G.R. No. L-7544 - Joaquin vs. Navarro

The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC), a government corporation attached to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), is the petitioner.
Apex Mining Company, Inc. is the respondent.
The case concerns the determination of preferential rights over contested mining areas in Compostela Valley, particularly involving applications for Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) filed by Apex and a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) filed by North Davao Mining Corporation (NDMC), whose mining rights were succeeded by PMDC.

NDMC held various mining lease contracts (MLCs) and published lode lease applications (LLAs), covering substantial mining areas:

MLCs: LLC No. V-523 (1965), MLC Nos. MRD-155 to MRD-158 (1978), and others under an operating agreement.
LLAs: Nos. V-14203 Amd, V-14204, and V-14205, published between 1982 and 1988.

NDMC operated two mining projects: Amacan Copper Project (1982–1992) and Hijo Gold Project (1980–1985).
NDMC secured a loan from Philippine National Bank (PNB), using its mining claims as collateral; failure to repay led to foreclosure by PNB.

On February 27, 1987, PNB transferred several assets, including NDMC’s mining claims, to the Government.
Proclamation No. 50 (1986) created the Committee on Privatization (COP) and Asset Privatization Trust (APT) to manage and dispose government assets for privatization.
NDMC’s assets were eventually turned over to the Privatization and Management Office (PMO), then to the Natural Resources Mining and Development Corporation (NRMDC), later renamed PMDC.

Apex filed its MPSA applications on April 21, 1995, July 26, 1995, and July 26, 1996, covering contested areas in Compostela Valley.
NDMC filed an FTAA application on January 8, 1996, covering overlapping mining areas.
MGB Regional Office reduced NDMC’s FTAA application area due to overlap with other valid mining rights.
DENR issued a memorandum on September 17, 1997, closing areas to new mining applications if covered by valid claims held in trust by APT or similar entities.
Apex filed an Adverse Claim/Protest against the FTAA application alleging invalidity of NDMC’s mining claims.

The Panel of Arbitrators (POA) grouped disputed claims into six clusters and dismissed Apex’s protest, favoring NDMC for Clusters 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6; ruling neither party had rights over Cluster 4.
Both parties filed motions for reconsideration which the POA denied.
Appeals were elevated to the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB), which in October 2009 ruled in favor of NDMC, declaring NDMC’s preferential rights over all six clusters, including Cluster 4, and corrected boundary plotting for Clusters 1 and 2.
Apex filed for reconsideration, denied by MAB in 2013. Apex elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).

On December 22, 2014, the CA reversed and set aside MAB’s decision, declaring Apex to have prior and preferential rights over all contested clusters based on their earlier MPSA filings.
The CA ruled that the FTAA is not a mineral agreement under RA 7942 and that NDMC had abandoned its mining claims by failing to file a mineral agreement application before the 1997 deadline.
The CA denied that the DENR 1997 memorandum closed areas to Apex’s applications, as Apex’s filings preceded the memorandum.
The CA also denied PMDC’s motion for reconsideration in a September 23, 2015 resolution.
The PMDC then filed the instant petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Whether Apex Mining Company, Inc. has prior and preferential rights over the contested mining areas by virtue of its earlier MPSA applications compared to the FTAA application of NDMC/PMDC.
Whether the subject mining areas were already closed to new mining applications at the time Apex filed its MPSA applications, in light of the September 17, 1997 DENR Memorandum.
Whether the Mines Adjudication Board committed reversible error in upholding the mining lease contracts or published lode lease applications of NDMC.
Whether the MAB erred in declaring NDMC/PMDC to have preferential rights in its FTAA application despite the absence of required filings under RA 7942 and its implementing rules and regulations.
Whether the filing of the FTAA application by APT (on behalf of NDMC) should be understood as the State’s exercise of its ownership and sovereign rights over the mineral resources of NDMC.