nat res case part 3

8/22/2019 Nat Res Case Part 3

1/31

SECOND DIVISION[G.R. No. 75962. June 30, 1988.]

GREENHILLS MINING COMPANY, petitioner,vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF MINES

AND THE GEO-SCIENCES, AND GREEN VALLEY COMPANY, respondents.

Laurel Law Officefor petitioner.Belo, Abiera and Associates and Eulogio R. Rodriguezfor private respondent.

D E C I S I O NYAP, Jp:

The instant petition seeks the review of (a) the decision dated July 8, 1986 issued byrespondent Office of the President and signed by Deputy Executive Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran,Jr., declaring all mining claims located and registered within the Southern Zambales Forest Reserveas null and void and granting private respondent Green Valley Company preferential right to possess,exploit, develop and operate the area covered by its exploration permit, and (b) the order dated

September 10, 1986 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The facts are as follows:

The petition involves a conflict of Greenhills mining claims and the exploration permit ofGreen Valley over an area within the Southern Zambales Forest Reserve and within the same mineralland.

Mining claims of different claimowners were previously located and registered with the officeof the Mining Recorder at Iba, Zambales, in 1933 and 1934 under the provisions of the Philippine Billof 1902. However, for failure to pursue their claims and to perform annual assessment works, theclaims were considered abandoned.

On January 18, 1956, then President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 245establishing the Southern Zambales Forest Reserve (hereinafter called "Reservation" for brevity) with

an area of 37,000 hectares embracing the municipalities of San Marcelino and Castillejos for soilprotection, timber production, and other forest purposes subject to existing private rights.

In 1970 and 1971, Greenhills relocated the previously abandoned mining claims of theclaimowners inside the reservation. It executed certificates or declaration of location (DOL) covering113 claims and registered them with the office of the Mining Recorder. Lode Lease Applications(LLAs) on the 113 claims were later filed with the Bureau of Mines. Boundary survey plans or returnsfor the 113 claims were submitted and approved by the Mines Director on October 27, 1971, andtogether with lease applications they were published in the Official Gazette and in newspapers ofgeneral circulation.

On September 5, 1975, Greenhills filed with the Bureau of Forest Development (BFD forbrevity) an application for prospecting permit (Prospecting Permit No. 354-03079) covering 1,296hectares within the reservation, which was granted by the BFD Director on January 5, 1978 to expire

six months thereafter or on June 5, 1978.

On March 1, 1979 Green Valley applied with BFD for a prospecting permit over 4,800hectares also within the reservation. BFD granted the permit (Prospecting Permit No. 349-03179) toexpire on August 31, 1979. It was extended to January 31, 1980. prLL

On July 19, 1979 Green Valley filed with the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences (BMGS forbrevity) an application for exploration permit over the same area covered by its prospecting permit,as well as additional areas covered by prospecting permits issued to Concepcion Lomotan, DoloresMontilla and Asuncion Caguios.

The application was referred to the BMGS Mineral Lands and Topographic Survey Division(MLTSD) which upon verification submitted reports dated August 17, 1979 and October 4, 1979 withthe finding that the areas applied for by Green Valley were in conflict with the Greenhills group of

claims.In another report dated September 10, 1979, the Mineral Resources Administrative Division

also of the Bureau of Mines commented that Green Valley's exploration permit may be given duecourse contending that all mining claims in areas within the reserve are null and void pursuantto Section 28(a), Commonwealth Act No. 137.1

On October 16 and November 29, 1979, respectively, Green Valley's exploration permits(Exploration Permit Nos. 79 and 80) covering 5,208.96 hectares were approved.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnotes


2/31

Aggrieved, Greenhills filed separate letter-protests with the BFD and BMGS asking for thecancellation of Green Valley's prospecting and exploration permits.

In answer to Greenhills' protest, Green Valley countered that the protest had become mootand academic and it has no factual and legal basis since the alleged prospecting Permit No. 354-03079 of Greenhills Mining Co., which was the basis of its protest had long expired and at the timeGreen Valley Co. applied for and was issued Prospecting Permit No. 439-83179, the area was open

for registration; that said prospecting permit had been replaced by Exploration Permit Nos. 79 and 80issued by the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences on October 16, 1979 and November 29, 1979,respectively; that the Bureau of Forestry was no longer the proper forum; that the subject matter ofthe protest concerned the validity of mining claims and should be filed with the proper forum.

Supporting Greenhills' protest, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. which operates GreenhillsMining claims in its letters dated May 4 and May 20, 1981 manifested that the mining claims ofGreenhills were excluded from Green Valley's prospecting permit for the reasons that: (1) the areascovered by the mining claims of Greenhills were previously covered by patentable mining claims dulylocated and registered by different mining claimowners in 1933 and 1934 under the Philippine Bill of1902; (2) that pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in McDaniel vs. Apacible, 2reservation ofpublic lands cannot be made to include prior perfected mining locations and therefore the areascovered by Greenhills mining claims should be deemed segregated from the mass of the public

domain which were open to relocation and registration; (3) that Greenhills mining claims had beensurveyed and survey plans approved and the lease applications published in 1971 and 1973.

On June 5, 1981, the Director of the BFD issued an order directing amendment of GreenValley's prospecting permit to exclude areas previously located and registered patentable miningclaims as appearing in a sketch plan issued by the BMGS.

In a letter dated June 9, 1981 to the BMGS, Greenhills reiterated its request to exclude fromGreen Valley's exploration permit area covered by its mining claims. On June 11, 1981, the Directorof the Bureau of Mines issued the following order, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, Exploration Permit No. 79 issued in favor of Green ValleyCompany on October 16, 1979 should be, as hereby it is, AMENDED to excludetherefrom the area covered by previously located and registered patentable miningclaims as appearing in the sketch plan, likewise made integral part of this Order."

Against the BFD and the BMGS orders, Green Valley filed an appeal to the Ministry of NaturalResources (MNR). LibLex

On July 23, 1981, the MNR held that since the cases involved the determination of the miningrights of the parties concerned over the disputed area, the investigation and resolution of theseissues were within the original jurisdiction of the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences. Accordingly, itset aside the order of BFD dated June 5, 1981 and the order of BMGS dated June 11, 1981.

Unsatisfied, Green Valley filed an appeal with the Office of the President assailing MNR'srefusal to rule on the validity of the mining claims of Greenhills. It faults MNR for remanding the caseto the Bureau of Mines in deference to the latter's original jurisdiction to resolve and decide the

mining rights of the parties and to investigate and determine if there was any conflict or overlappingover the parties' mining claims/permit.

On July 6, 1986, the Office of the President rendered the decision in question, the dispositiveportion of which inter aliaread as follows:

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the order of the Minister of Natural Resources dated July 23,1981, is hereby affirmed.

"Further, all mining claims within the Southern Zambales Forest Reserve located andregistered by the Greenhills Mining Company in violation of section 28(c) of C.A. No.137, as amended, are hereby declared null and void. The Green Valley Company isgiven the preferential right to possess, exploit, explore, develop and operate the areas

within the Southern Zambales Forest Reserve covered by Exploration Permit No. 79issued in its name on October 16, 1979.

A motion to reconsider the decision filed by Greenhills was denied on September 10, 1986.Hence, the present petition.

Petitioner alleges that: (a) mining claims located under the Philippine Bill of 1902 which werelater on abandoned or forfeited by the original locators could be the subject of relocation by anotherperson; (b) the reservation of public lands such as the Southern Zambales Forest Reserve established


3/31

under Proclamation No. 245 dated January 18, 1956, cannot be deemed to include areas previouslycovered by a valid mining location; (c) the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences, basing its plottings oncertified declaration of locations filed in 1933 and 1934, correctly ordered the exclusion from theExploration Permit No. 79 of respondent Green Valley the areas covered by previously located andregistered patentable mining claims; (d) Greenhills has valid claims being the relocator of the 1933and 1934 patentable mining claims; (e) questions concerning the validity of petitioner Greenhills'

mining claims are already barred by statute; and (f) the "Exploration Agreement with assignableOption to Purchase" executed by and between respondent Green Valley Company and Gold Fields

Asia Limited violates Section 9, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, since the agreement is not a"service contract" within the contemplation of said constitutional provision. Petitioner prays, amongother things, that a preliminary injunction issue enjoining respondent Director of the Bureau of Minesand Geo-Sciences from acting on the application for renewal of the exploration permit of respondentGreen Valley.

The Court, in its resolution dated November 12, 1986, issued a temporary restraining orderenjoining respondent Director of Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences from acting on the application forthe renewal of the exploration permit of respondent Green Valley Company covering the areasinvolved.

The established doctrine that where there is no showing of fraud, collusion, arbitrariness,

illegality, imposition or mistake on the part of the Office of the President or a department head (suchas the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in the present case), in rendering theirquestioned decisions or of a total lack of substantial evidence to support the same, suchadministrative decisions are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be interfered with bythe courts.3

In upholding Green Valley's prior right over the mining areas subject of conflicting claims, theOffice of the President rightly relied on the provisions of Section 28(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 137(now Section 13(a), Presidential Decree No. 463). Under this provision, and under the regulationsimplementing it, it is required that the lessor shall, first, secure a prospecting permit from the BFDand second, obtain an exploration permit in case of discovery of minerals in the area or when there isstrong proof of mineralization. The records show that the petitioner's mining claims were backed upby no prospecting permit. llcd

On the other hand, Green Valley had fully complied with such requirements, for which itsclaims should be declared superior.

As a general rule, the findings of government agencies with respect to the construction ofstatutes the implementation of which has been reposed in them, are controlling on the Court.

The cases ofMcDaniel v. Apacible,4Gold Creek Mining Corporation v.Rodriguez,5and Salacot Mining Company v. Abadilla,6relied upon by the petitioner, and where weheld that the appropriation of a mineral land pursuant to a valid claim segregates it from the publicdomain, are not in point. The petitioner assumes that the claims of other claimants recorded in 1933and 1934 were still valid when the Southern Zambales Forest Reservation was established in 1956.

According to the Office of the President, however, the original claimowners had failed to performannual development work on the claims in violation of the provisions ofSection 36 of the PhilippineBill of 1902. As a consequence, the area became "open to relocation . . . as if no location of the samehad ever been made."7Conversely, assuming that the government lost the property when thepetitioner, or the original claimowners staked their claims in 1933 and 1934, it reverted to the publicdominion upon abandonment thereof. Accordingly, when President Magsaysay established theSouthern Zambales Forest Reserve in 1956, the areas covered by the said abandoned claims alreadyformed part of the public domain. The petitioner cannot, moreover, claim privity of title with theowners of the prior locations. Such prior locations had been abandoned, or at most, forfeited, andthe petitioner's own location cannot be considered a continuation thereof. prLL

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued onNovember 12, 1986 is hereby lifted. No pronouncement as to costs.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padillaand Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Footnotes1.Now Section 13 of PD 463, dated May 17, 1974, which provides inter aliathat no prospecting permit shall be allowed in mineral

and other reservations proclaimed closed to mining locations except by the government.2.42 Phil. 749.3.Lacuesta v. Herrera, G.R. No. 33646, January 28, 1975, 62 SCRA 115.4.42 Phil. 749 (1922).5.66 Phil. 259 (1938).6.67 Phil. 110 (1939).7.Philippine Bill of 1902, Sec. 36.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/21270?search=%28gr%3A+%2875962%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F75962+%29%29#footnotes


4/31

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129820. November 30, 2006.]

PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PNOC-EDC), petitioner, vs. EMILIANO G. VENERACION,JR., respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, Jp:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,seeking to set aside the Order, dated 21 May 1997 issued by the Mines

Adjudication Board (MAB) of the Department of Environmental and NaturalResources (DENR),1declaring that the respondent Emiliano Veneracion has apreferential right over the contested Block 159.

This case involves the conflicting claims of the petitioner Philippine National OilCorporation-Energy Development Corporation and the respondent over themining rights over Block 159 of the Malangas Coal Reservation, Alicia,Zamboanga del Sur.

On 31 January 1989, respondent applied with the Mines and Geo-SciencesDevelopment Services, DENR, Region IX, Zamboanga City for a Declaration ofLocation (DOL) over Block 159 of the Malangas Coal Reservation, situated atBarangays Payongan and Kauswagan, Alicia, Zamboanga del Sur. On 18 May1989, the Office of the Regional Executive Director (RED) of the DENR informedthe respondent that his DOL cannot be registered since Block 159 was part ofthe Malangas Coal Reservation, as provided under Proclamation No. 284, issuedby the President on 19 July 1938.2With the endorsement of the Office ofEnergy Affairs (OEA) and the DENR Secretary, the respondent petitioned the

Office of the President for the withdrawal of Block 159 from the coal reservationand its conversion into a mineral reservation.3

The petitioner applied for a mineral prospecting permit over Block 159 (andBlocks 120 and 160) with the OEA, which the latter granted on 4 September1989. The Malangas Coal Reservation was, at that time, under the administrationof the OEA.4When it had initially applied for a mineral prospecting permit overlands within the Malangas Coal Reservation, the OEA advised it to obtain thepermission of the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences (BMGS).5

On 18 October 1991, petitioner submitted to the DENR an application/proposalfor a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) over Blocks 120, 159 and160 of the Malangas Coal Reservation.6

On 21 February 1992, the Officer-In-Charge Regional Technical Director Dario R.Mioza of the Mines and Geo-Sciences Developmental Service (MGDS) advised
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnotes


5/31

the petitioner to amend its application for MPSA by excluding Block 159 as thesame is covered by the application of the respondent.7Nevertheless, thepetitioner did not exclude Block 159 from its MPSA. Records also show that it hadnot applied for nor was it able to obtain an Exploration Permit from the BMGSover Block 159. IEDHAT

On 13 April 1992, Presidential Proclamation No. 890 was issued, which effectivelyexcluded Block 159 from the operation of Proclamation No. 284, and declaredBlock No. 159 as government mineral reservation open for disposition toqualified mining applicants, pursuant to Executive Order No. 279.8

On 26 May 1992, petitioner's application for MPSA covering Coal Block Nos. 120,159 and 160 was accepted for filing.9Respondent immediately filed, on 28 May1992, a protest to the petitioner's inclusion of Block 159 in its application forMPSA before the RED of the DENR Office in Zamboanga City.10

After the parties were heard, the RED, in an Order, dated 12 April 1993, ruled infavor of the respondent and ordered the petitioner to amend its MPSA byexcluding therefrom Block 159.11On 18 May 1993, petitioner filed a Motion forReconsideration of the Order dated 12 April 1993,12which the RED denied in anOrder dated 5 July 1993.13

On 30 July 1993, petitioner filed an appeal with the DENR Secretary questioningthe Orders issued by the RED.14

While the case was pending, respondent applied for a MPSA. On 31 July 1992,he paid the processing fee for a MPSA covering Block 159 and was able tocomply with all other requirements of the MPSA application.15

On 4 October 1994, the Office of the Secretary dismissed the appeal on theground that petitioner's right to appeal had already prescribed.16Section 50 ofPresidential Decree No. 463 provides therefore for a five-day reglementaryperiod from the receipt of the order or decision of the Director. 17Petitionerreceived its copy of the assailed Order dated 12 April 1993 on 7 May 1993, butfiled its Motion for Reconsideration only on 18 May 1993, or eleven days after itsreceipt thereof. Thereafter, petitioner received a copy of the Order dated 5 July1993 on 16 July 1993, but filed its appeal only on 30 July 1993 or nine days afterthe allowable period to appeal.

On 25 October 1994, petitioner, through a letter addressed to the DENRSecretary, sought the reconsideration of the Decision, dated 4 October1994.18In a Resolution, dated 21 December 1994, the then DENR Secretary

Angel C. Alcala reversed the Decision, dated 4 October 1994, and gave duecourse to the MPSA of the petitioner.19

On 1 February 1995, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of theResolution, dated 21 December 1994.20The now DENR Secretary Victor O.Ramos issued an Order, dated 5 August 1996, reversing the Resolution, dated 21December 1994 and reinstating the Decision, dated 4 October 1994. It ruled thatthe Orders issued by the RED have already become final and executory when thepetitioner failed to file its appeal five days after it had received the Orders. As a
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnotes


6/31

result, the DENR Secretary no longer had the jurisdiction to issue the assailedResolution, dated 21 December 1994. It added that after looking into the meritsof the case, the Orders of the RED were in accordance with the evidence onrecord and the pertinent laws on the matter.21

On 20 August 1996, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order,dated 5 August 1996. On 21 May 1997, the MAB resolved the motion in favor ofthe respondent and affirmed the assailed Order, dated 5 August 1996. 22It tookcognizance of the appeal filed by petitioner, in accordance with Section 78 ofRepublic Act No 7942, otherwise known as The Philippine Mining Act of1995.23The MAB ruled that the petitioner filed its appeal beyond the five-dayprescriptive period provided under Presidential Decree No. 463, which was thenthe governing law on the matter.

The MAB also decreed that the respondent had preferential mining rights overBlock 159. It ruled that the proper procedure with respect to the mining rightsapplication over Block 159 when it was still part of the Malangas CoalReservation required the following: (1) application for prospecting permit withthe OEA or other office having jurisdiction over said reservation; (2) applicationfor exploration permit; (3) application for exclusion of the land from suchreservation; (4) Presidential Declaration on exclusion as recommended by theSecretary; and (5) application for Lease thereof with priority given to holder ofexploration Permit. ASIDTa

The MAB noted that petitioner did not file for an exploration permit nor appliedfor the exclusion of Block 159. Moreover, petitioner filed a MPSA on 18 October1991, or almost six (6) months prior to the issuance of Proclamation No. 890excluding Block 159 from the Malangas Coal Reservation and allowing itsdisposition. Thus, the application for a MPSA over Block 159, while it was stillpart of a government reservation other than a mineral reservation, waserroneous and improper and could not have been legally accepted. And, sincethe records show that only one MPSA was filed after the issuance ofProclamation 890 that of the respondent's, the preferential right over Block159 was acquired by the respondent. The MAB, nevertheless, pointed out that

the said preferential right does not necessarily lead to the granting of therespondent's MPSA, but merely consists of the right to have his applicationevaluated and the prohibition against accepting other mining applications overBlock 159 pending the processing of his MPSA.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

The correct mode of appeal would have been to file a petition for review underRule 43, before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner's reliance on Section 79 of thePhilippine Mining Act of 1995 is misplaced.24Republic Act No. 7902 expanded

the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to include:

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions,resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicialagencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions . . . except thosefalling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court inaccordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnotes


7/31

under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of thisAct, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph(4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

With the enactment of Republic Act No. 7902, this Court issued Circular No. 1-95

dated 16 May 1995 governing appeals from all quasi-judicial bodies to the Courtof Appeals by petition for review, regardless of the nature of the question raised.Said circular was incorporated in Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 25Inaddition, this Court held in a line of cases that appeals from judgments and finalorders of quasi-judicial bodies are required to be brought to the Court of

Appeals, under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rulesof Civil Procedure.26Nevertheless, this Court has taken into account the factthat these cases were promulgated after the petitioner filed this appeal on 4

August 1997, and decided to take cognizance of the present case.

There are two main issues that need to be resolved in this case: (1) whether ornot the petitioner has already lost its right to appeal the RED's Order dated 12

April 1993; and (2) whether or not the petitioner acquired a preferential right onmining rights over Block 159.

This Court finds no merit in this Petition.

Petitioner alleges that Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 13727governs the

petitioner's appeal of the Orders, dated 12 April 1993 and 5 July 1993, and notSection 50 of Presidential Decree No. 463. He further adds that even ifPresidential Decree No. 463 was applicable in this case, his appeal should havebeen allowed on grounds of substantial justice.

When Presidential Decree No. 463 was enacted in 1974, Section 50 of the lawhad clearly intended to repeal the corresponding provision found in Section 61 ofCommonwealth Act No. 137, and to shorten the 30-day period within which tofile an appeal from the Decision of the Director of Mines and Geo-Sciences to fivedays. Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 137, as amended, provides that:

SEC. 61.Conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations shall besubmitted to the Director of Mines for decision: Provided, That thedecision or order of the Director of Mines may be appealed to theSecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources within thirty days fromreceipt of such decision or order. In case any one of the parties shoulddisagree from the decision or order of the Secretary of Agriculture andNatural Resources, the matter may be taken to the Court of Appeals orthe Supreme Court, as the case may be, within thirty days from thereceipt of such decision or order, otherwise the said decision or order

shall be final and binding upon the parties concerned. . . . .

Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 463 reads:

Sec. 50.Appeals. Any party not satisfied with the decision or order ofthe Director, may, within five (5) days from receipt thereof, appeal tothe Minister [now Secretary]. Decisions of the Minister [now Secretary]
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnotes


8/31

are likewise appealable within five (5) days from receipt thereof by theaffected party to the President whose decision shall be final andexecutory. HCaDET

Petitioner's insistence that the 30-day reglementary period provided by Section

61 of Commonwealth Act No. 137, as amended, applies, cannot be sustained bythis Court. By providing a five-day period within which to file an appeal on thedecisions of the Director of Mines and Geo-Sciences, Presidential Decree No. 463unquestionably repealed Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 137.

In Pearson v. Intermediate Appellate Court,28this Court extensively discussedthe development of the law on the adjudication of mining claims, as seen in theprovisions of Commonwealth Act No. 137, Presidential Decree No. 463, until itspresent state under Republic Act No. 7942. It was noted that there was a cleareffort to modernize the system of administration and disposition of mineral lands

and that the procedure of adjudicating mining claims had become increasinglyadministrative in character.

[W]ith the issuance of Presidential Decree Nos. 99-A, 309, and 463, theprocedure of adjudicating conflicting mining claims has been madecompletely administrative in character, with the President as the finalappeal authority. Section 50 of P.D. 463, providing for a modernizedsystem of administration and disposition of mineral lands, to promoteand encourage the development and exploitation thereof, mandates onthe matter of "Protests, Adverse Claims and Appeals," the following

procedure:

Appeals Any party not satisfied with the decision ororder of the Director may, within five (5) days fromreceipt thereof appeal, to the Secretary. Decisions of theSecretary are likewise appealable within five (5) daysfrom receipt thereof by the affected party to thePresident of the Philippines whose decision shall be finaland executory.

It should be noted that before its amendment, the Mining Law (C.A. No.

137) required that after the filing of adverse claim with the Bureau ofMines, the adverse claimant had to go to a court of competent

jurisdiction for the settlement of the claim. With the amendment seekingto expedite the resolution of mining conflicts, the Director of Minesbecame the mandatory adjudicator of adverse claims, instead of theCourt of First instance. Thus, it cannot escape notice that under Section61 of the Mining Law, as amended by Republic Act Nos. 746 and 4388,appeals from the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and NaturalResources (then Minister of Natural Resources) on conflicts and disputesarising out of mining locations may be made to the Court of Appeals or

the Supreme Court as the case may be. In contrast, under the decreesissued at the onset of martial law, it has been expressly provided thatthe decisions of the same Secretary in mining cases are appealable tothe President of the Philippines under Section 50 of the MineralResources Development Decree of 1974 (P.D. No. 463) and Section 7 ofP.D. No. 1281 in relation to P.D. No. 309.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnotes


9/31

The trend at present is to make the adjudication of mining cases apurely administrative matter. This does not mean that administrativebodies have complete rein over mining disputes. The very terms ofSection 73 of the Mining Law, as amended by R.A. No. 4388, in requiringthat the adverse claim must "state in full detail the nature, boundaries

and extent of the adverse claim" show that the conflicts to be decidedby reason of such adverse claim refer primarily to questions of fact. Thecontroversies to be submitted and resolved by the Director of Minesunder the sections referred only to the overlapping of claims andadministrative matters incidental thereto. Questions and controversiesthat are judicial, not administrative, in nature can be resolved only bythe regular courts in whom is vested the judicial power to resolve andadjudicate such civil disputes and controversies between litigants inaccordance with the established norms of law and justice. Decisions ofthe Supreme Court on mining disputes have recognized a distinctionbetween (1) the primary powers granted by pertinent provisions of lawto the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (and thebureau directors) of an executive or administrative nature, such as"granting of license, permits, lease and contracts, or approving,rejecting, reinstating or cancelling applications, or deciding conflictingapplications," and (2) controversies or disagreements of civil orcontractual nature between litigants which are questions of a judicialnature that may be adjudicated only by the courts of justice.

This distinction is carried on even under the present law. Findings of factby the Mines Adjudication Board, which exercises appellate jurisdiction

over decisions or orders of the panel of arbitrators, shall be conclusiveand binding on the parties, and its decision or order shall be final andexecutory. But resort to the appropriate court, through a petition forreview by certiorari, involving questions of law, may be made withinthirty days from the receipt of the order or decision of the Mines

Adjudication Board. acITSD

Nor can petitioner invoke the doctrine that rules of technicality must yield to thebroader interest of substantial justice. While every litigant must be given theamplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from

the constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within thereglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problemas it deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal. The right toappeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to beexercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. 29

Petitioner invokes the judicial policy of allowing appeals, although filed late,when the interest of justice so requires. Procedural law has its own rationale inthe orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcementof substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness,

caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Hence, rules ofprocedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons,they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate withhis failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberalapplication of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the partyinvoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules.30In the instantcase, petitioner failed to state any compelling reason for not filing its appeal
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnotes


10/31

within the mandated period. Instead, the records show that after failing tocomply with the period within which to file their motion for reconsideration ontime, they again failed to file their appeal before the Office of the DENRSecretary within the time provided by law.

Even if petitioner had not lost its right to appeal, it cannot claim any miningrights over Block 159 for failure to comply with the legal requirements. Petitionerapplied for an MPSA with the DENR on 18 October 1991, prior to the release ofBlock 159 from the Malangas Coal Reservation under Proclamation No. 890 on 13

April 1992. Thus, the provisions on the acquisition of mining rights within agovernment reservation other than a mineral reservation under PresidentialDecree No. 463 and the Consolidated Mines Administrative Order (CMAO) shouldapply.

As a general rule, prospecting and exploration of minerals in a governmentreservation is prohibited under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 463.However, the same rule provides an exception involving instances when thegovernment agency concerned allows it.

Section 13.Areas Closed to Mining Location. No prospecting andexploration shall be allowed:

(a)In military, and other Government reservations except whenauthorized by the proper Government agency concerned.

Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 463 reiterates the rule and clarifies itfurther by stating that prospecting, exploration and exploitation of mineralson reserved lands other than mineral reservations may be undertaken by theproper government agency. As an exception to this rule, qualified personsmay undertake the said prospecting, exploration and exploitation when thesaid agencies cannot undertake them.

Section 8.Prospecting, Exploration and Exploitation of Minerals inReserved Lands. Prospecting, exploration and exploitation of mineralsin reserved lands other than mineral reservations may be undertaken bythe proper government agency. In the event that the said agenciescannot undertake the prospecting, exploration and exploitation ofminerals in reserved lands, qualified persons may be permitted toundertake such prospecting, exploration and exploitation in accordancewith the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary [Minister].The right to exploit the minerals found therein shall be awarded by thePresident under such terms and conditions as recommended by theDirector and approved by the Secretary [Minister]: Provided, That theparty who undertook prospecting, exploration and exploitation of said

are shall be given priority.aSTAHD

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, a specialpermit may be issued by the Director to the exploration permitee toextract, remove and dispose of minerals in limited quantities as verifiedby the Bureau of Mines [Director of Mines and Geo-Sciences].


11/31

Section 15 of the CMAO is more straightforward when it states that governmentreserved lands are open for prospecting, subject to the rules and regulationsprovided therein.

SEC. 15.Government Reserved Land. Lands reserved by the

Government for purposes other than mining are open to prospecting.Any interested party may file an application therefore with the head ofthe agency administering said land, subject always to compliance withpertinent laws and rules and regulations covering such reserved land.Such application shall be acted upon within thirty (30) days. In suchcases, the compensation due the surface owner shall accrue equally tothe agency administering the reserved land and the Bureau of Mines.

The law enumerates the following requirements: (1) a prospecting permit fromthe agency that has jurisdiction over the area, in this case, the OEA;31(2) an

exploration permit from the BMGS;32(3) if the exploration reveals the presenceof commercial deposit, the permitee applies before the BMGS for the exclusion ofthe area from the reservation;33(4) granting by the president of the applicationto exclude the area from the reservation;34and (5) a mining agreementapproved by the DENR Secretary.

In this case, petitioner complied with the first requirement and obtained aprospecting permit from the OEA. In its correspondence with the petitioner, theOEA, however, advised the petitioner on two separate occasions to obtain a"prospecting permit" from the BMGS, although the OEA was probably referring to

an exploration permit.35The petitioner did not apply for an exploration permitwith the BMGS, nor would the BMGS have granted petitioner an explorationpermit because when petitioner wrote to the BMGS informing the latter of itsintention to enter into an MPSA with the DENR over Block 159, the BMGSinformed the petitioner that the respondent's claim over Block 159 had alreadypreceded that of the petitioner.36The advice given by the BMGS was justifiedsince at that time, the respondent already had a pending application for theexclusion of Block 159 from the Malangas Coal Reservation. Thereafter, thepetitioner filed his MPSA application, without complying with the second, thirdand fourth requisites. Since it ignored the sound advice of the OEA and the

BMGS, the government agencies concerned, and stubbornly insisted on itsincorrect procedure, petitioner cannot complain now that its MPSA was revokedfor failure to comply with the legal requirements. AHCETa

In contrast, the respondent applied for a DOL as early as 30 January 1989. TheDENR Regional Office refused to register the respondent's DOL since Block 159was still part of the Malangas Coal Reservation and advised the respondent toapply for the exclusion of the area from the reservation. The respondentfollowed this advice. The BMGS then treated the respondent's application for aDOL as an application for an exploration permit and caused a verification reportof the area applied for, as provided under Section 99 of the CMAO.37Upon theapplication of the respondent, the OEA and thereafter the DENR Secretaryendorsed the respondent's application for the exclusion of the area from thereservation.38This application was granted by the President, throughProclamation No. 890, which provided that the mining rights to Block 159 will bedisposed of in accordance with Executive Order No. 279. On 30 July 1992,
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnotes


12/31

respondent filed his MPSA.39On 12 April 1993, the RED of Zamboanga Cityordered that the respondent's MPSA be given due course.40Although therespondent's applications may not follow the strict letter of the law, there wassubstantial compliance with the requirements of the law. Hence, the respondentwas able to acquire a preferential right on the mining claims over Block 159, asprovided under Section 101 of the CMAO.

Even if it were to be assumed that the respondent failed to comply with theserequirements, this would not be fatal to his cause since he filed his MPSA on 31July 1992, after the issuance of Proclamation No. 890; therefore, the provisionson the application of mining rights over government reservations would nolonger apply to him because Block 159 was already converted into a mineralreservation, wherein a different set of rules would apply. The only effect of hisfailure to comply with the requirements CMAO on government reservations is

that he loses the preferential right over the area involved. In this case, therespondent was the only applicant to the mining rights over Block 159, apartfrom the petitioner who was not qualified for failure to comply with the legalrequirements. Proclamation No. 890 specifically provides that Executive OrderNo. 279 should be applied. Records indicate that the provisions of ExecutiveOrder No. 279 have been complied with.41

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DENIED. The assailedDecision of the Mines Adjudication Board is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, C.J., Ynares-Santiago Austria-Martinezand Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1.Penned by Chairman Victor O. Ramos with Associate Justices Virgilio Q. Mercadoand Horacio C. Ramos, concurring; rollo, pp. 199-205.

2.Rollo, p. 91.

3.Records, Folder II, pp. 14-15, 39-40, 41.

4.Rollo, p. 200.

5.Id. at 41 and 46.

6.Id. at 91.

7.Records, Folder V, p. 43.

8.Executive Order 279, Authorizing the Secretary of Environment and National

Resources to Negotiate and Conclude Joint Venture Co-Production, orProduction-Sharing Agreements for the Exploration, Development andUtilization of Mineral Resources, and Prescribing the Guidelines for Such

Agreements and Those Agreements Involving Technical or Financial Assistanceby Foreign Owned Corporations for Large-Scale Exploration, Development andUtilization of Minerals, 25 July 1987.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/9485?search=gr%3A+%28129820%2A%29#footnotes


13/31

9.Rollo, p. 92.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 93.

12.Id. at 94-98.

13.Id. at 99-100.

14.Id. at 101-112.

15.Id. at 200.

16.Id. at 114-118.

17.Sec. 50. Appeals.

Any party not satisfied with the decision or order of theDirector may, within five (5) days from receipt thereof, appeal to the Minister(now Secretary). Decisions of the Minister (now Secretary) are likewiseappealable within five (5) days from receipt thereof by the affected party to thePresident of the Philippines whose decision shall be final and executory.

18.Rollo, pp. 120-134.

19.Id. at 135-150.

20.Id. at 152-164.

21.Id. at 181-186.

22.Id. at 199-205.

23.SEC. 78. Appellate Jurisdiction. The decision or order of the panel of arbitratorsmay be appealed by the party not satisfied thereto to the Mines AdjudicationBoard within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof which must decide the casewithin thirty (30) days from submission thereof for decision.

24.Rollo, p. 5.

The last paragraph of Section 79 of Republic Act No. 7942, The Philippine Mining Actof 1995 provides that:

xxx xxx xxx

A petition for review by certiorariand question of law may be filed by the aggrievedparty with the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the orderor decision of the Board.

25.Sebastian v. Hon. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 606-607 (2003).

26.Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development Corporation, 435 Phil. 836, 844(2002); Fabian v. Hon. Disierto, 356 Phil. 787, 803-804 (1998); Sy v.Commission on Settlement of Land Problems, 417 Phil. 378, 393(2001); Sebastian v. Morales, supra.


14/31

27.An Act to Provide for The Conservation, Disposition, and Development of MineralLand and Minerals, 7 November 1936.

28.356 Phil. 341, 357-359 (1998).

29.Republic v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 92, 100-101 (2000).

30.Sebastian v. Morales, supranote 25 at 558-559.

31.SEC. 97. Prospecting Permit Before a prospector is allowed to enter a

government reservation, he shall first secure a prospecting permit from theagency that has jurisdiction over the area. He shall submit to said agency thefollowing:

a)Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey Map of scale 1:50,000 showing theboundaries of the area and location thereof in the map prepared by a geodetic

engineer; and

b)Proof of financial capability and technical competence.

The term of prospecting permit shall be for six (6) months within which period theapplicant may apply for exploration permit with the Bureau of Mines. If portionsonly of the area covered by the permit are mineralized, the prospector shallmodify and reduce the area. In no case should the area be enlarged even afterprospecting the same is found to be larger than the original area applied for.

Another application for prospecting permit for the additional area shall be filed

thereon.

32.SEC. 98. Application for Exploration Permit Upon discovery of mineral deposits

or strong evidences thereof, the prospector may apply for exploration permitwith the Bureau of Mines on the form (BM Form No. MRD-24) attached heretoas Appendix "T", and made part of these Regulations. He shall pay a filing feeof fifty centavos (P0.50) per hectare, and submit together with his applicationthe following:

a)A certified copy of the prospecting permit which should be subsisting at the date ofapplication for exploration permit;

b)Copy of the same location map as in Section 97 (a) accompanied by another maddefined by actual survey;

c)Work program for exploration covering the full term of the permit for two (2) years;

d)Proof of financial capability and technical competence to undertake exploration; and

e)Geologic support of prospecting activities and findings in the area prepared by a

licensed geologist or mining engineer.

SEC. 99. Approval of Exploration Permit The Director shall thereafter cause a

geologic verification of the area applied for and upon finding that the samecontains minerals, he may issue an exploration permit. He may issue anexploration permit on the form (BM Form No. MRD-25) hereto attached as


15/31

Appendix "U", and made part of these Regulations, for a period of two (2)years extendable for the same period.

33.SEC. 101. Exclusion of the Area for Mining Purposes If the result of the

exploration reveals the presence of a commercial deposit, the permittee may

apply with the Bureau of Mines for the exclusion of the area from thereservation which shall be supported by:

a)Complete geologic report on the area prepared by a licensed geologist;

b)Project study prepared by a licensed mining engineer justifying the development ofthe area;

c)Financial report of all expenditures incurred duly certified by a certified publicaccountant; and

d)Boundary survey of the area by a deputy geodetic engineer complete with surveyreturns and map on prescribed form (BM Form No. MRD-18).

Upon receipt of the application, the Director shall conduct a verification of the findingsreported in the project study and valuation of the area at the expense of theapplicant.

If after verifications the Director finds the application meritorious, he shall forward tothe Secretary for consideration who may recommend to the President theexclusion of the area from the reservation.

In the event that the area is excluded from the reservation, the applicant shall have apreferential right to the lease thereof, subject to the terms which the Presidentmay impose in the exclusion of the area.

34.Id.

35.Rollo, p. 41 and 46.

36.Records, Folder V, p. 43.

37.Records, Folder II, pp. 32-33; Rollo, p. 203.

38.Id. at 39-40, and 41.

39.Records, Folder II, p. 62.

40.Rollo, p. 93.

41.Records, Folder II, pp. 62-100.


16/31

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 74454. September 3, 1998.]

ALFRED PEARSON, for himself and as the attorney-in-factof his co-heirs/co-successors-in-interest, namely: ELSIEPEARSON-FUENTES, HENRY PEARSON, WILLIAMPEARSON, JR, ROBERT PEARSON, EDUARD PEARSON,CHARLES PEARSON, FREDRIECH PEARSON and HARRY F.GASSER, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,Hon. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 155, Pasig, MetroManila, Hon. Presidential Executive Assistant; Hon.Minister of Natural Resources; Hon. Director of Mines;DIAMOND MINING CORPORATION, ROSARIO MINING

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and A. SORIANOCORPORATION, respondents.

Maximo F. Belmonte for petitioners.

Eriberto D. Ignacio for private respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Alfred Pearson, et al. as successors-in-interest of the late William F. Pearson, Sr.,the biggest stockholder and sole owner of the dissolved Tambis Gold DredgingCo., Inc., the claimant of the mining claims in Brgy. Bahi, Lianga, Surigao delSur, filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamuswith preliminaryinjunction against the herein respondents with the Court of First Instance (CFI)of Pasig to annul the decision of the Office of the President affirming the decisionof the Ministry of Natural Resources which held that "Appellant's (hereinpetitioners) mining claims are abandoned, if not null and void. Evidence onrecord clearly establishes the fact that appellants failed to conduct the necessaryworks on their claim, to file the affidavit of annual work obligations, and to paythe real estate taxes," and to restrain the private respondents mining companies,Rosario Mining and Diamond Mining from entering and developing the miningclaims involved. The mining companies filed their joint motion to dismiss andopposition to the preliminary injunction. Instead of resolving the motion todismiss, the CFI ordered the creation of anAd HocOcular Inspection Committeeto determine the correct tie-point of private respondents' mineral claim, andsubsequently scheduled the ocular inspection.

In turn, the mining companies filed with the IAC a petition for certiorariand

prohibition, assailing the aforementioned orders of the CFI which granted thewrit and set aside the orders of the CFI.

After the decision of the IAC became final and executory, the CFI issued an orderdismissing the petition filed by the Pearsons. Hence, the petition.


17/31

The petition is entirely devoid of merit. No reversible error was committed by theIAC when it assumed jurisdiction over private respondents' petitionfor certiorariinvolving interlocutory orders of the trial court.

The trial court clearly acted outside of its jurisdiction when it issued the assailed

ordered creating theAd HocCommittee and scheduling the ocular inspection. HEITAD

The lower court did not have jurisdiction over the mining dispute. With theissuance of Presidential Decree Nos. 99-A, 309, and 463, the procedure ofadjudicating conflicting mining claims has been made completely administrativein character, with the President as the final appeal authority. cACEHI

The public officials' judgment are well supported by substantial evidence.Moreover, by the Pearsons' own admission, they failed to file the affidavit ofannual assessment works and to pay the real estate taxes from 1957-1974,

which were filed and paid only later in 1974.

SYLLABUS

1.REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; PRINCIPLE OFHIERARCHY OF COURTS MUST BE OBSERVED. It has also been emphasized ina number of cases that while this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Courtof Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts (for writs enforceable within theirrespective regions), to issue writs ofmandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the

litigants are well advised against taking a direct recourse to this Court. Instead,they should initially seek the proper relief from the lower courts. As a court oflast resort, this Court should not be burdened with the task of dealing withcauses in the first instance. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ isconcurrently within the competence of the CA and RTC, litigants must observethe principle of hierarchy of courts. This Court's original jurisdiction to issueextraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary, orwhere serious and important reasons therefor exist. CAETcH

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLOWED AS A MODE OF REDRESS TO PREVENT IRREPARABLEDAMAGES AND INJURY TO A PARTY.

As a general rule, an interlocutory order

is not appealable until after the rendition of the judgment on the merits, anexception is made where the remedy of appeal cannot afford an adequate andexpeditious relief. In such exception, certiorarican be allowed as a mode ofredress to prevent irreparable damage and injury to a party. We further held thatwhere the order complained of is a patent nullity, a petitionfor certiorariand mandamusmay properly be entertained despite the existenceof the remedy of appeal.

3.CIVIL LAW; NATURAL RESOURCES; MINING CLAIMS; PRESIDENT IS THEFINAL APPEAL AUTHORITY. With the issuance of Presidential Decree Nos. 99-

A, 309, and 463, the procedure of adjudicating conflicting mining claims hasbeen made completely administrative in character, with the President as the finalappeal authority.


18/31

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; DECISIONS OF MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD CAN BE RAISEDTO THE APPROPRIATE COURT THROUGH PETITION FOR REVIEWONCERTIORARI. Findings of fact by the Mines Adjudication Board, whichexercises appellate jurisdiction over decisions or orders of the panel ofarbitrators, shall be conclusive and binding on the parties, and its decision ororder shall be final and executory. But resort to the appropriate court, through apetition by certiorari, involving questions of law, may be made within thirty daysfrom the receipt of the order or decision of the Mines Adjudication Board. EDACSa

5.ID.; ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCESIS NOT APPEALABLE TO THIS COURT UNLESS THERE IS A GRAVE ABUSE OFDISCRETION IN MAKING SUCH FINDINGS. Well established is the rule thatfindings of fact made in the decision of the Minister of Natural Resources (thenSecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources) appealed from will not be

reviewed by this Court unless there has been a grave abuse of discretion inmaking said findings by reason of the total absence of competent evidence insupport thereof.

6.ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF A LOCATOR OF A MINING CLAIM IS NOT ABSOLUTE. While it is recognized that the right of a locator of a mining claim is a propertyright, such right is not absolute. It is merely a possessory right, more so wherepetitioner's claims are still unpatented. Mere location does not mean absoluteownership over the affected land or located claim. It merely segregates thelocated land or area from the public domain by barring other would-be locators

from locating the same and appropriating for themselves the minerals foundtherein. To rule otherwise would imply the location is all that is needed toacquire and maintain rights over a located mining claim. This cannot beapproved or sanctioned because it is contrary to the intention of the lawmakerthat the locator should faithfully and consistently comply with the requirementfor annual works and improvements in the located mining claims. Not onlyshould there be a valid and subsisting location of the mineral land but also thereshould be, thereafter, continuous compliance with all the requirements of lawsuch as the performance of annual assessment works and payment of real estatetaxes. CIETDc

D E C I S I O N

QUISUMBING, Jp:

This Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunctionand Prayer for a Restraining Order seeks to annul the following: prcd

1.Decision dated September 30, 1983 of respondent IntermediateAppellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in AC-G.R. No.15439 which in effect upheld herein private respondents'mining claims and directed respondent Regional Trial Courtto resolve the motion to dismiss in Civil Case No 45053.1


19/31

2.Order dated July 31, 1984 of the Court of First Instance, BranchX (now Regional Trial Court, Branch 155), Pasig, MetroManila, dismissing Civil Case No. 45053 on the basis of anearlier decision of the Court of Appeals upholding thefindings of fact of the Minister of Natural Resources;2

3.Decision dated August 31, 1981 of the Office of the President,upholding the finding of the Minister that petitioners hadabandoned their "BAROBO" mining claims and accordinglydismissed their appeal;3

4.Decision dated October 29, 1979 of the Minister of NaturalResources, affirming the decision of the Director of Mines;4

5.Consolidated Decision dated May 12, 1976 of the Director of

Mines in Mines Administrative Case Nos. V-817 and V-818,upholding the preferential rights of private respondents tolease, possess, explore and develop their respective"DIAMOND" and "MARTIN" mining claims in question;5

The petitioners also pray that their mining claims be declared valid and thatprivate respondents' mining claims be declared null and void.

The petitioners Alfred Pearson, et al. (hereinafter "Pearsons") claim to haveinherited the beneficial-interest of the Tambis Gold Dredging Co., Inc.(hereinafter "Tambis Gold") upon its dissolution, owing to the fact that thebiggest stockholder of said company and the sole owner of the claims was theirancestor, William F. Pearson, Sr.6

Private respondents Diamond Mining Corporation, Rosario Mining DevelopmentCorporation and their assignee A. Soriano Corporation (hereinafter "MiningCompanies") are domestic corporations organized and existing under Philippinelaws.

The public respondents are the Director of Mines, the Minister of NaturalResources, the Presidential Executive Assistant, the Court of First Instance (CFI),and the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).7Each of them had ruled in favor ofthe Mining Companies.

The facts as found by the respondent Minister of Natural Resources andconfirmed by the respondents Presidential Executive Assistant and the IAC are asfollows:

"From the records and the documentary evidence at hand, it appearsthat the Tambis Gold Dredging Co., Inc. filed in 1919, under the Act ofCongress of July 1, 1902, declarations of location covering the"BAROBO-1" to "BAROBO-5" placer claims located at the barrio of Bahi,municipality of Lianga, province of Surigao del Sur. These declarations oflocation were destroyed or lost during the war.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnotes


20/31

In 1948, the Tambis Gold Dredging Co., Inc. filed with the Bureau ofMines affidavits to reconstitute the declarations of location for the"BAROBO" placer claims. The affidavits were recorded with the miningrecorder on January 19, 1949.

On February 29, 1960, the Tambis Gold Dredging Co., Inc. wasdissolved. Appellants (herein petitioners) were at that time stockholdersof the corporation.

From May 10 to June 11, 1970, appellee (now respondent) RosarioMining, through its agent Marcelino Manabat, discovered and located the"MARTIN - 1", "MARTIN - 2", "MARTIN - 5", "MARTIN - 6" and "MARTIN- 27" placer claims in the barrio of Bahi, municipality of Barobo, provinceof Surigao del Sur. On June 25, 1970, the declarations of locationtherefor, and the Special Power and (sic) Attorney appointing MarcelinoManabat as attorney-in-fact, were registered with the Mining Recorderof Surigao del Sur.

On August 31, 1970, the applications for the survey of the "MARTIN"claims were filed, and, on March 13, 1973 and December 18, 1973, thecorresponding orders for survey were issued.

On June 22, 1973, appellee (now respondent) Rosario Mining filed thelease application covering the "MARTIN" placer claims. After the surveyreturns of said placer claims were approved on January 3, 1975, thenotice of lease was published in February 20 and 27, 1975 issues of the

"Mindanao Times" and in the February 25 and March 4, 1975 issues ofthe "Times Journal".

Meanwhile, from February 24 to March 5, 1974, appellee (now alsorespondent) Diamond Mining, through its agent Justiniano Deloso,discovered and located the "DIAMOND - I" to "DIAMOND - 7" placerclaims in the barrio of Bahi, municipality of Barobo, province of Surigaodel Sur. On March 25, 1974, the declarations of location therefor,including the Special Power of Attorney in favor of Justiniano Deloso,were registered with the Mining Recorder of Surigao del Sur.

On April 17, 1973, the application for survey of the "DIAMOND" placerclaims were filed, and, on May 21, 1974, the order for survey wasissued.

On April 22, 1974 appellee Diamond Mining filed the lease applicationscovering the "DIAMOND" placer claims. Subsequently, after the surveyreturns of said claims were approved on December 24, 1974 andJanuary 3, 1975, the notice of lease application was published in theFebruary 25 and March 4, 1975 issues of the "Times Journal" and in theFebruary 27 and March 6, 1975 issues of the "Mindanao Times".

On 10 March 1975, appellants (petitioners herein) filed the adverseclaims against appellees (now private respondents).

After the case was heard by the Panel of Investigators of the Bureau ofMines, the Director of Mines rendred (sic) the decision appealed from.


21/31

In his decision, the Director held that appellants (petitioners) failed toestablish the existence of the conflict among the placer claims involved;that the "BAROBO" placer claims are null and void because their tiepoints, as described in the affidavits to reconstitute the declarations oflocation therefor, are not the natural objects or permanent monuments

prescribed under the law and their geographical positions cannot beaccurately determined; that, even if said "BAROBO" claims were validlylocated, the same have been abandoned due to the failure of theoriginal locators thereof to perform assessment works therein, to file thecorresponding affidavits of annual work obligations, and to pay the realestate taxes thereon; and that appellants (petitioners) are not thesuccessors-in-interest of the Tambis Gold Dredging Co., Inc., hence theyhave no legal personality to institute the adverse claims."8

On appeal, the Minister of Natural Resources in a Decision dated October 29,

1979, affirmed the judgment of the Director of Mines.9

He agreed with theDirector's finding on the issue of abandonment.

Not satisfied with the decision of the Minister of Natural Resources, the Pearsonsappealed to the Office of the President. They filed a Manifestation requesting theOffice to require the Mining Companies to file a bond in such amount as may benecessary to protect the interests of the Pearsons during the pendency of thecase before it. Also, they prayed for an order for immediate ocular inspection ofthe area to determine the fundamental issue of the correct tie point of thecontroverted mining claims.10

In an Order dated June 23, 1981, the Office of the President granted the motionconcerning the bond but denied the request for ocular inspection. In the order, itwas stated that "the investigation conducted by the Presidential InvestigatingCommittee of the Bureau of Mines has already considered and determined theissue which require no more (sic) further verification and clarification."11ThePearsons and the Mining Companies separately moved for reconsideration.12

Subsequently, the Office of the President granted the motion for ocularinspection, and ordered the creation of an Ad Hoc Ocular Inspection Committee

on June 23, 1989.13The Mining Companies moved for reconsideration of thisorder.14

In a Decision dated August 31, 1981, the Office of the President revoked theorder allowing ocular inspection, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, andreleased all monies that might have been deposited by the Mining Companies.The pertinent grounds of its dismissal are hereunder quoted:15

". . . We agree with the findings of the Ministry of Natural Resourcesthat Appellant's mining claims are abandoned, if not null and void.

Evidence on record clearly establishes the fact that appellants failed toconduct the necessary works on their claim, to file the affidavits ofannual work obligations, and to pay the real estate taxes. Theseommissions (sic) by appellants constitute abandonment of their claims.Executive Order No. 141 dated August 1, 1968, explicitly states thatunpatented mining claims which were located more than thirty yearsago under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902, as amended, and
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/12599?search=%28gr%3A+%2874454%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F74454+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_articl

nat res case part 3

Documents