1. E. W. McDANIEL vs. Honorable GALICANO
IAC,
APACIBLE, Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources of the Philippine Islands; JUAN
CUISIA (1922)
FACTS:
Upon the foregoing facts the petitioner
contends that said Act No. 2932, in so far as
it purports to declare open to lease, lands
containing petroleum oil on which mineral
claims have been validly located and held, and
upon which discoveries of petroleum oil have
been made, is void and unconstitutional, in
that it deprives the petitioner of his
property without due process of law and
without compensation, and that the defendant
Galicano Apacible, as Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, is without jurisdiction
to lease to the respondent Juan Cuisia the
following mineral claims "Maglihi No. 1,"
"Maglihi No. 2," and "Maglihi No. 3," and
prays that the writ of prohibition be issued
out of this court, directing and prohibiting
the respondent Galicano Apacible to desist
from issuing the lease of the mineral placer
claims herein mentioned.
The petitioner contends, that, having located
and held, and having discovered petroleum oil
upon the said claims prior to the 31st day of
August, 1920, he had acquired a property right
in his three claims; and that said Act No.
2932 had deprived him of that right without
due process of law, in contravention of
paragraph 1 of section 3 of Act of Congress of
August 29, 1916, and that said Act was
therefore unconstitutional and void. In
support of the contention the petitioner cites
many authorities.
The respondent Galicano Apacible, as Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources, in
support of his demurrer, contends: (a) That
the acts complained of are in conformity with
the authority given by Act No. 2932; (b) that
the petitioner has no vested right in the
three mineral claims; and (c) that the
demurrer puts squarely in issue the
constitutionality of Act No. 2932.
Act No. 2932 was approved on the 31st day of
August, 1920. Section 1 provides that "all
public lands containing petroleum or other
mineral oils and gas, on which no patent, at
the date this Act takes effect, has been
issued, are hereby withdrawn from sale and are
declared to be free and open to exploration,
location and lease," etc. Said section further
provides, "that parties having heretofore
filed claims for any lands containing said
minerals, shall be given preference to lease
their respective claims, provided they file a
petition to that effect within six months from
the date of the approval of this Act."
Section 2 provides that "all such lands
(public lands) may be leased by the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources in the
manner and subject to the rules prescribed by
the Council of State."
2. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY, INC vs.
Tuktukan Saingan (1996)
FACTS:
Petitioner Atok Big Wedge Mining Company
appeals from the decision1 of the Court of
Appeals2 which reversed the decision3 of the
then Court of First Instance of Baguio City4
in a land registration case.5 The court a quo
denied and correspondingly dismissed the
application for registration of title filed by
private respondent Tuktukan Saingan, finding
no merit in Saingan's claim of adverse, open
and continuous possession in concept of an
owner of the tract of land applied for by him,
which happened to be claimed by petitioner as
part of its mining duly recorded by the Mining
Recorder of Benguet. Respondent appellate
court found petitioner to have abandoned its
mining claim over the said tract of land and,
on the other hand, adjudged private respondent
to be the owner thereof by virtue of his having
possessed the same under a bona fide claim of
ownership for at least thirty (30) years prior
to the filing of his land registration
application in 1965.
The evidence for the applicant [private
respondent] who was 70 years old at the time
he testified shows that he acquired the land
from his father-in-law, Dongail, when he
married his daughter; that he was then 18
years old; that at the time of his
acquisition, it was planted with camotes,
casava [sic], langka, gabi, coffee and
avocados; that he lived on the land since his
marriage up to the present; that he has been
paying the taxes during the Japanese
occupation and even before it; that he was
never disturbed in his possession.
ISSUE:
THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION HAD LONG BEEN
SEGREGATED FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND
OWNERSHIP THERETO HAD LONG BECOME VESTED IN
HEREIN PETITIONER WHEN ITS MINING CLAIMS IN
QUESTION WERE REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
MINING RECORDER IN 1921 AND 1931 RESPECTIVELY.
HELD:
Private respondent, it must be emphasized,
offered in evidence in the land registration
proceedings before the court a quo, tax
declarations, dated March 20, 1948, and tax
payment receipts, dated February 8, 1949.
Significantly, petitioner did not present any
evidence in rebuttal of private respondent's
aforestated claims of having acquired the
subject land from his wife's father and having
lived on the land since his marriage at the
age of eighteen (18). Neither has petitioner
taken exception to the aforecited observations
of the court commissioner during the ocular
inspection of the subject land.
FACTS:
Petitioner claims that it is the owner and
holder of sixty (60) mineral claims which it
acquired through purchase in good faith and
for value 43 years ago. Said claims situated
at the Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Zambales,
were located and registered in 1934 under the
Act of U.S. Congress of July 1, 1902 (known as
the Philippine Bill of 1902). That from 1934
to 1977 it has to its credit a total investment
of over Pl,222,640.00 for the mining
exploration, development and operation of its
said sixty mining claims.
On June 14, 1977 it actually and duly flied
its application for patent for each claim of
said sixty (60) mineral claims wherein
respondent Director of Mines issued an order
dated July 13,1977 approving the application
of petitioner for availment of rights on said
claims under Presidential Decree No. 463. The
aforesaid sixty (60) lode mineral claims are
already private property of petitioner,
following the doctrinal rule laid down in
McDaniel v. Apacible and Cuisia and Gold Creek
Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez, et al. which
had already been segregated from the public
domain to which petitioner is entitled to the
exclusive possession and enjoyment against
everyone. The issuance of Presidential Decree
No. 1214 on October 14, 1977 which declared
open to lease subsisting and valid patentable
mining claims, lode or placer, located under
the provisions of the Act of U.S. Congress of
July 1, 1902, as amended, already segregated
from the public domain and owned and held by
it for over 43 years and requiring it without
fail and against their will to file a mining
lease application with the Mines Regional
Office concerned within a period of one year
from October 14, 1977 is a deprivation of
petitioner's rights to the ownership of said
claims without due process of law nor or just
compensation and therefore, unconstitutional.
Hence, this petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin the Minister (now Secretary)
of Natural Resources and the Director of Mines
from enforcing Presidential Decree No. 1214
dated October 14,1977 requiring all locators
under the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, as
amended, to apply for mining lease contracts
under the provision of Presidential Decree No.
463 better known as the Mineral Development
Resources Decree of 1974 and to declare
Presidential Decree No. 1214 unconstitutional
since its enforcement would deprive
petitioners of its property without due
process and without just compensation.
ISSUE: Whether or not under the provision of
P.D. No. 1214 there was deprivation of
property without due process of law and just
compensation which makes said decree
unconstitutional.
RULING: No. In the case at bar, the Court
categorically stated that P.D. No. 1214 is
constitutional.
Based on the recent decision of this Court in
Sta. Rosa Mining Co., Inc. vs. Leido Jr. where
it was held that while rulings in McDaniel v.
Apacible and Gold Creek Mining Corp. v.
Rodriguez cited by the petitioner, true
enough, recognize the right of a locator of a
mining claim as a property right; such right
is not absolute. It is merely a possessory
right more so if petitioner's claims are still
unpatented. It can be lost through abandonment
or forfeiture or they may be revoked on valid
legal grounds.
Also, as the court further stated, records
show that petitioner Zambales Chromite filed
its patent application over its 60 mining
claims on June 14,1977 and to order such
disposal of said "application on its own
merit" is not within the scope of the
jurisdiction of the Court. For, even assuming
claimant to be a holder of a subsisting and
valid patentable mining claim, this Court has
held that it can no longer proceed with the
acquisition of a mining patent in view of P.D.
No. 1214, issued on October 14, 1977,
directing holder of subsisting and patentable
mining claims, lode or placer, located under
the provisions of the Act of Congress on July
1, 1902, as amended, to file a mining lease
application . . . within one year from the
approval of the Decree and upon the filing
thereof, holders of said claims shall be
considered to have waived their rights to the
issuance of mining patents therefor: Provided,
however, that the non-filing of the
application for mining lease by the holders
thereby within the period herein prescribed
shall cause the forfeiture of all his rights
to the claim." (Director of Lands v. Kalahi
Investments, Inc., G.R. No. L-48066, January
31, 1989).
27. G.R. No. L-49109 December 1, 1987
SANTA ROSA MINING COMPANY, INC. vs. HON.
MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES JOSE J. LEIDO,
JR. AND DIRECTOR OF MINES JUANITO C.
FERNANDEZ, respondents.
DOCTRINE:
(1) As stated by the Court, through Mr.
Justice Sabino Padilla in Ham v. Bachrach
Motor Co., Inc. 4 applying the principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies: "By its
own act of appealing from the decision of the
Director of Lands and the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources to the
President of the Philippines, and without
waiting for the latter's decision, the
defendant cannot complain if the courts do not
take action be fore the President has decided
its appeal."
(2) Mere location does not mean absolute
ownership over the affected land or the mining
claim. It merely segregates the located land
or area from the public domain by barring
other would-be locators from locating the same
and appropriating for themselves the minerals
found therein. To rule otherwise would imply
that location is all that is needed to acquire
and maintain rights over a located mining
claim. This, we cannot approve or sanction
because it is contrary to the intention of the
lawmaker that the locator should faithfully
and consistently comply with the requirements
for annual work and improvements in the
located mining claim.
FACTS:
This is a special civil action for certiorari
and prohibition with prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction, to declare
Presidential Decree No. 1214 unconstitutional
and to enjoin respondent public officials from
enforcing it. On 19 October 1978, the Court
required the respondents to comment on the
petition and issued a temporary restraining
order continuing until otherwise ordered by
the Court.
Petitioner Santa Rosa Mining Company, Inc.
alleges that it is the holder of fifty (50)
valid mining claims situated in Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte, acquired under
the provisions of the Act of the U.S. Congress
dated 1 July 1902. That upon the issuance of
Presidential Decree No. 1214 which requires
holders of subsisting and valid patentable
mining claims located under the provisions of
the Philippine Bill of 1902 to file a mining
lease application within one (1) year from the
approval of the Decree. Petitioner accordingly
filed a mining lease application, but "under
protest," on 13 October 1978, with a
reservation annotated on the back of its
application that it is not waiving its rights
over its mining claims until the validity of
Presidential Decree No. 1214 shall have been
passed upon by this Court. The said disputed
mining lease application caused this petition.
Petitioner avers that its fifty (50) mining
claims had already been declared as its own
private and exclusive property in final
judgments rendered by the Court of First
Instance of Camarines Norte (CFI, for short)
in land registration proceedings initiated by
third persons, such as, a September 1951 land
title application by a certain Gervacio
Liwanag, where the Director of Mines opposed
the grant of said application because herein
petitioner, according to him (Director of
Mines), had already located and perfected its
mining claims over the area applied for.
On the other hand, the respondents allege that
petitioner has no standing to file the instant
petition as it failed to fully exhaust
administrative remedies. They cite the
pendency of petitioner's appeal, with the
Office of the President, of the ruling of the
respondent Secretary of Natural Resources
issued on 2 April 1977 in DNR Case No. 4140,
which upheld the decision of the Director of
Mines finding that forty four (44) out of
petitioner's fifty (50) mining claims were
void for lack of valid "tie points" as
required under the Philippine Bill of 1902,
and that all the mining claims had already
been abandoned and cancelled, for petitioner's
non-compliance with the legal requirements of
the same Phil. Bill of 1902 and Executive
Order No. 141.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner's unpatented
mining claims have remained valid and
subsisting.
RULING:
No. Until petitioner's appeal shall have been
decided by the Office of the President, where
it is pending, petitioner's attempt to seek
judicial recognition of the continuing
validity of its mining claims, cannot be
entertained by the Court.
The cases cited by petitioner, true enough,
recognize the right of a locator of a mining
claim as a property right. This right,
however, is not absolute. It is merely a
possessory right, more so, in this case, where
petitioner's claims are still unpatented. They
can be lost through abandonment or forfeiture
or they may be revoked for valid legal
grounds. The statement in McDaniel v. Apacible
that "There is no pretense in the present case
that the petitioner has not complied with all
the requirements of the law in making the
location of the mineral claims in question, or
that the claims in question were ever
abandoned or forfeited by him," confirms that
a valid mining claim may still be lost through
abandonment or forfeiture.
In the present case, no application for patent
is in issue, although as a holder of
patentable mining claims petitioner could have
applied for one during all these years but
inexplicably did not do so. In Gold Creek, no
finding of abandonment was ever made against
the mining claimant as to deprive it of the
initial privilege given by virtue of its
location; on the other hand, such a finding
has been made in petitioner's case (although
the finding among others is on appeal with the
President).
28. GREENHILLS MINING COMPANY vs. OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT, MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF MINES AND THE GEO-
SCIENCES, AND GREEN VALLEY COMPANY
DOCTRINE:
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 (such as the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
in the present case), in rendering their
questioned decisions or of a total lack of
substantial evidence to support the same, such
administrative decisions are entitled to great
weight and respect and will not be interfered
with by the courts.
FACTS:
The instant petition seeks the review of (a)
the decision dated July 8,1986 issued by
respondent 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 Reserve as 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.
Mining claims of different claimowners were
previously located and registered with the
office of the Mining Recorder at Iba,
Zambales, in 1933 and 1934 under the
provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 .
However, for failure to pursue their claims
and to perform annual assessment works, the
claims were considered abandoned.
The petition involves a conflict of Greenhills
mining claims and the exploration permit of
Green Valley over an area within the Southern
Zambales Forest Reserve and within the same
mineral land wherein the prospecting permit of
Greenhills covering 1,296 hectares within the
Southern Zambales Forest Reserve was declared
null and void pursuant to Section 28(a),
Commonwealth Act No. 137 by Bureu of Mines and
to pave the way for the grant of the two (2)
exploration permits to Green Valey covering
5,208.96 hectares were approved which were in
conflict with the Greenhills group of claims.
Greenhills, feeling aggrieved with the
approval of Green Valley's exploration perit,
it filed separate letter-protests with the BFD
and BMGS asking for the cancellation of Green
Valley's prospecting and exploration permits.
the Director of the BFD issued an order
directing amendment of Green Valley's
prospecting permit to exclude areas previously
located and registered patentable mining
claims as appearing in a sketch plan issued by
the BMGS. Then the Director of the Bureau of
Mines issued an order amending the Exploration
permit by the exclusion of the same. However,
the Ministry of Natural Resources set aside
thr order of BFD and the order of BMGS.
Unsatisfied, Green Valley filed an appeal with
the Office of the President assailing MNRs
refusal to rule on the validity of the mining
claims of Greenhills. Consequently, the Office
of the President rendered a Decision declaring
the mining claims within the Southern Zambales
Forest Reserve located and registered by the
Greenhills Mining Company in violation of
section 28(c) of C.A. No. 137, as amended,
null and void. Since the motion foe
recosideration of Greehill was denied, hence
this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Greenhills has valid
claims being the relocator of the 1933 and
1934 patentable mining claims.
RULING: No. The Court ruled according to the
office of the President that the original
claimowners had failed to perform annual
development work on the claims in violation of
the provisions of Section 36 of the Philippine
Bill of 1902. As a consequence, the area
became "open to relocation ... as if no
location of the same had ever been made." 7
Conversely, assuming that the government lost
the property when the petitioner, or the
original claimowners staked their claims in
1933 and 1934, it reverted to the public
dominion upon abandonment thereof
Accordingly, when President Magsaysay
established the Southern Zambales Forest
Reserve in 1956, the areas covered by the said
abandoned claims already formed part of the
public domain. The petitioner cannot,
moreover, claim privity of title with the
owners of the prior locations. Such prior
locations had been abandoned, or at most,
forfeited, and the petitioner's own location
cannot be considered a continuation thereof.
29. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES et. al., vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) and
JOSE Y. DE LA ROSA, respondents.
Doctrine:
The legal effect of a valid location of a
mining claim is not only to segregate the area
from the public domain, but to grant to the
locator the beneficial ownership of the claim
and the right to a patent therefor upon
compliance with the terms and conditions
prescribed by law. Where there is a valid
location of a mining claim, the area becomes
segregated from the public domain and the
property of the locator.
Facts:
These consolidated cases arose from the
application for registration of a parcel of
land filed by Jose de la Rosa. The subject
land, situated in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet
Province, was divided into 9. According to the
application, Lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la
Rosa and Lots 6-9 to his children by Mamaya
Balbalio and Jaime Alberto.
The application was separately opposed by
Benguet Consolidated, Inc. as to Lots 1-5,
Atok Big Wedge Corporation, as to Portions of
Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9, and by the
Republic of the Philippines, through the
Bureau of Forestry Development, as to lots 1-
9.
In support of the application by De La Rosa,
both Balbalio and Alberto testified that they
had acquired the subject land by virtue of
prescription Balbalio claimed to have received
Lots 1-5 from her father shortly after the
Liberation. Further, Alberto said he received
Lots 6-9 in 1961 from his mother, Bella
Alberto, who declared that the land was
planted by Jaime and his predecessors-in-
interest to bananas, avocado, nangka and
camote, and was enclosed with a barbed-wire
fence.
Benguet opposed on the ground that the June
Bug mineral claim covering Lots 1-5 was sold
to it on September 22, 1934, by the
successors-in-interest of James Kelly, who
located the claim in September 1909 and
recorded it on October 14, 1909.
For its part, Atok alleged that a portion of
Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9 were covered by
the Emma and Fredia mineral claims located by
Harrison and Reynolds on December 25, 1930,
and recorded on January 2, 1931, in the office
of the mining recorder of Baguio.
Issue:
Whether or not De La Rosa is the lawful owner
of the lot.
Ruling
No. It is found by the lower court that the
June Bug mineral claim of Benguet and the
Fredia and Emma mineral claims of Atok having
been perfected prior to the approval of the
Constitution of the Philippines of 1935, they
were removed from the public domain and had
become private properties of Benguet and Atok.
The legal effect of a valid location of a
mining claim is not only to segregate the area
from the public domain, but to grant to the
locator the beneficial ownership of the claim
and the right to a patent therefor upon
compliance with the terms and conditions
prescribed by law. Where there is a valid
location of a mining claim, the area becomes
segregated from the public domain and the
property of the locator.
On the other hand, the trial court found also
that the evidence of open, continuous, adverse
and exclusive possession submitted by the
applicant De La Rosa was insufficient to
support their claim of ownership. They
themselves had acquired the land only in 1964
and applied for its registration in 1965,
relying on the earlier alleged possession of
their predecessors-in-interest.
Therefore, the disputed land shall be awarded
to Benguet and Atok.