EnviroLaw Case Reviewer

Finals

Teodoro Medrana v Office of the President (G.R. No. 85904, August 21, 1990)
Is failure to submit Affidavits of Annual Work Obligations for two (2) consecutive years
enough justification for the automatic cancellation of an MLC? NO. According to Sec. 27,
PD No. 463 as amended by PD No. 1385, the lapse contemplated by the law which shall
constitute automatic abandonment of the mining claims is the failure to carry out actual
work on a mining claim or lease and not simply the failure to submit in a timely manner
the Affidavit of Annual Work Obligations. The submission of the Affidavits is by no
means a conclusive one but it merely creates a prima facie evidence that Actual Work is
done. The same provision states that this presumption can be overridden with “field
verification” which shall substantiate or negate the presumption established by the filing
or lack thereof of said Affidavits. In effect, to hold that the mere failure to submit the
Affidavits resulted in the automatic abandonment of MLC No. V-754 notwithstanding the
actual performance of work obligations, would not only run counter to the express
language of Section 27, but it would also be to exalt form over substance. The failure to
submit the Affidavits also do no constitute abandonment of right or claim over the mining
lease. To support abandonment as contemplated by the law, two elements must first
concur: 1.) intent to abandon a right or claim; 2.) the external act by which that intention
is expressed and carried into effect. These two elements are lacking in the case at bar as in
fact the Aggregates had performed its annual work obligations. Therefore, intent to
abandon is lacking even so that they have to submit the required Affidavits.

Atlas Consolidated Mining & Dev’t v CA (G.R. No. L-54305 February 14, 1990)
Can a person who is not a party to a contract file for declaratory relief? NO. Declaratory
relief has been defined as an action by any person interested under a deed, will, contract
or other written instruments whose rights are affected by a statute, ordinance, executive
order or regulation to determine any question of construction or validity arising under
the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute and for a declaration of his rights
and duties thereunder. A review of the record reveals that Atlas purports to be seeking a
judicial interpretation of its operating agreements with BIGA Copper and Cuenco-Velez.
But after due evaluation of the arguments it presented to justify the declaratory action, it
is concluded that the ambiguity is not in the operating agreements themselves but in the
validity of the assignments of mining rights made by BIGA Copper and Cuenco-Velez to
third parties. These third parties are not part of ATLAS’ contract with either BIGA Copper
or Cuenco-Velez. While it is true that as the result of the numerous assignments made by
the latter companies, ATLAS is left in a quandary as to whom to pay the royalties in the
course of its mining operations, legally speaking however, the ambiguity or uncertainty
is not of the character as to call for the procedural remedy of a declaratory action- ATLAS
not being a party to the said deeds of assignment.
Is the Trial court divested of jurisdiction to hear and decide a mining controversy in view
of the promulgation of PD No. 1281? YES. Sec. 7 of PD 1281 states that Bureau of Mines
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over ‘cancellation and/or enforcement of
mining contracts’. The declaratory action filed by ATLAS is within the ambit of PD 1281.
It is not an entirely different or distinct cause of action. Litigants in a mining controversy
cannot be permitted to choose a forum of convenience. Jurisdiction is imposed by law and
not by any of the parties of such proceedings. Furthermore, PD 1281 is a special law and
under well-accepted principle in statutory construction, the special aw will prevail over a
statue or law of general application. Jurisdiction having been conferred by a special statute
therefore prevails over the jurisdiction granted by a general law. To conclude, the
operative act which divested the trial court of jurisdiction to decide the declaratory action
is not the respondent’s act of filing an administrative suit for the cancellation of their
operating agreement with ATLAS. With or without such administrative action, the trial
court is deemed to have lost jurisdiction to proceed with the declaratory action
immediately upon the effectivity of PD 1281.

Atok Big-Wedge v IAC (G.R. No. 63528. September 9, 1996)

Does a mining claim perfected and granted under the Phil. Bill of 1902 still subsist upon
proof of affidavits of actual work assessment as against a possessory claim of possession
in the concept of an owner with proof of actual improvements and occupation of more
than 30 years? Corollary, what is the right of a locator of mining claim located and
perfected under Ph. Bill of 1902? NO. The rights of the holder of a mining claim located
under the Philippine Bill of 1902, are not absolute or are not strictly of ownership. Mere
location does not mean absolute ownership over the affected land or mining claim. It
merely segregates the located land or area from the public domain by barring other
would-be locaters from locating the same and appropriating for themselves the minerals
found therein (Santa Rosa Mining Co., Inc. vs. Leido, Jr). The rights of a mining claimant are
confined to possessing the land for purpose of extracting therefrom mineral in exclusion
of any or all other persons whose claims are subsequent to the original mining locator.
Thus, if no minerals are extracted therefrom, notwithstanding the recording of the claim,
the land is not mineral land and registration thereof is not precluded by such recorded
claim. Thus, it can be said (1) that the rights under the Philippine Bill of 1902 of a mining
claim holder over his claim has been made subject by the said Bill itself to the strict
requirement that he actually performs work or undertakes improvements on the mine
every year and does not merely file his affidavit of annual assessment, which requirement
was correctly identified and declared in E.O. No. 141; and (2) that the same rights have
been terminated by P.D. No. 1214, a police power enactment, under which non-
application for mining lease amounts to waiver of all rights under the Philippine Bill of
1902 and application for mining lease amounts to waiver of the right under said Bill to
apply for patent. In the light of these substantial conditions upon the rights of a mining
claim holder under the Philippine Bill of 1902, there should remain no doubt now that
such rights were not, in the first place, absolute or in the nature of ownership, and neither
were they intended to be so. As accord to the facts of the case, non-existence of any
improvement or evidence of mining machinery belie the claim of herein petitioners as
stated in the affidavits of actual work assessment that they filed and submitted. Thus, was
the claim of private respondent of adverse possession for 30 years made possible. Lastly,
petitioner has indeed applied for a mining lease under P.D. No. 1214. For that reason, it
has, in effect, waived its right to secure a patent and it shall have been governed, if private
respondent’s claim of adverse and open possession of the subject land for more than 30
years were not established, by P.D. No. 463 in its activities respecting its mining lease.
Benguet Corporation v Hon. Leviste (G.R. No. L-65021 November 21, 1991)
Is the reason for refusal to abide by the terms of a mining contract relevant as to the
applicability of PD 1281, Sec. 7 which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction in trying
such cases to the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences? NO. Analyzing the objectives of P.D.
1281, particularly said Section 7 thereof, the Court in Twin Peaks Mining Association, the
case relied upon by petitioner, noted that the trend is to make the adjudication of mining
cases a purely administrative matter. It is not disputed that the subject agreement is a
mining contract and private respondent, in seeking a judicial declaration of its nullity,
does not wish to abide by its terms and conditions. These elements alone bring the action
within the ambit of Section 7 of P.D. 1281. Whatever the basis for the refusal to abide by
the contract's terms and conditions, the basic issue remains one of its cancellation, which
is precisely what P.D. No. 1281 places within the exclusive original jurisdiction for the
Bureau. The reason underlying such refusal is indeed an irrelevant matter insofar as
jurisdictional competence is concerned, for to make jurisdiction dependent thereon would
not only be "ratifying two judicial bodies exercising jurisdiction over an essentially the
same subject matter—a situation analogous to split jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the
orderly administration of justice" but also clearly ignoring the object of P.D. 1281 to make
the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter (Atlas Consolidated Mining
& Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals).

Benguet Corporation v DENR-MAB (G.R. No. 163101, February 13, 2008)

JG Realty and Benguet Corporation entered into a RAWOP (Royalty Agreement with
Option to Purchase) wherein JG is the acknowledged owner of four mining claims
situated in Jose Panganiban Camarines Norte and Benguet Corp. as operator. Among
others, the RAWOP stated that in the event of any disagreement, the parties must first
submit to a voluntary arbitration before filing/bringing an action to court. Unfortunately,
JG Realty caused, thru a letter to Benguet the termination of the RAWOP essentially on
the grounds that Benguet failed to perform its obligations as stipulated in the RAWOP
and that it violated the contract. JG thus filed a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity/Cancellation of the RAWOP with Legazpi City POA (Panel of Arbitrators).
Consequently, it issued a decision declaring the RAWOP to be cancelled and without
effect. Benguet Corp then filed a Notice of Appeal with the MAB (Mining Education
Board). It denied the appeal as well as the consequent MR. Thus, Benguet filed the instant
petition under Rule 65 of the RC. 1. Did Benguet filed the appropriate appeal in the case
at bar? NO. The decision of the MAB must first be appealed to the Court of Appeals as
provided under Rule 43 of the RC which was specifically included to provide a uniform
rule on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies. Under the rule, appeals from their judgments
and final orders are now required to be brought to the CA on a verified petition for review.
2. Should the case have been brought first to voluntary arbitration before the POA? YES.
Sec 2 of RA 876 (The Arbitration Law), in essence states that submission or contract
agreeing to settle by arbitration a controversy shall be valid, enforceable and irrevocable,
save upon such grounds as exist at law for the revocation of any contract. RA 9285 or the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 also reiterates the efficacy of arbitration as a
mode for ADR by stating in its Sec. 32 that domestic arbitration shall still be governed by
RA 876. Clearly, a contractual stipulation that requires prior resort to voluntary arbitration
before the parties can go directly to court is not illegal and is in fact promoted by the State.
Thus, availment of voluntary arbitration before resort is made to the courts or quasi-
judicial agencies of the government is a valid contractual stipulation that must be adhered
to by the parties. POA therefore did not have jurisdiction over the case as it should have
undergone VA first. However, Benguet Corp became estopped from questioning the
POA’s jurisdiction as it filed its answer when JG filed the case and it participated in the
proceedings before the POA. Further, when the POA rendered its decision, it filed an
appeal with the MAB and again participated in the MAB proceedings. After which, it
again filed the instant petition for appeal. This implies that it had already succumbed to
the jurisdiction of these entities relative to the resolution of its case.
2 forms of Arbitration (Reformist Union of R.B. Liner, Inc. vs. NLRC):
1. compulsory arbitration -the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency
which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is binding on all
the parties, and as a mode of arbitration where the parties are compelled to accept the resolution
of their dispute through arbitration by a third party
2. voluntary arbitrator is not part of the governmental unit or labor department’s
personnel, said arbitrator renders arbitration services provided for under labor laws.

Apex Mining v Hon. Garcia (G.R. No. 92605 July 16, 1991)
The issue at bar revolves on two conflicting mining claims between APEX Mining and
MARCOPPER. The area concerned is within the Agusan-Davao-Forest Reserve.
Marcopper alleges that since the area is within the forest reserve the proper procedure is
to first acquire a permit to prospect with the Bureau of Forest and Development (BFD)
and then apply for a permit to explore with the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences
(BMGS). Apex Mining on the other hand contends that the area is not a forest reserve and
that PD 369 did not establish a forest reserve within the Agusan-Davao Forest Reserve
area, therefore, its claim is valid which it acquired thru the registration of declaration of
location with the BMGS and not thru the filing of the permit to prospect with the BFD. 1.
Is the area in question within a forest reserve? YES. But not directly thru PD 369 (merely
withdrew from settlement or disposition certain tracts of land described therein
situated in the Province of Davao, Agusan and Surigao). Rather, thru: Section 8 of Act
No. 2874, the former Public Land Act which essentially granted the power to the
Governor-General not only to declare lands of public domain open to disposition but also
to suspend their concession or disposition. Accordingly, withdrawal of a certain area to
establish a forest reserve is, without question, within the power of the GG. The then GG
Davis, issuing Proclamation No. 369, withdrew from settlement or disposition the tracts
of land described therein in the Province of Davao, Agusan and Surigao to establish a
forest reserve. 2. Are forest reserve areas open for mining location by private entities? NO.
The area clearly being a forest reserve is not open to mining location as provided by Sec.
8 and 13 of PD 463 which provides that prospecting, exploration and exploitation of
minerals in reserved lands other than mineral reservations may be undertaken by the
proper Government agencies. In the event that such agencies cannot, qualified persons
may be permitted to undertake such prospecting, etc. in accordance with the rules and
regulations promulgated by the Secretary; no prospecting and exploration shall be
allowed in military or other government reservations except when authorized by the
proper gov’t agency concerned. Pursuant to P.D. No. 463, as amended, one can acquire
mining rights within forest reserves by initially applying for a permit to prospect with the
Bureau of Forest and Development (BFD) and subsequently for a permit to explore with
the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences (BMGS). Such procedural requisites were complied
with and undertaken by MARCOPPER after it had ascertained that its mining claims were
found to be within the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve. On the other hand, the
mining claims and SSMPs of APEX being located within said forest reserve, are in
violation of the law and therefore result in a failure to validly acquire mining rights.

Benguet Corporation v Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 71412 August 15, 1986)
Does the perfection of mining claims bar the exercise of the power of eminent domain?
NO. The filing of expropriation proceedings in this case recognizes the fact that the
petitioner’s property is no longer part of the public domain. The power of eminent domain
refers to the power of government to take private property for public use. If the mineral
claims are public, there would be no need to expropriate them. The mineral claims of the
petitioners are not being transferred to another mining company or to a public entity
interested in the claims as such. The land where the mineral claims were located is needed
for the PMA, a public use completely unrelated to mining. The fact that the location of a
mining claim has been perfected does not bar the Government’s exercise of its power of
eminent domain. The right of eminent domain covers all forms of private property,
tangible or intangible, and includes rights which are attached to the land.

Comilang v Hon. Buendia (G.R. No. L-24757 October 25, 1967)

What is the doctrine of relation? The Doctrine of Relation states that all parts and
ceremonies necessary to complete a conveyance shall be taken together as one act, and
operate from the substantial part by relation. This substantial part is recognized as the
“original act” which is to be preferred, and to this all subsequent acts are to have relation.
In the case at bar, the share of Comilang to the property in question was levied upon and
sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment against him in a civil case by the Municipal
Court of Baguio and a certificate of sale was issued in favor of the judgment creditors who
are the Coloma spouses. Prior to this, the land was applied for a mineral claim in the form
of a lode patent with the Bureau of Mines by the apparent co-owners of Comilang namely
Delena and his co-heirs. Pending resolution of such claim for load patent, Delena and his
co-heirs exercised their right to redemption (as co-owners) and bought the shares from
the Coloma spouses. Consequently, the load patent was awarded to the Bua Fraction
Mineral Claim. Upon motion of Delenela et. al. who thus acquired and succeeded to the
rights of the Coloma spouses on the land shares, a writ of possession in their favor was
issued by MC of Baguio directing the sheriff to evict the Comilang spouses from the land
sold in the execution sale. Challenging this, it is argued (essentially) by the Comilangs that
the lode patent awarded to the Bua Fraction Mineral Claim with them named as co-
owners awards full-ownership not only of the minerals herein but also of the surface
ground, thereby barring their ejection from the disputed land. This however is not tenable.
The execution sale (Comilang to Coloma) was declared valid thereby, interest acquired
under like certificates of sale alone has been described as more than a lien on the property,
more than an equitable estate, an inchoate legal title to the property; the sale operated to
divest appellant of his rights to the land which vested in the purchasers at the auction sale.
Although the Comilangs were declared as co-owners in the lode patent which was
consequently awarded, it thus stipulate that co-ownership exist “except the
improvements existing thereon”. Ergo, the right to possess or own the surface ground is
separate and distinct from the mineral rights over the same land. And when the
application for lode patent to the mineral claim was prosecuted in the BM, the said
application could not have legally included the surface ground sold to another in the
execution sale. Execution sales pass to the purchaser all the title that could have passed
from the original owner to the buyer. Applying the doctrine of relation, and taking all the
parts and ceremonies necessary to complete the title together as one act, all the
intermediate conveyance made to herein property relate to the first act of the filling for
the lode patent. Therefore, it cannot nullify the intermediate conveyance of the right in
the execution sale. thereby- the Comilangs no longer have possessory right over the land,
although they retain the mineral rights as co-owners of the Bua Fraction Mineral Claim.
Thereby, ejectment of the spouses is in order.
 The Evolution of Mining Laws in the Philippines

Spanish Era
 The Spanish Mining Law (Royal Decree of May 1867)

American Era
Non-jura regalia application
Organic charters (1900-1935) served as Constitution of occupied territories.
 Philippine Bill of 1902
-open and free exploration, occupation and purchase of mineral deposits and the land
where they may be found which is applicable to lands both surveyed and unsurveyed by
citizens of the US or of said Islands (Fiipino).
-Mining locators need not apply for patents (immediately- for it may come later) for as
long as the requirement of Annual Actual Work is accomplished.
Requisites:
1. May not mine outside his claim which is, where possible, but not exceeding, one
thousand feet in length and one thousand in breadth, in as nearly as possible a
rectangular form.
2. Performance of not less than one hundred dollars’ worth of labor or undertaking of
improvements of the same value every year (strict, continuing req’t); failure to comply
means the claim or mine may be opened to relocation in the same manner as if no location of
the same had ever been made.
 Act No. 624 of 1903
-Amendatory law to Phil. Bill 1902
-prescribed regulations to govern the location and the manner of recording mining claims
and the amount of work necessary to hold possession thereof; reinforced the annual work
or labor requirement of not less than one hundred dollars’ worth

Commonwealth Era-Present
Jura Regalia application
 1935 Constitution
Espoused the Regalian Doctrine (jura regalia) which declared that all natural resources of
the Ph, including the mineral lands and minerals, to be property belonging to the
State/part of the public domain. EXCPT: those natural resources, and for that matter,
those mineral lands and minerals with respect to which there already was any existing
right, grant, lease or concession at the time of the inauguration of the 1935 Consti.
 Mining Act (Commonwealth Act No. 137) 1936
- expressly adopted the regalian doctrine following the provisions of the 1935 Constitution
- granted only lease rights to mining claimants who are proscribed from purchasing the
mining claim itself. These provisions of the Mining Act, however, were expressly
inapplicable to mining claimants who had located and recorded their claims under the
Philippine Bill of 1902.
 Parity Rights Agreement of 1946
Amendment to the 1935 Consti adopted by the First Congress in the form of an Ordinance
Appended to the Consti.
 - notwithstanding the adoption in the Constitution of the regalian doctrine and the
proscription against aliens participating in the natural wealth of the nation, excepted
therefrom were the citizens of the United States and its business enterprises which would
have the equal right in the disposition, exploitation, development and utilization of our
natural resources, among them, our mining lands and minerals for the period from July
4, 1946 to July 3, 1974

→ Requirement of annual performance to maintain location/mining claims as provided by Phil. Bill

1902 continue to take effect which now is subject to the lease provisions of the Mining Act (Commonwealth
Act No. 137) ←
→The filing of affidavits of annual assessment work, which procedure is not even provided for in the
Philippine Bill of 1902, is required only for purposes of proving that there had actually been work or
improvements done. Such filing could not have been intended to replace the actual work requirement, and
nary is there a basis in law to support any conclusion to the contrary, notwithstanding what was appearing
to be the practice of mine claim locators of annually filing affidavits of annual assessment but willfully not
undertaking actual work or tangible improvement on the mine site.←
 Executive Order No. 141 of 1968
-Pres. Marcos
-expressly declares that what matters in maintaining and preserving possessory title to
the claim is the continuous performance of the required assessment work, not the filing of
an affidavit which may be disproved by findings on the ground
- established the status of such unpatented mining claims which have not complied with
the annual work requirement, as having been abandoned and open for relocation, their
declarations of location being accordingly cancelled.
 1973 Constitution
-did not expressly qualify the application of the regalian doctrine as being subject to any
right granted before the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution or the 1973 Constitution for
that matter; but conditional application can be found in PD 463.
 Presidential Decree (PD) 463
-Revised the Mining Act (CA No. 137)
- While the said decree declares that all mineral deposits in public or private lands belong
to the State, inalienably and imprescriptively, it also recognizes whatever rights or
reservations had already been existing with respect to certain mining land, apparently
alluding to the rights of mining claim holders under the Philippine Bill of 1902.
 Presidential Decree (PD) 1214 of 1977
-required all holders of unpatented mining claims to secure mining lease contracts under
PD 463 within one (1 year) of effectivity, failure to do so means forfeiture of all rights to
the claims
-filing of such mining lease applications was considered a waiver of the holders rights to
the issuance of mining patents for their claims