Case Digest (G.R. No. 152613 152628)
Facts:
Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation, G.R. Nos. 152613, 152628, 152619-20, and 152870-71, November 20, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from competing claims to the Diwalwal Gold Rush Area (about 4,941.6759 hectares) within the Agusan‑Davao‑Surigao Forest Reserve. In the 1980s Apex Mining Co., Inc. registered Declarations of Location over parts of the area. Marcopper Mining Corporation (MMC) filed for and obtained a Prospecting Permit (1 July 1985) from the Bureau of Forest Development and subsequently Exploration Permit No. 133 (EP 133) from the Bureau of Mines and Geo‑Sciences (10 March 1986). MMC later filed administrative petitions to cancel rival claims; administrative panels and the DENR process followed, and this Court in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia (G.R. No. 92605, July 16, 1991) held that MMC availed of the proper procedure to operate within the forest reserve.
Afterwards MMC assigned EP 133 to Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM) by a Deed of Assignment dated 16 February 1994; SEM filed Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) applications in 1994. Multiple adverse claimants (including Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative, small‑scale miners and others) opposed SEM’s MPSA. A Panel of Arbitrators (PA) in 1997 upheld EP 133 and dismissed adverse claims; the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) in 1998 vacated the PA resolution, treated SEM’s MPSA as a new application, excluded areas segregated by DAO No. 66 (1992), and imposed a moratorium pending compliance. The Court of Appeals (CA) in March 2002 reversed the MAB and reinstated the PA decision, holding EP 133 valid and its assignment to SEM effective.
Petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 were filed by Apex, Balite and the MAB to the Supreme Court. A Third Division of the Court issued the Assailed Decision dated June 23, 2006 holding that the assignment of EP 133 to SEM violated the permit’s condition (exclusive use for MMC or its duly authorized agents), violated Presidential Decree No. 463 (PD 463) for lacking prior Secretary approval, and that EP 133 expired by non‑renewal (6 July 1994). The Assailed Decision also upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 297 (Nov. 25, 2002), declaring the area a mineral reservation.
SEM moved for reconsideration (filed 12 July 2006) and for referral to the Court En Banc; Apex and Balite sought clarification and relief (including asking the Mines and Geo‑Sciences Bureau to accept their exploration permit applications). The Court En Banc accepted the cases (Resolution of 15 April 2008), set oral argument (July 1, 2008), received memoranda, and resolved SEM’s motion for reconsideration and the other motions by this Resolution dated November 20, 2009. The issues considered included the validity of the assignment of ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the assignment/transfer of Exploration Permit (EP) No. 133 by MMC to SEM validly comply with PD 463 and the terms and conditions of EP 133?
- Did SEM (or MMC as predecessor) acquire a vested property right over the disputed area protected by the Constitution?
- Did the Assailed Decision of June 23, 2006 overturn or conflict with this Court’s earlier decision in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia?
- Does Proclamation No. 297 (declaring the area a mineral reservation) outweigh and extinguish private claims of SEM, Apex and Balite?
- Was SEM’s late challenge to the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 297 timely and justiciable?
- If timely, does Proclamation No. 297 violate Article XII, Section 4 of the Constitution or the specified statutory provisions (R.A. 3092; Admin...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)