sale of
Trust gas at prices which fluctuate in accordance with published indices for gas
sold in the San Juan Basin of New Mexico. Unit holders are referred to Note 6 of
the Notes to Financial Statements in the Trust's 2001 Annual Report for further
information concerning the marketing of gas produced from the Underlying
Properties.






                                       10
<PAGE>




CALCULATION OF ROYALTY INCOME:

Royalty income received by the Trust for the three months ended March 31, 2002
and 2001, respectively, was computed as shown in the following table:

<Table>
<Caption>

                                                                         2002             2001

<S>                                                                   <C>              <C>
Gross proceeds of sales from the Underlying Properties:
Gas proceeds ....................................................     $25,216,887      $65,449,109
Oil proceeds ....................................................         370,150          667,340
                                                                      -----------      -----------

Total ...........................................................      25,587,037       66,116,449
                                                                      -----------      -----------

Less production costs:
Severance tax - Gas .............................................       2,499,137        6,379,436
Severance tax - Oil .............................................          35,954           63,969
Lease operating expense and property tax ........................       4,211,814        3,362,376
Other ...........................................................          10,000               --
Capital expenditures ............................................      11,326,153        6,324,039
                                                                      -----------      -----------

Total ...........................................................      18,083,058       16,129,820
                                                                      -----------      -----------

Less excess production and interest from prior year .............       2,270,173               --
                                                                      -----------      -----------

Net profits .....................................................       5,233,806       49,986,629
Net overriding royalty interest .................................              75%              75%
                                                                      -----------      -----------

Royalty income ..................................................     $ 3,925,355      $37,489,972
                                                                      ===========      ===========
</Table>


ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK.

The Trust has not entered into derivative financial instruments, derivative
commodity instruments or other similar instruments during the quarter ended
March 31, 2002. The Trust does not market the Trust gas, oil and/or natural gas
liquids. BROG is responsible for such marketing.



                                       11
<PAGE>

                                    PART II
                                OTHER INFORMATION


ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

SETTLEMENTS

         An administrative claim was initiated on March 17, 1997 by the Mineral
Management Service of the United States Department of the Interior (the "MMS")
against BROG regarding a gas contract settlement dated March 1, 1990, between
BROG and certain other parties thereto. The claim alleged that additional
royalties were due on production from federal and Indian leases in the State of
New Mexico on properties burdened by the Trust. On December 3, 2001, BROG
settled this claim by paying the Jicarilla Apache Nation the sum of $2,853,974
and the MMS the sum of $1,224,043. MMS also retained certain overpayments by
BROG in the amount of $1,127,623 as part of the settlement. Certain properties
included in this settlement are burdened by the Trust. BROG proposes to offset
the entire $2,853,974 Jicarilla component of the settlement against amounts
otherwise distributed in payment of the Royalty, but has not yet informed the
Trust of its proposal as to what portion, if any, of the $1,224,043 paid to the
MMS might be allocable to the Royalty. BROG has indicated that it does not
appear that any of the $1,127,623 in overpayments retained by the MMS is
attributable to the Trust.

         In another proceeding involving BROG and the Jicarilla Apache Nation,
the MMS entered an Order to Perform on June 10, 1998, stating that, in valuing
production for royalty purposes, BROG must perform, among other things, a "dual
accounting" calculation (i.e., compute royalties on the greater of the value of
gas prior to processing or the combined value of processed residue gas and plant
products plus the value of any condensate recovered downstream without
processing). In December 2000, BROG and the Jicarilla Apache Nation entered into
a settlement resolving the issues associated with the dual accounting
calculation. Under the settlement, BROG will pay $3,260,366 to the Jicarilla
Apache Nation. BROG has proposed to allocate $1,978,182 of the settlement
payment to the Royalty.

         BROG has indicated it will provide information identifying the
Underlying Properties affected by these settlements, as well as the Trust's
share of these settlements. BROG has proposed to deduct the lesser of $1,000,000
or 50% of the monthly net profits distribution from upcoming net profits
distributions to the Trust commencing May 2002 until an aggregate of $3,624,117
has been deducted. The Trust's legal and joint interest auditing consultants
will review the information to be provided and advise the Trust as to the
appropriateness of such deductions.

         In June 2000, the Trust and BROG entered into a partial settlement of
claims relating to a gas imbalance with respect to production from mineral
properties currently operated by BROG. Under the terms of the partial
settlement, BROG paid the Trust $3,490,000 to settle the imbalance insofar as it
relates to some of the wells located on the subject properties. The remainder of
the imbalance is to be addressed through volume adjustments whereby the Trust's
net overriding royalty interest will be applied to 50% of the overproduced
parties' interest, on a monthly basis, until the imbalance is corrected. The
Trust is in communication with BROG in order to determine the estimated value of
the volume adjustments and the time during which the remainder of the imbalance
will be corrected. BROG indicates that the volume adjustment commenced in August
2000. The Trust's consultants continue to monitor those adjustments.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

         The following information was provided to the Trust by BROG. Please
note that the proceedings described below apply to the collective interest of
BROG and the Trust. BROG is not able to estimate the



                                       12
<PAGE>

amount of any potential loss to the Trust in each of the outstanding
proceedings, or the portion of any such potential loss that would be allocated
to the Royalty.

         1.       MMS Proceedings.

                  Blanco Pool. This appeal arises from a MMS Demand Letter dated
October 20, 1995, and bears MMS Appeal Docket No. MMS-95-0740. The demand letter
challenges the "valuation benchmark" utilized by BROG for gas sold by BROG from
the "Blanco Pool" during the audit period of January 1, 1989 through December
31, 1991. BROG paid royalties on sales to its marketing affiliate based on
"gross proceeds" received by BROG from its affiliate. The demand letter states
that BROG paid incorrectly under MMS regulations. The MMS methodology in
calculating the amounts demanded does not attempt to trace resale proceeds.
Instead, the auditors use published index prices at pipeline interconnect points
in the San Juan Basin as a proxy for actual comparable sales, and net out
certain actual costs to move the gas to those index points. While BROG had
deducted prevailing field transportation rates in computing its monthly prices
in the San Juan Basin, the auditors limited the deduction to the actual rate
paid to El Paso Natural Gas under a "backhaul" agreement. The demand letter
directs BROG to pay additional royalties of $518,304, to recalculate royalties
in accordance with the MMS' interpretation of the regulations and to pay the
difference between total royalty due and royalty paid.

                  Affiliate Proceeds Demand - Conventional Gas. This appeal
arises from a MMS demand letter dated June 9, 1997, and bears MMS Appeal Docket
No. MMS-97-0168. The demand letter is a blanket demand relating to all of BROG's
non-coalbed methane gas production nationwide for the audit period of January 1,
1989 through December 31, 1994. The demand letter is based primarily on the MMS
theory that royalties are to be based on BROG's marketing affiliate gross
proceeds rather than BROG's gross proceeds (e.g. the affiliate resale proceeds
issue). The demand letter directs BROG to recalculate its royalties on these
sales using a netback calculation of the proceeds of the affiliate, and pay the
difference between total royalties due under such calculation and the royalties
actually paid by BROG. This demand letter is in furtherance of the demand letter
described in the prior paragraph.

                  Coalbed Methane. This appeal arises from a MMS demand letter
dated October 28, 1996, and bears MMS Appeal Docket No. MMS-96-0437. The demand
letter relates to BROG's coalbed methane production from the Northeast Blanco
Unit for the audit period of May 1, 1990 through December 31, 1993, and from the
San Juan 30-6 Unit for the audit period of January 1, 1989 through December 31,
1991. Like the Blanco Pool demand letter, the demand letter does not attempt to
trace resale proceeds. The issues are whether MMS should bear its share of CO(2)
extraction costs and, if so, whether the costs should be based on market rates
or actual costs of the system, and whether MMS' share of transportation costs
(which MMS does not dispute it must bear) should be based on market rates or
actual costs of the system. BROG is directed to pay additional royalties of
$3,600,584 for underpayment of royalty for gas produced from the units mentioned
above, to recalculate royalties for gas produced from other federal leases in
accordance with MMS' interpretation of the regulations and to pay the difference
between total royalty due and royalty paid.

         Due to the similarity of the claims in the Blanco Pool, Affiliate
Proceeds Demand and the Coal Bed Methane administrative appeals, to the claims
in the suits in the In re Natural Gas Royalties qui tam litigation described
below, the administrative appeals have been stayed by agreement with MMS pending
the resolution of the gas qui tam litigation, and settlement discussions between
BROG and the federal government in the gas qui tam litigation will, if
successful, include the settlement of each of the MMS Proceedings.




                                       13
<PAGE>


         2.       Jicarilla Indian Tribe Proceedings.

                  This appeal arises from an MMS Order to Perform dated June 10,
1998. The Order to Perform states that, in valuing production for royalty
purposes, BROG must, among other things, perform a major portion analysis (i.e.,
calculate value on the highest price paid or offered for a major portion of the
gas produced from the field where the leased lands are situated). BROG believes
that producers do not have access to prices received by other producers in a
field, so a major portion calculation must be done by MMS.

LITIGATION

         1.       Grynberg Litigation.

                  In September 1998, BROG was advised by the United States
Department of Justice under an order of confidentiality that a lawsuit styled
United States of America ex rel Jack J. Grynberg v. Burlington Resources Oil &
Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 97-CV-189 and 190, United States District Court for
the District of Wyoming, had been filed under seal pursuant to the qui tam
provisions of the civil federal False Claims Act, and that seventy-seven similar
cases had been filed by the plaintiff against other companies. The complaint
alleges that BROG engaged in the mismeasurement of volumes and wrongful analysis
of heating content of natural gas and engaged in other activities, including the
sale of natural gas to affiliated companies, which resulted in the underpayment
of royalties to the United States. The government investigated the plaintiff's
claims, and in May 1999 issued notice that the United States would not intervene
in the case. The lawsuits have been unsealed by the court and the plaintiff has
served the complaint on BROG. This claim was subsequently consolidated into a
multi-district litigation proceeding as described in paragraph 2 below.

         2.       In re Natural Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litigation.

                  On March 28, 2000, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division, ordered that the first amended
complaint in the case of United States ex rel. M. Glenn Osterhoudt, III v.
Amerada Hess, et al. Civil Action No. 9:98CV101, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division, and the second amended
complaint in the case of United States of America ex rel. Harrold E. (Gene)
Wright v Agip Petroleum Burlington, et al. Civil Action No. C-5:96CV243 be
unsealed and served upon defendants, including BROG. In these lawsuits, the
plaintiffs have alleged violations of the civil False Claims Act. Plaintiffs
contend that defendants underpaid royalties on natural gas and natural gas
liquids produced on federal and Indian lands through the use of below-market
prices, improper deductions, improper measurement techniques and transactions
with affiliated companies. The United States has filed an intervention in these
cases as to some of the defendants, including BROG.

                  In July 2000, the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico unsealed and BROG was served with the petition in United
States of America ex rel. Mark A. Perry v. BROG Resources, Inc., et al, Civil
Action No. 9:00CV197, in the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico, wherein plaintiff alleges violations of the civil False Claims Act.
The plaintiff claims that BROG understated the value of natural gas and natural
gas liquids produced on federal and Indian lands in connection with its
computation and reporting of royalty payments. The United States has elected to
intervene in this case, but a complaint has not been served upon BROG.

                  In October 2000, the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that the Wright and Osterhoudt lawsuits be transferred to the
United State District Court for the District of Wyoming for inclusion with the
Grynberg lawsuit described in paragraph 1 above in multidistrict litigation
proceedings. A similar order was issued in December 2000 transferring the Perry
lawsuit. These cases have



                                       14
<PAGE>

been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the matter styled In re Natural
Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litigation, MDL-1293, United States District Court for the
District of Wyoming.

                  If successful, this litigation could result in a decrease in
royalty income received by the Trust. At this time, no estimate can be made as
to the amount of any potential loss in this litigation, or the portion of any
such potential loss that would be allocated to the Trust's interest. Any
proposed allocation of loss to the Trust will be reviewed by the Trust's
consultants.

         3.       Quinque Litigation.

                  In September 1999, BROG was served with a class action
petition styled Quinque Operating Burlington on behalf of Gas Producers v. Gas
Pipelines, et al., Case No. 99 C 30, In the District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas, naming certain of its current or former affiliates as defendants, along
with hundreds of other gas production and gas pipeline companies. The petition
alleges that the defendants engaged in the mismeasurement of volumes and
wrongful analysis of heating content of natural gas and engaged in other
activities which resulted in the underpayment of revenue owed to working
interest owners, royalty interest owners, overriding royalty interest owners and
state taxing authorities. If successful, this litigation could result in a
decrease in royalty income received by the Trust. At this time, no estimate can
be made as to the amount of any loss in this litigation, or the portion of any
such potential loss that would be allocated to the Trust. Any proposed
allocation of loss to the Trust will be reviewed by the Trust's consultants.

ITEM 6.  EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K.

         (a)      Exhibits.

                  (4)(a) San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Indenture dated November
                  3, 1980, between Southland Royalty Company (now Burlington
                  Resources Oil & Gas Company LP) and The Fort Worth National
                  Bank (now Bank One, N.A.), as Trustee, heretofore filed as
                  Exhibit (4)(a) to the Trust's Annual Report on Form 10-K to
                  the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
                  ended December 31, 1980 is incorporated herein by reference.

                  (4)(b) Net Overriding Royalty Conveyance from Southland
                  Royalty Company (now Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company
                  LP) to The Fort Worth National Bank (now Bank One, N.A.), as
                  Trustee, dated November 3, 1980 (without Schedules),
                  heretofore filed as Exhibit (4)(b) to the Trust's Annual
                  Report on Form 10-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission
                  for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1980 is incorporated
                  herein by reference.

         (b)      Reports on Form 8-K.

                  No reports on Form 8-K were filed during the quarter ended
                  March 31, 2002.






                                       15
<PAGE>




                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                       BANK ONE, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR
                                       THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST



                                       By   /s/ LEE ANN ANDERSON
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                Lee Ann Anderson
                                                Vice President


Date: May 14, 2002

               (The Trust has no directors or executive officers.)



<PAGE>


                                INDEX TO EXHIBITS


<Table>
<Caption>

          EXHIBIT
          NUMBER                               DESCRIPTION
          ------                               -----------
<S>                     <C>
          (4)(a)        San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Indenture dated November 3,
                        1980, between Southland Royalty Company (now Burlington
                        Resources Oil & Gas Company LP) and The Fort Worth
                        National Bank (now Bank One, N.A.), as Trustee,
                        heretofore filed as Exhibit (4)(a) to the Trust's Annual
                        Report on Form 10-K to the Securities and Exchange
                        Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1980
                        is incorporated herein by reference.*

          (4)(b)        Net Overriding Royalty Conveyance from Southland Royalty
                        Company (now Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP)
                        to The Fort Worth National Bank (now Bank One, N.A.), as
                        Trustee, dated November 3, 1980 (without Schedules),
                        heretofore filed as Exhibit (4)(b) to the Trust's Annual
                        Report on Form 10-K to the Securities and Exchange
                        Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1980
                        is incorporated herein by reference.*
</Table>


*    A copy of this Exhibit is available to any Unit holder, at the actual cost
     of reproduction, upon written request to the Trustee, Bank One, N.A., P.O.
     2604, Fort Worth, Texas 76113.