G.R. No. 195580 - Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp. vs. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp.

Petitioners Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp. (Narra), Tesoro Mining and Development, Inc. (Tesoro), and McArthur Mining, Inc. (McArthur) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the Court of Appeals’ October 1, 2010 Decision and February 15, 2011 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 109703, which denied their applications for Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs) on the ground that they are foreign corporations.
The Supreme Court, in an April 21, 2014 Decision, denied the petition and affirmed that the petitioners are foreign corporations; they moved for reconsideration on June 5, 2014, which Redmont opposed on September 2, 2014, and to which petitioners replied on September 30, 2014.

Petitioners initially applied for MPSAs but later converted their applications to Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs), which were granted by the Office of the President (OP) and subsequently revoked by OP—an event petitioners omit in their reconsideration motion.
Petitioners claim that MBMI Resources, Inc. (MBMI), a 100% Canadian‐owned corporation that held majority stakes in their Filipino “holding” corporations, sold all its shares to the Filipino DMCI Mining Corporation, thereby purportedly curing any nationality defect.

Petitioners rely on intermediate Filipino corporations (Olympic Mines & Development Corp. or Palawan Alpha South Resource Dev’t Corp.) to hold 59.97% of their shares, while MBMI holds 39.98% directly; MBMI also held 33.31–33.96% of the intermediate corporations’ shares and paid nearly 100% of their paid-up capital.
Respondent Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. (Redmont) contends that this structure creates reasonable doubt about petitioners’ Filipino ownership and control and that factual issues (such as MBMI’s divestment) lie beyond Rule 45 factual review.

Has the controversy become moot and academic due to conversion to FTAAs and MBMI’s alleged divestment?
If moot, do recognized exceptions (grave constitutional violation, paramount public interest, need for controlling principles, and repetition evading review) permit adjudication on the merits?

Is the “Grandfather Rule” a valid supplement to the Control Test for determining Philippine nationality of corporations under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution and the Philippine Mining Act of 1995?
May the Grandfather Rule be applied when there is reasonable doubt about beneficial ownership and control?

Does Section 77 of Republic Act No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) confer upon the POA exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes involving rights to mining areas, including preliminary findings on corporate nationality necessary to grant or deny MPSAs?