Case Digest (G.R. No. 34267-68)
Facts:
Biak-Na-Bato Mining Company v. Hon. Arturo R. Tanco, Jr., G.R. Nos. L-34267-68, January 25, 1991, the Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review on certiorari sought to annul the September 17, 1971 decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR Case Nos. 3613–3613-A) which affirmed the December 17, 1970 decision of the Director of Mines in Mines Administrative Cases Nos. V-494 and V-495.
The petitioner is Biak-Na-Bato Mining Company. The respondents are Hon. Arturo R. Tanco, Jr. in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the private mining corporations Balatoc-Lubuagan Mines, Inc. and Mountain Mines, Inc. The Director of Mines (Fernando S. Busuego, Jr.) rendered the decision appealed to the Secretary.
In 1933–1934 a group of locators (including Jose, Saturnino and Miguel Moldero and Manuel Dirige) allegedly located 170 lode mining claims in Sitios Pasil and Balatoc, Mountain Province (now Kalinga‑Apayao). Those claims were grouped as NAGASAT (42), MUGAO (40), LUCKY STRIKE (40) and BUMABAG (48). In September 1936 various deeds, operating agreements and sales were executed by original locators or their attorneys‑in‑fact in favor of Balatoc‑Lubuagan Mines (covering Nagasat and Mugao groups) and Mountain Mines (covering Lucky Strike and Bumabag groups). The corporations undertook pre‑war exploration and significant expenditures; Mountain Mines increased authorized capital in 1937 and both engaged mining engineers for development.
After World War II the corporations reconstituted corporate records with the SEC and, pursuant to Republic Act No. 739, filed reconstitution proceedings before the Bureau of Mines (MAC Nos. V‑79 and V‑80). Following publication, notice and hearings, the Bureau of Mines issued orders of reconstitution on May 23, 1956, reconstituting 88 claims to Mountain Mines and 82 claims to Balatoc‑Lubuagan. The corporations thereafter entered operating/royalty agreements (notably with Benguet Consolidated, Inc.), assigned operating rights repeatedly, conducted surveys, filed assessment work affidavits for years including 1965–1967, and paid real property taxes for the claims from 1956 to 1970.
In 1967 a different set of locators (Bernardo Ardiente, Emilio Peralta, Mario Villarica, Anastasio Canao and Salvador Ellone) located a number of claims in the same area. Biak‑Na‑Bato was organized as a partnership on February 8, 1969; on November 19, 1969 the locators executed deeds transferring their claimed locations to the petitioner. Biak‑Na‑Bato filed an application for lease and for order of lease survey on December 4, 1969, but was informed that the Bureau of Mines declined to issue the survey order because the areas conflicted with the previously reconstituted 170 claims.
Biak‑Na‑Bato filed protests with the Bureau of Mines on January 12, 1970 (docketed MAC No. V‑494 against Balatoc‑Lubuagan and MAC No. V‑495 against Mountain Mines), principally alleging abandonment of respondents’ claims; it later alleged some reconstitution documents were fraudulent though it did not formally amend to challenge the reconstitution orders themselves. The Bureau of Mines issued a restraining order after petitioner alleged force and harassment; the respondents moved for reconsideration. The Director of Mines ordered an ocular inspection in May 1970 to ascertain the situation and the extent of assessment works.
The ocular inspection(s) produced reports, maps and photographs showing substantial ground works and assessment work valued at P582,996.60. On December 17, 1970 the Director of Mines ruled that Balatoc‑Lubuagan and Mountain Mines had the better right to the 170 claims and dismissed Biak‑Na‑Bato’s protest. Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Secretary ordered a secon...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources’ decision susceptible to judicial annulment for grave abuse of discretion or lack/excess of jurisdiction?
- Were Biak‑Na‑Bato’s locations valid on the ground or mere table locations and therefore void under the Mining Law (Sections 39, 40, 41 and 47)?
- Did Balatoc‑Lubuagan Mines, Inc. and Mountain Mines, Inc. abandon the 170 mining claims?
- Were the documents reconstituted by the Bureau of Mines fraudulent, invalidati...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)