G.R. No. L-65021 November 21, 1991

BENGUET CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.HON OSCAR L. LEVISTE, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XCVII, Quezon City) and HELEN DIZON-REYES, respondents.

The action under consideration was commenced by private respondent Helen Dizon-Reyes against herein petitioner Benguet Corporation and Dizon Copper-Silver Mines. private respondent alleged that she is the claimowner of 11 mining claims all located in the province of Zambales. she executed a Special Power of Attorney constituting her father, Celestino M. Dizon, as her attorney-in-fact with full powers to "transfer, assign and dispose of her 11 mining claims." 2

Celestino M. Dizon, entered into an Agreement, 3 with Dizon Mine whereby the latter was granted the right to explore, develop, exploit and operate the 57 mining claims owned by the claimowners including the 11 claims of private respondent.

Seven (7) years later, private respondent and the other claimowners executed a Deed of Ratification of Assignment, 4 confirming the assignment, transfer and conveyance unto Dizon Mines and its assigns and successors of the rights to possess, occupy, explore, develop and operate all the aforesaid mining claims.

almost three (3) months after the Deed of Ratification was executed, private respondent revoked Special Power of Attorney 

in spite of said notice, Dizon Mines and Benguet entered into an Operations Agreement 6 whereby the former transferred to the latter the possession of the 57 mining claims

Claiming that the Operations Agreement lacked legal basis by reason of the revocation of Celestino Dizon's special power of attorney; , private respondent prayed that the Operations Agreement be declared null and void and inoperative insofar as it covers her eleven (11) lode mining claims. 

Benguet filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds: 1) the court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature of the action; 2) the action is barred by prior judgment and laches; 3) the action to declare invalid the Deed of Ratification has prescribed; and 4) the venue of the action was improperly laid. Dizon Mines filed its own motion to dismiss.

he trial court issued an Order dated March 26, 1982, denying the motions to dismiss for lack merit. 7

PETITIONER BENGUET CLAIMS:

 petitioner contends that the RTC has no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 30171 as jurisdiction over actions to cancel mining contracts is vested exclusively in the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences. It likewise adverts to the decision of the Secretary of Natural Resources dated March 17, 1976 on the private respondent's opposition to the registration of the subject Operations Agreement. It claims that that decision had become final upon private respondent's failure to appeal to the Office of the 

President, constitutes res judicata to the question of the validity of the Operations Agreement. Besides, by failing to take seasonable action, private respondent is guilty of laches in that she has led petitioner Benguet to believe that she was amenable to the decision of the Secretary of Natural Resources and to incur huge expenses in connection with the development of the mining claims.

petitioner theorizes that since the action to annul the mining contract necessarily involves the recovery of possession of the mining claims which are located in Zambales, venue of the action should have been laid in Zambales.

RESPONDENTS CLAIM:

private respondent nonetheless opines that the action for its annulment does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Mines.,

AS TO THE VENUE: that the case does not affect title to or possession of real property, and therefore, is not a real action but an action in personam, for which venue is laid in the residence of the plaintiff.

ISSUE:

W/N the case falls to he jurisdiction of he bureau of mines]

HELD:

 it is not disputed that the subject agreement is a mining contract and private respondent, in seeking a judicial declaration of its nullity, These elements alone bring the action within the ambit of Section 7 of P.D. 1281

Section 7 of P.D. No. 1281 confers upon the Bureau quasi-judicial powers

SEC. 7 PAR.3 (c) cancellation and/or enforcement of mining contracts due to the refusal of the claimowner/operator to abide by the terms and conditions thereof.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.

ASAPHIL CONSTRUCTION G.R. NO. 13403

Petitioner,

- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

CALLEJO, SR., and

CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.

 

VICENTE TUASON, JR.,

INDUPLEX, INC. and MINES

ADJUDICATION BOARD, Promulgated:

Respondents. April 25, 2006

respondent Vicente Tuason, Jr. [2] (Tuason) entered into a Contract for Sale and Purchase of Perlite Ore with Induplex, Inc. (Induplex), wherein Induplexagreed to buy all the perlite ore that may be found and mined in Tuasons mining claim located in Taysa, Daraga, Albay. In exchange, Induplex will assist Tuason in securing and perfecting his right over the mining claim

Tuason executed on May 29, 1976, an Agreement to Operate Mining Claims in favor of petitioner Asaphil Construction and Development Corporation (Asaphil).[4]

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 allge: 

t the stockholders of Induplex formed and organized Ibalon Mineral Resources,which  is in violation of the condition imposed by the Board of Investments (BOI)

-It also  Induplex from mining perlite ore,

-Induplex acquired the majority stocks of Asaphil 

Asaphil filed its Answer, praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the DENR has no jurisdiction over the case.[6]

Induplex filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint,  on ground of lack of jurisdiction. Induplex contended that to fall within the jurisdiction of the DENR, the controversy should involve a mining property 

The DENR, through the Regional Executive Director, found merit in Induplexs arguments and dismissed the complaint

On appeal 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

ISSUE:

Whether or not the DENR has jurisdiction over Tuasons complaint for the annulment of the Contract for Sale 

whether or not the MAB erred in invalidating the Agreement to Operate Mining Claims.

HELD:

With regard to the issue of jurisdiction, the DENR Regional Executive Director opined that the DENR does not have jurisdiction over the case, while the MAB ruled that the DENR has jurisdiction.

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

P.D. No. 1281 vests the Bureau of Mines of the DENR with jurisdictional supervision and control over all holders of mining claims 

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.

  However IN several cases on mining disputes, the Court recognized a distinction between (1) the primary powers granted by law to the then Secretary of Natural Resources (and (2) controversies or disagreements of civil in nature between litigants which are questions of a judicial nature that may be adjudicated only by the courts of justice.[17]

Tuasons complaint do not make out a case for a mining dispute or controversy within the jurisdiction of the DENR

 Tuason sought the nullity of the Contract for Sale and Purchase of Perlite Ore, for he allege violation of the condition,. based on the same alleged violationThis raises a judicial question, which is proper for determination by the regular courts.[18

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. In Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd.,[20] the Court

ruled that:

 x x x whether the case involves void or voidable contracts is still a judicial question.  It may, in some instances, involve questions of fact especially with regard to the determination of the circumstances of the execution of the contracts.  But the resolution of the validity or voidness of the contracts remains a legal or judicial question as it requires the exercise of judicial function.  It requires the ascertainment of what laws are applicable to the dispute, the interpretation and application of those laws, and the rendering of a judgment based thereon.  Clearly, the dispute is not a mining conflict.  It is essentially judicial.  The complaint was not merely for the determination of rights under the mining contracts since the very validity of those contracts is put in issue. 

Thus, the DENR Regional Executive Director was correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over Tuasons complaint; consequently, the MAB committed an error in taking cognizance of the appeal, and in ruling upon the validity of the contracts

SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLDMINING CORP. vs. BALITE PORTALMINING COOP., et al.

[G.R. No. 135190, April 3, 2002]

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J:FACTS:

 

Marcopper Mining Corporation (Marcopper) was granted Exploration Permit No. 133 (EP No. 133) over 4,491 hectares of land, which included the hotly-contested Diwalwal area.1 Marcopper's acquisition of mining rights over Diwalwal under its EP No. 133 was subsequently challenged before this Court in "Apex Mining Co., Inc., et al. v. Hon. Cancio C. Garcia, et al.,"2 where Marcopper's claim was sustained over that of another mining firm, Apex Mining Corporation (Apex). The Court found that Apex did not comply with the procedural requisites for acquiring mining rights within forest reserves.

Congress enacted on June 27, 1991 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 DENR3 and created the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) under the DENR Secretary's direct supervision and control.4 

DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran issued Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 66, declaring 729 hectares of the Diwalwal area as non-forest land open to small-scale mining.

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),8 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 No. XI in Davao City(MGB-XI) accepted and registered the integrated MPSA application of petitioner and thereafter,several MAC cases were filed.

On March 3, 1995, Republic Act No. 7942, the Philippine Mining Act, was enacted.Pursuant to this statute, the MAC cases were referred to a Regional Panel of Arbitrators (RPA)tasked to resolve disputes involving conflicting mining rights. The RPA subsequently tookcognizance of the RED Mines case, which was consolidated with the MAC cases

 petitioner filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61, against the DENR Secretary and PMRB-Davao.

the validity of Exploration Permit No. 133 is hereby reiterated and all the adverse claims against MPSAA No. 128 are DISMISSED.9

the DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order No. 97-0310 which provided, among others, that:

1. The DENR shall study thoroughly and exhaustively the option of direct state utilization of the mineral resources in the Diwalwal Gold-Rush Area. Such study shall include, but shall not be limited to, studying and weighing the feasibility of entering into management agreements or operating agreements, or both, with the appropriate government instrumentalities or private entities, or both, in carrying out the declared policy of rationalizing the mining operations in the Diwalwal Gold Rush Area; such agreements shall include provisions for profit-sharing between the state and the said parties, including profit-sharing arrangements with small-scale miners, as well as the payment of royalties to indigenous

cultural communities, among others. The Undersecretary for Field Operations, as well as the Undersecretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs and Attached Agencies, and the Director of the Mines and Geo-sciences Bureau are hereby ordered to undertake such studies. x x x11

petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Court of Appeals against PMRB-Davao, the DENR Secretary and Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative (BCPMC), which represented all the OTP grantees. It prayed for the nullification of the above-quoted 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; 

ISSUE:

 

Whether or not the "direct state utilization scheme" espoused in MO 97-03 divestedpetitioner of its vested right to the gold rush area under its EP No. 133.

HELD:

 

NO

. MO 97-03 did not conclusively adopt "direct state utilization" as a policy inresolving the Diwalwal dispute. The terms of the memorandum clearly indicate that what wasdirected thereunder was merely a study of this option and nothing else. Contrary to petitioner'scontention, it did not grant any management/operating or profit-sharing agreement to small-scaleminers or to any party, for that matter, but simply instructed the DENR officials concerned toundertake studies to determine its feasibility.As to the alleged "vested rights" claimed by petitioner, it is well to note that the same isinvariably based on EP No. 133, whose validity is still being disputed in the Consolidated Minescases. A reading of the appealed MAB decision reveals that the continued efficacy of EP No. 133

s 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 notpetitioner actually has a vested right over Diwalwal under EP No. 133 is still an indefinite andunsettled matter. And until a positive pronouncement is made by the appellate court in theConsolidated Mines cases, EP No. 133 cannot be deemed as a source of any conclusive rightsthat can be impaired by the issuance of MO 97-03.It must likewise be pointed out that under no circumstances may petitioner's rights under EP No. 133 be regarded as total and absolute. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals EP No.133 merely evidences a privilege granted by the State, which may be amended, modified or rescinded when the national interest so requires. This is necessarily so since the exploration,development and utilization of the country's natural mineral resources are matters impressed withgreat public interest. Like timber permits, mining exploration permits do not vest in the granteeany permanent or irrevocable right within the purview of the non-impairment of contract and dueprocess clauses of the Constitution, since the State, under its all-encompassing police power,may alter, modify or amend the same, in accordance with the demands of the general welfare.Additionally, there can be no valid opposition raised 

against a mere study of analternative which the State, through the DENR, is authorized to undertake in the first place. Worthnoting is Article XII, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution and Section 4, Chapter II of the PhilippineMining Act of 1995.Thus, the State may pursue the constitutional policy of full control and supervision of theexploration, development and utilization of the country's natural mineral resources, by either directly undertaking the same or by entering into agreements with qualified entities. The DENRSecretary acted within his authority when he ordered a study of the first option, which may beundertaken consistently in accordance with the constitutional policy enunciated above.Obviously, the State may not be precluded from considering a direct takeover of the mines, if it isthe only plausible remedy in sight to the gnawing complexities generated by the gold rush