Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34135-36)
Facts:
The case involves Antonio Basiana, Sr., Rosa Odvina Basiana, Wilhermina Basiana Kelly, Antonio Basiana, Jr., and Romeo Basiana as petitioners-appellants against Cipriano Luna, Felix Luna, the Honorable Director of Mines, and the Honorable Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as respondents-appellees. The dispute arose from conflicting mining claims in the Philippines, specifically in the area of Upper Asiga, Santiago (Paypay), Cabadbaran, Agusan. The events leading to the case began in February 1966 when Antonio Basiana, Sr. prospected for mining claims and entered into an agreement with Cipriano Luna, wherein Luna would receive 60% of the claims in exchange for covering the expenses of prospecting and registering the claims. A total of 183 claims were prospected, with 93 recorded under the names of the Basiana family and the remainder under the Lunas and their family members.
The Bureau of Mines received protests from the Basiana family against the Luna claims, ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34135-36)
Facts:
Origins of the Dispute
The case involves conflicting mining claims between the petitioners-appellants (Antonio Basiana, Sr. and family) and the respondents-appellees (Cipriano Luna, Felix Luna, the Director of Mines, and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources). The dispute arose from protests filed by the petitioners against the private respondents over overlapping mining claims in Upper Asiga, Santiago, Cabadbaran, Agusan.Agreement Between Parties
On February 21, 1966, Antonio Basiana, Sr., entered into an agreement with Cipriano Luna, where Luna would assume all expenses for prospecting and registering mining claims in the name of Asiga Copper Mines. In return, Luna would receive 60% of the claims, and Basiana would receive the remaining 40%.Mineral Claims Prospected
Basiana prospected 183 mining claims. Of these, 93 were registered in the names of Basiana and his family, while the rest were registered in the names of Cipriano Luna and his family.Amended Declarations
On December 18, 1967, Cipriano Luna filed amended declarations to correct claim names and tie points, but Basiana later disclaimed knowledge or consent to these amendments. Consequently, Luna executed an affidavit canceling the registration of the amended claims.Protest and Administrative Cases
In 1968, Luna located the area covered by the original 183 claims, excluding Basiana. This led to the filing of two administrative cases (MAC No. V-457 and MAC No. V-477) by Basiana, alleging overlapping claims and questioning the validity of Luna’s claims.Director of Mines’ Decision
The Director of Mines dismissed the protests, ruling that the claims were null and void due to: (a) Basiana’s lack of power of attorney to prospect for others, and (b) the absence of valid tie points as required by Section 47 of the Mining Act.Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources’ Decision
The Secretary affirmed the Director’s decision but modified it by declaring the mining claim "Romeo 1" and its lease agreement valid, while nullifying "Ester 1" and "Ester 2" and their lease agreements.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Validity of Tie Points
The Court ruled that the initial post No. 1 of adjacent claims cannot serve as a valid tie point under Section 47 of the Mining Act. The enumeration of permanent and prominent objects in the law is exclusive, and an initial post does not qualify.Nullity of Claims
The original claims, including "Romeo 1," were null and void because they were registered beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Section 34 of the Mining Act. A void claim cannot be amended, and the subsequent amendments filed by Basiana were ineffective.Lease Agreement
The lease agreements for "Ester 1" and "Ester 2" were null and void because they were based on invalid mining claims.Agency Relationship
The Court found that Basiana acted as an agent for Cipriano Luna and others in prospecting claims. Since Basiana lacked a proper power of attorney, the claims registered in the names of others were void.Subsequent Relocation
The areas covered by the void claims were open to relocation, and the respondents were entitled to relocate and register the claims in their names.
Dissent
Justice Teehankee dissented, arguing that the petitioners substantially complied with the law’s requirements. He emphasized that the 182 claims tied to "Romeo 1" could be properly identified on the ground and that the majority decision unduly relied on technicalities. He also noted that the adverse parties were partners with the petitioners under written agreements, which the officials refused to honor.