CASE 1

RP V. CA & DE LA ROSA
G.R. No. L-43938 April 15, 1988

FACTS:
These cases arose from the application for registration of land by Jose de la Rosa on his behalf and on behalf
of his children. According to the application, Lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la Rosa and Lots 6-9 to his children
by Balbalio and Alberto, respectively in 1964.

Benguet Consolidated, Inc alleged that Lots 1-5 under June Bug mineral claim 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. The June Bug mineral claim of plaintiff Benguet was one of the 16 mining claims of
James E. Kelly, American and mining locator. He filed his declaration of the location of the June Bug mineral
and the same was recorded in the Mining Recorder's Office on October 14, 1909. All of the Kelly claims has
subsequently been acquired by Benguet Consolidated, Inc. Benguet's evidence is that it had made
improvements on the June Bug mineral claim consisting of mine tunnels prior to 1935.

On 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. These claims were purchased from these locators on November 2,
1931, by Atok, which has since then been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the said lots as
evidenced by its annual assessment work on the claims, such as the boring of tunnels, and its payment of
annual taxes thereon.

The trial court denied the application, holding that the applicants had failed to prove their claim of
possession and ownership of the land sought to be registered. The applicants appealed to the respondent
court, which reversed the trial court and recognized the claims of the applicant, but subject to the rights of
Benguet and Atok respecting their mining claims. In other words, the Court of Appeals affirmed the surface
rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the same time reserving the sub-surface rights of Benguet and
Atok by virtue of their mining claims.

ISSUE:

W/N the Lots in question can be an agricultural and mineral simultaneously.

RULING:

No. Land which was originally classified as forest land ceased to be so and became mineral — and completely
mineral — once the mining claims were perfected. As long as mining operations were being undertaken
thereon, or underneath, it did not cease to be so and become agricultural.

In the present case, the lots in question were perfectly converted into mineral land and could not be used by
private respondents as agricultural land. 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.
When a location of a mining claim is perfected it has the effect exclusive possession, with the right to the
exclusive enjoyment of all the surface ground as well as of all the minerals within the lines of the claim.
Moreover, land is indivisible and that cannot be half agricultural and half mineral.
 Case 4
G.R. No. 135190
April 3, 2002
SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
BALITE PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE and others similarly situated; and THE HONORABLE
ANTONIO CERILLES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), PROVINCIAL MINING REGULATORY BOARD OF DAVAO (PMRB-Davao),
respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS: a rich tract of mineral land situated in the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve known as
the "Diwalwal Gold Rush Area." Marcopper Mining Corporation (Marcopper) was granted Exploration
Permit No. 133 (EP No. 133) which included Diwalwal area. Marcopper's acquisition of mining rights
over Diwalwal under its EP No. 133.

Not long thereafter, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7076, or the People's Small-Scale Mining
Act. The law established a People's Small-Scale Mining Program to be implemented by the
Secretary of the DENR and created the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) under the
DENR Secretary's direct supervision and control. The statute also authorized the PMRB to declare
and set aside small-scale mining areas subject to review by the DENR Secretary and award mining
contracts to small-scale miners under certain conditions.

DENR Secretary Factoran issued Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 66, declaring 729
hectares of the Diwalwal area as non-forest land open to small-scale mining. The issuance was
made pursuant to the powers vested in the DENR Secretary by Proclamation No. 369, which
established the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve. A petition for the cancellation of EP No. 133
and the admission of a Mineral Production Sharing Arrangement (MPSA) proposal over Diwalwal
was filed before the DENR Regional Executive Director, docketed as RED Mines Case.

while the RED Mines case was pending, Marcopper assigned its EP No. 133 to petitioner Southeast
Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM), which in turn applied for an integrated MPSA over the
land covered by the permit. In due time, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Regional Office
accepted and registered the integrated MPSA application of petitioner. After publication of the
application, Then Several case filed for opposition.

In the meantime, Republic Act No. 7942, the Philippine Mining Act, was enacted. Pursuant to this
statute, MAC cases were referred to a Regional Panel of Arbitrators (RPA) tasked to resolve
disputes involving conflicting mining rights. The RPA subsequently took cognizance of the RED
Mines case, which was consolidated with the MAC cases.

Provincial Mining Regulatory Board Davao (PMRB) passed Resolution, authorizing the issuance of
ore transport permits (OTPs) to small-scale miners operating in the Diwalwal mines.

Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court against the DENR
Secretary and PMRB-Davao. SEM alleged that the illegal issuance of the OTPs allowed the
extraction and hauling from SEM's mining claim.

the DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order No. 97-03 which provided that The DENR
shall study thoroughly and exhaustively the option of direct state utilization of the mineral resources
in the Diwalwal Gold-Rush Area.
Petitioner filed a special civil action It prayed for the nullification of the Memorandum Order No. 97-
03 on the ground that the "direct state utilization" espoused therein would effectively impair its vested
rights under EP No. 133; that the DENR Secretary unduly usurped and interfered with the jurisdiction
of the RPA which had dismissed all adverse claims against SEM in the Consolidated Mines cases;
and that the memorandum order arbitrarily imposed the unwarranted condition that certain studies
be conducted before

ISSUE: Whether or not the "direct state utilization scheme espoused in MO 97-03 divested
petitioner of its vested right to the gold rush area under its EP No. 133
RULING: The court ruled in the negative and affirmed CA decisions.
MO 97-03 did not conclusively adopt "direct state utilization" as a policy in resolving the Diwalwal
dispute. The terms of the memorandum clearly indicate that what was directed thereunder was
merely a study of this option and nothing else. Contrary to petitioner's contention, it did not grant any
management/operating or profit-sharing agreement to small-scale miners or to any party, for that
matter, but simply instructed the DENR officials concerned to undertake studies to determine its
feasibility.

In the present case, the petition was premature. The said memorandum order did not impose any
obligation on the claimants or fix any legal relation whatsoever between and among the parties to
the dispute. At this stage, petitioner can show no more than a mere apprehension that the State,
through the DENR, would directly take over the mines after studies point to its viability. But until the
DENR actually does so and petitioner's fears turn into reality, no valid objection can be entertained
against MO 97-03 on grounds which are purely speculative and anticipatory.

With respect to the alleged "vested rights" claimed by petitioner, it is well to note that the same is
invariably based on EP No. 133, whose validity is still being disputed in the Consolidated Mines
cases. A reading of the appealed MAB decision reveals that the continued efficacy of EP No. 133 is
one of the issues raised in said cases, with respondents therein asserting that Marcopper cannot
legally assign the permit which purportedly had expired. In other words, whether or not petitioner
actually has a vested right over Diwalwal under EP No. 133 is still an indefinite and unsettled matter.
And until a positive pronouncement is made by the appellate court in the Consolidated Mines cases,
EP No. 133 cannot be deemed as a source of any conclusive rights that can be impaired by the
issuance of MO 97-03
 Case 5
NARRA NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP. G.R.
No. 195580 April 21, 2014

Facts:
In Dec 2016, Redmont Consolidated Mines Inc (Redmont) filed before the Panel of Arbitrators (POA) of
DENR separate petitions for denial that McArthur Mining Inc (McArthur), Tesoro Mining & Dev Corp
(Tesoro), and Narra Nickel Mining & Dev Corp's applications to explore and mine areas under the Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) be disqualified for reasons that the mentioned corporations are
not "qualified persons." Redmont alleged that at least 60% of the capital stocks of McArthur, Tesoro, and
Narra are owned and controlled by MBMI Resources Inc (MBMI), a 100% Canadian corp. Redmont
contended that the mentioned companies cannot participate in mining activities in Philippines through
the MPSA as it is reserved only for Filipinos thereby disqualifying them. The 3 mining companies filed for a
motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals (CA) to which it found that there was doubt in the
nationality of petitioners. CA used the Grandfather rule in ascertaining nationality. The three filed again for
a petition for review that CA erred in using the Grandfather rule as it is contrary to law, particularly in the
Foreign Investments Act of 1991. Moreover, petitioners argued that the Control Test, not the Grandfather
Rule, should be used in determining nationality of the corporations.

Issue: Whether or not the Grandfather Rule is applicable in determining nationality of the mining
corporations

Ruling: Yes, Grandfather Rule is applicable. Where the case presents a situation where the mentioned
companies schemed and used corporate layering to circumvent the law and thereby creating doubts as to
its nationality, the GF rule must be used. It must be that the combined totals in the Investing and Investee
Corps should be traced (i.e. grandfathered) to determine total percentage of ownership. However, Justice
Leonen dissented that the Control Test must be used in this case for the Grandfather Rule has no
statutory basis. At such, it is the Control Test that governs Filipino equity in corporations. Furthermore,
Leonen disagreed that the three are not Filipino corporations. Construction using Grandfather rule of the
SEC Provision is erroneous for "i.e." (id est) meaning that is, is not the same as "e.g." (exempli gratia)
meaning for example. In the rule that GF Rule must apply, the ponencia relies in the deliberations of the
1986 Constitutional Commission. The meaning of constitutional provisions should be determined from a
contemporary reading of the text in relation to the other provisions of the entire document. More so, the
Preamble established that the sovereign Filipino people continue to "ordain and promulgate" and this
cannot be undermined by the ideas of the Consitutional Commission participating in a forum in 1986 as it
against the realities that we have in the present.
 Case 6
JORGE GONZALES and PANEL OF ARBITRATORS vs. CLIMAX MINING LTD.,
CLIMAX-ARIMCO MINING CORP. and AUSTRALASIAN PHILIPPINES MINING INC.,
G.R. No. 161957, January 22, 2007

Facts: This is a consolidation of two petitions rooted in the same disputed Addendum Contract
entered into by the parties.

In one case, the Court held that the DENR Panel of Arbitrators had no jurisdiction over the
complaint for the annulment of the Addendum Contract on grounds of fraud and violation of the
Constitution and that the action should have been brought before the regular courts as it involved
judicial issues.

Gonzales averred that the DENR Panel of Arbitrators Has jurisdiction because the case involves
a mining dispute that properly falls within the ambit of the Panel’s authority.

Respondents Climax Mining Ltd., et al., on the other hand, seek reconsideration/clarification on
the decision holding that the case should not be brought for arbitration under R.A. No. 876.
They argued that the arbitration clause in the Addendum Contract should be treated as an
agreement independent of the other terms of the contract, and that a claimed rescission of the
main contract does not avoid the duty to arbitrate.

On another case, Gonzales challenged the order of the RTC requiring him to proceed with the
arbitration proceedings while the complaint for the nullification of the Addendum Contract was
pending before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators. He contended that any issue as to the nullity,
inoperativeness, or incapability of performance of the arbitration clause/agreement raised by one
of the parties to the alleged arbitration agreement must be determined by the court prior to
referring them to arbitration.

While Climax-Arimco contended that an application to compel arbitration under Sec. 6 of R.A.
No. 876 confers on the trial court only a limited and special jurisdiction, i.e., a jurisdiction solely
to determine (a) whether or not the parties have a written contract to arbitrate, and (b) if the
defendant has failed to comply with that contract.

Issue: Whether or not arbitration is proper even though issues of validity and nullity of the
Addendum Contract and, consequently, of the arbitration clause were raised.

Ruling: Positive.

In La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that R.A. No. 876 explicitly
confines the court's authority only to the determination of whether or not there is an agreement in
writing providing for arbitration. In the affirmative, the statute ordains that the court shall issue
an order "summarily directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the
terms thereof." If the court, upon the other hand, finds that no such agreement exists, "the
proceeding shall be dismissed." The cited case also stressed that the proceedings are summary in
nature.
Implicit in the summary nature of the judicial proceedings is the separable or independent
character of the arbitration clause or agreement.

The doctrine of separability or severability enunciates that an arbitration agreement is

independent of the main contract. The arbitration agreement is to be treated as a separate
agreement and the arbitration agreement does not automatically terminate when the contract of
which it is part comes to an end.

The separability of the arbitration agreement is especially significant to the determination of

whether the invalidity of the main contract also nullifies the arbitration clause. Indeed, the
doctrine denotes that the invalidity of the main contract, also referred to as the “container”
contract, does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. Irrespective of the fact that the
main contract is invalid, the arbitration clause/agreement still remains valid and enforceable.

The validity of the contract containing the agreement to submit to arbitration does not affect the
applicability of the arbitration clause itself. A contrary ruling would suggest that a party’s mere
repudiation of the main contract is sufficient to avoid arbitration. That is exactly the situation
that the separability doctrine, as well as jurisprudence applying it, seeks to avoid.

The Court added that when it declared that the case should not be brought for arbitration, it
should be clarified that the case referred to is the case actually filed by Gonzales before the
DENR Panel of Arbitrators, which was for the nullification of the main contract on the ground of
fraud, as it had already been determined that the case should have been brought before the
regular courts involving as it did judicial issues.
 Case 7

ASAPHIL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.

PVICENTE TUASON, JR., INDUPLEX, INC. and MINESADJUDICATION BOARD, Respondents

Facts

In 1975, Respondent Vicente Tuason, Jr. (Tuason) entered into a Contract for Sale and Purchase of
Perlite Ore with Induplex, Inc. (Induplex), wherein Induplex agreed to buy all the perlite ore that may be
found and mined in Tuason’s mining claim located in Albay. Thereafter, in 1976, Tuason executed an
Agreement to Operate Mining Claims in favor of petitioner Asaphil Construction and Development
Corporation (Asaphil).

In 1990, Tuason filed with the Bureau of Mines, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), a complaint against Asaphil and Induplex for declaration of nullity of the two contracts. Tuason
alleged in his complaint that the stockholders of Induplex formed and organized Ibalon Mineral
Resources, Inc. (Ibalon), that this is in violation of the condition imposed by the Board of Investments
(BOI) on Induplex in its Joint Venture Agreement with Grefco, Inc.. Tuason claimed that said acts
adversely affected, not only his interest as claimowner, but the government’s interest as well.

The DENR, through the Regional Executive Director found that DENR does not have jurisdiction over
Tuason's complaint and dismissed the complaint.On appeal, the Mines Adjudication Board assailed
Decision of DENR. The MAB ruled that the complaint is for the cancellation and revocation of the
Agreement to Operate Mining Claims, which is within the jurisdiction of the DENR under Section 7 of
Presidential Decree No. 1281. But the contract with induplex, the contract for sale and purchase of
perlite ore, is dismissed for lack of merit.

Issue

WON DENR has jurisdiction over Tuason's complaint

WON the MAB erred in invalidating the Agreement to Operate Mining Claims

Ruling

No.The DENR does not have jurisdiction over Tuason’s complaint. At the time of the filing of the
complaint, the jurisdiction of the DENR over mining disputes and controversies is governed by P.D. No.
1281, Under Section 7 of P.D. No. 1281, the Bureau of Mines also has quasi-judicial powers over cases
involving the following:

(a) a mining property subject of different agreements entered into by the claim holder thereof with
several mining operators;

(b) complaints from claimowners that the mining property subject of an operating agreement has not
been placed into actual operations within the period stipulated therein; and

(c) cancellation and/or enforcement of mining contracts due to the refusal of the claimowner/operator
to abide by the terms and conditions thereof.
 The allegations in Tuason’s complaint do not make out a case for a mining dispute or controversy within
the jurisdiction of the DENR.The DENR is not called upon to exercise its technical knowledge or expertise
over any mining operations or dispute; rather, it is being asked to determine the validity of the
agreements based on circumstances beyond the respective rights of the parties under the two contracts.
Obviously, this raises a judicial question, which is proper for determination by the regular courts

League of the Provinces of the Philippines vs DENR (Case 8)

FACTS:
Golden Falcon filed with DENR an Application for Technical and Financial Assistance Agreement
in Bulacan. Their subsequent applications and appeals were later denied by the said agency.
While the application was pending, Eduardo Mercado, Benedicto and Gerardo Cruz and
Liberato Sembrano filed with PENRO Bulacan for Application for Quarry Permit (AQP) covering
the same rea. Subsequently, Atlantic Miles and Trading Corporation (AMTC) filed with PENRO
their Application for Exploration Permit covering the 5,281 hectares covered by Golden Falcon’s
Application for Technical and Financial Assistance Agreement. The concurrent Chairman of the
Provincial Mining and Regulatory Board (PMRB) endorsed to the Provincial Governor of Bulacan
the aforesaid AQP that had been converted to Applications for Small Scale Mining Permits of
said parties.

On August 10, 2005, the Governor issued the corresponding Applications for Small Scale Mining
Permits in favor of the parties. AMTC appealed to the DENR Secretary the grant of the aforesaid
mining permits.

On August 2006, DENR Secretary rendered a decision in favor of the AMTC declaring the
permits issued by the PMRB and the Provincial Governor null and void. According to the DENR
Secretary, AMTC declared its application when the area was already open for other mining
applicants. Moreover, DENR Secretary held that the Small Scale Mining Permits were issued in
violation of RA 7076 and beyond the authority of the Provincial Governor under RA 7942.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the DENR Secretary has the right to nullify the Small Scale Mining Permits
issued by the Provincial Governor.

RULING:
YES. DENR Secretary has the authority to nullify the permits issued since the respondent has
control over the PMRB and the implementation of the Small Scale Mining Permits is subject to
respondent’s control. Under the Constitution, the exploration, development, and utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. Under such
provision, DENR has the duty to control and supervise the exploration, development, and
utilization and conservation of the country’s natural resources. The Court clarified that the
constitutional guarantee of local autonomy refers to the administrative autonomy of the local
government and decentralization of government authority. It does not mean that the local
government is sovereign to the State. In this case, the court finds that the decision of the
respondent was rendered in accordance with the powers guaranteed by the Constitution.