Facts:

The case involves Asiga Mining Corporation (petitioner) against Manila Mining Corporation and Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation (respondents). The dispute arose over mining claims located in Santiago, Agusan del Norte. Asiga was granted mining claims known as MIRADOR and CICAFE under the Mining Act of 1936. Following amendments to the law, Asiga had to register its claims under the Mineral Resources Decree of 1974. After two decades, the Mining Act of 1995 required Asiga to convert its claims into a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA). During this process, Asiga discovered that its claims overlapped with those of the respondents, who had filed their MPSA applications prior to Asiga's application.

To protect its interests, Asiga filed an Adverse Claim with a Petition for Preliminary Injunction against the respondents, asserting its vested rights and claiming that the respondents' applications were invalid due to encroachment on its claims. The responden...

Facts:

Background and Ownership of Mining Claims

• Asiga Mining Corporation, the petitioner, originally held mining claims (MIRADOR and CICAFE) granted under the Mining Act of 1936.
• With subsequent amendments—first by the Mineral Resources Decree of 1974 and later by the Mining Act of 1995—Asiga was required to register its claims to have them recognized anew.

Conversion to MPSA and Discovery of Overlapping Claims

• On March 31, 1997, Asiga applied with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) to convert its mining claims into a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) pursuant to the Mining Act of 1995.
• During the application process, Asiga discovered that its claims overlapped with:
• Respondent Manila Mining Corporation (MMC)’s claim by approximately 1,661 hectares.
• Respondent Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation (BMEC)’s claim by approximately 214 hectares.
• Both MMC and BMEC had already filed their MPSA applications earlier and complied with initial publication and posting requirements.

Filing of Adverse Claim and Subsequent Proceedings

• To protect its interests, Asiga filed an adverse claim accompanied by a petition for a preliminary injunction seeking the exclusion of the overlapping areas from the respondents’ MPSA applications.
• Asiga asserted:
• Its vested right to the pre-existing, approved, and valid mining claims awarded since 1975.
• Its preferential right to enter into any mineral agreement with the government up to the deadline of September 14, 1997.
• That the respondents’ applications were null and void as the subject areas encroached on its mining claims.
• The respondents countered with a Motion to Dismiss arguing:
• Prescription on the adverse claim because it was filed beyond the 30-day period from the publication of their Notices of Application.
• That Asiga abandoned its mining claims through its failure to submit the Affidavit of Annual Work Obligation (AAWO) for more than two consecutive years, and its subsequent non-payment of occupation fees.

Arbitral and Administrative Proceedings

• On December 24, 1998, the Panel of Arbitrators of the MGB-CARAGA Regional Office rendered a decision in favor of Asiga, ordering:
• Exclusion of the overlapping areas from the respondents’ MPSA applications.
• Maintenance of the remaining areas as being open for application.
• On appeal by the respondents, the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) reversed the arbitrators’ decision on July 31, 2007, holding that Asiga’s failure to comply with its annual work obligations resulted in abandonment of its mining claims.

Review Before the Court of Appeals (CA) and Certiorari Petition

• On May 12, 2011, the CA affirmed the MAB decision, ruling that:
• Asiga’s failure to submit the AAWO and pay occupational fees constituted automatic abandonment under Section 27 of the Mineral Resources Development Decree of 1974.
• Asiga elevated the case by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari:
• Arguing that rights over valid and existing mining claims could not be divested merely on non-compliance with filings.
• Asserting that the ruling ignored due process and the proper interpretation of work obligations and fee payment schemes under the relevant administrative order (DENR DAO No. 97-07).

Issue:

Abandonment of Mining Claims

• Whether Asiga’s failure to file the AAWO for two consecutive years amounts merely to non-compliance or indeed constitutes abandonment of its mining claims.
• Whether the requirement for "automatic abandonment" should be interpreted as the failure to perform actual work obligations rather than just the non-submission of the affidavit.

Compliance with Occupational Fee Requirements

• Whether the non-payment of occupational fees within a prescribed 30-day period from the filing of the MPSA application is a valid ground for declaring abandonment.
• Whether the guidelines under DENR DAO No. 97-07, particularly the provision allowing the actual filing of the mineral agreement application 30 days after the final resolution of any dispute, should be applied.

Observance of Due Process in Canceling Mining Claims

• Whether the cancellation of Asiga's mining claims was implemented with proper adherence to due process—specifically, prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before cancellation.
• Whether the administrative agencies’ actions in hastily declaring abandonment were in conformity with procedural fairness as emphasized by due process requirements.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)