PAAT v CA

FACTS: The truck of private respondent (Sps De Guzman) was seized by

DENR personnel because it was transporting forest products without the
required permit of the DENR which is in manifest contravention of sec. 68
of P.D. 705 as amended by E.O. 277 (The Revised Forestry Code)
As a result, private respondent filed a suit for replevin for the return
of the truck. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss with the trial court
contending, inter alia, that private respondents had no cause of action for
their failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Private respondents contend that that their case falls within the
exception of the doctrine upon justification that (1) due process was
violated because they were not given the chance to be heard (2)the seizure
and forfeiture was unlawful (a) the secretary of DENR and his
representative has no authority to confiscate and forfeit conveyances
utilized in transporting illegal forest products (b) that the truck was not
used in the commission of the crime.
RTC denied the motion to dismiss and ruled in favor of the private
respondent. CA likewise affirmed the RTC.
ISSUE: WoN without violating the Principle of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies, may an action for replevin prosper.
HELD: NEGATIVE. The contention of the private respondent was without
merit. The exhaustion of Administrative remedies may be disregarded when:
1) there is a violation of due process 2) when the issue involved is purely
question of law 3) when the administrative action is patently illegal
amounting to lack/ excess of jurisdiction 4)when there is estoppel on the
part of the administrative agency concerned 5) when there is irreparable
injury 6) when the respondent is department secretary whose acts as an
alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the
latter 7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be
unreasonable 8) when it would amount to the nullification of the claim 9)
when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings 10) when
the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy 11) when
there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
However, the case at bar does not fall under the aforementioned
exceptions for they were given the opportunity to be heard and the DENR
and its representative are authorized to order the confiscation and
forfeiture.
 Also, it is important to point out that the enforcement of forestry laws,
rules and regulations and the protection, development, and management of
forest lands falls within the primary and special responsibilities of DENR.
By the very nature of its function, the DENR should be given a free hand
unperturbed by judicial instruction to determine a controversy which is well
within its jurisdiction. The assumption by the trial court, therefore, of a
replevin suit filed by private respondent constitutes an unjustified
encroachment into the domain of administrative agency’s prerogative.

PICOP Resources, Inc. v Base Metals Mineral Resources Corp. &

Minerals Adjudication Board
FACTS: The central Mindanao Mining and Development Corp. (CMMCI)
entered into a Mines Operating Agreement with Banahaw Mining whereby
the latter agreed to act as Mine Operator for the mining operations of
CMMCI’s 18 mining claims located in Agusan del Sur.
As a result, Banahaw Mining filed applications for Mining Lease
Contracts over the mining claims with Bureau of Mines. The latter issued a
Mines Temporary Permit.
Since, the mining claims were within the petitioner’s logging
concession in Agusan del Sur, Banahaw and petitioner entered into a MOA,
whereby PICOP allowed Banahaw Mining an access/ right of way to its
mining claims. Banahaw Mining converted its mining claims to applications
for Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA).
While the MPSA were pending, Banahaw Mining decided to sell/
assign its rights & interests in favor of respondent Base Metals. The
transfer likewise included the agreement with CMMCI. Thereafter, Base
Metals amended the pending MPSA applications to substitute itself as the
applicant. The same were published in accordance with the requirements.
Petitioner filed with the Mines Geo- Sciences (MGB) an adverse claim
to private respondent on the ground that approval of the application will
defeat their rights.
The Panel Arbitrator set aside MPSA applications on the ground that
without the grantee’s consent, the area is considered closed to mining
location. Base Metals appealed and the Minerals Adjudication Board set
aside the decision of the PA, the applications were given due course subject
to compliance with the pertinent requirements. The CA likewise affirmed
the decision of Minerals Adjudication Board.
ISSUE: WoN the concession area in dispute is open to mining activities.
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. First, the Court pointed out that the policy of
multiple land use is enshrined in our laws towards the end that country’s
natural resources may be rationally explored. Likewise government
reservations may be opened for mining applications upon written clearance
by the government agency concerned. Second, the court emphasized that
RA No. 7942 does not disallow mining applications in all forest reserves but
only those proclaimed as watershed forest reserves. However, there is no
evidence in this case that the area covered by Base Metals’ MPSA has been
proclaimed as watershed forest reserves. Moreover, although the area
status and clearances, particularly those pertaining to MPSA Nos. 12&13,
state that portions thereof are within the wilderness area of PICOP, there is
no showing that this supposed wilderness area has been proclaimed,
designated/ set aside as such, pursuant to a law, presidential decree,
presidential proclamation, or executive order as required by RA 7586. It
was only when the area had been so designated that Sec. 20 of RA 7586,
which prohibits mineral locating within protected areas. Became
operational. Hence, the concession area in dispute is open to mining
activities.

ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO. v. LEIDO

FACTS: Petitioner Zambales is a mining corporation which is claiming to be
the owner and holder of 60 mineral claims which it acquired through
purchase in good faith and for value 43 years ago. Said claims were
registered in 1934 under Act of US Congress of July 1, 1902 or the
Philippine Bill of 1902.
On June 14, 1977, petitioner actually and duly filed its application for
patent for each claim of said 60 mineral claims which was approved and
granted the rights under PD 463. Said claims became part of petitioner’s
private property following the doctrinal rules laid down in the cases of
McDaniel and Gold Creek Mining which already been segregated from
public domain to which petitioner is entitled to the exclusive possession and
enjoyment against everyone. The issuance of PD 1214 which open to lease
subsisting and valid patentable mining claims, lode or placer located under
the provisions of the Act of US Congress of July 1, 1902, as amended,
already segregated from the public domain and held by it for over 43 yrs
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 1
year is a deprivation of petitioner’s right to ownership without due process
of law nor just compensation and therefore, unconstitutional.
ISSUE: WoN the issuance of PD 1214 deprived the petitioner’s right.
HELD: NEGATIVE. The court upheld the validity of PD 1214 for it is in
accord with sec 8, Art 14 of the 1973 Constitution and sec. 2, Art 12 of the
1987 Constitution. The Court also considered it as a valid exercise of the
sovereign power of the State over lands of public domain and the Decree
does not cover all mining claims located under the Phil. Bill of 1902, but
only those claims over which their locators failed to obtain a patent.
Likewise, there is no showing that the petitioner has complied with all
the terms and conditions prescribed by law prior to Nov. 15, 1935 that
there should be not only a valid and subsisting location of mineral land but
a continuous compliance with all the requirements of law such as the
performance of annual assessment works and payment of real estate taxes.