Title
Basiana Sr. vs. Luna
Case
G.R. No. L-34135-36
Decision Date
Feb 24, 1981
Dispute over overlapping mining claims in Agusan; petitioners' claims voided due to invalid tie points, lack of power of attorney, and late registration; agency relationship ruled, lease agreements nullified.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34135-36)

Facts:

  1. 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.

  2. 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%.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Lease Agreement
    The lease agreements for "Ester 1" and "Ester 2" were null and void because they were based on invalid mining claims.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.