Title
Apex Mining Co., Inc. vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 152613 152628
Decision Date
Nov 20, 2009
MMC assigned EP 133 to SEM without DENR approval, violating mining laws. SEM's claims invalid; Proclamation No. 297 upheld, granting State control over Diwalwal. Apex prioritized over Balite.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152613 152628)

Petitioners and Respondents

Petitioners:

  • Apex Mining Co., Inc. (Apex)
  • Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative (Balite)
  • Mines Adjudication Board and its members
    Respondents:
  • Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM)
  • Various small-scale miners’ associations and cooperatives

Key Dates

• 1 July 1985 – MMC granted prospecting permit by Bureau of Forest Development
• 10 March 1986 – Bureau of Mines issued EP 133 to MMC
• 16 February 1994 – MMC purportedly assigned EP 133 to SEM
• 6 July 1994 – EP 133 expired by non-renewal
• 25 November 2002 – President issued Proclamation No. 297 declaring the Diwalwal area a mineral reservation
• 23 June 2006 – Third Division decision holding assignment invalid, EP 133 expired, Proclamation No. 297 valid
• 20 November 2009 – En banc resolution denying motions for reconsideration and clarifications

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XII, Section 2 (State ownership and full control of minerals) and Section 4 (forest lands)
• Presidential Decree No. 463 (1974) – Philippine Mining Code under the 1973 Constitution, governing exploration permits, assignments (Sec. 97), definitions of exploration, development, exploitation
• Republic Act No. 7942 (Mining Act of 1995), Sections 5 (establishment of mineral reservations) and 25 (assignment of exploration permits)
• Relevant statutes on forest reservations (RA 3092; Administrative Code of 1987) and protected areas (RA 7586, RA 6657)

Validity of Exploration Permit 133 Assignment

• EP 133 expressly prohibited assignment except to MMC’s duly authorized agent (Permit Condition 6)
• No evidence SEM was designated as MMC’s agent; assignment lacked Secretary of DENR approval as required by PD 463 Sec. 97 (and by RA 7942 Sec. 25)
• Assignment void ab initio; SEM acquired no valid permit rights

Non-acquisition of Vested Rights by SEM

• Exploration permits confer only inchoate exploration rights, not vested property rights to exploit minerals
• Under PD 463, exploration is distinct from development and exploitation; exploration permit holders have priority for future mineral agreements but no automatic extraction rights
• The 1987 Constitution’s regalian doctrine vests mineral ownership in the State; private rights arise only under statutorily conferred permits or agreements
• EP 133 expired on 6 July 1994 for non-renewal; any assumed rights lapsed

Effect of Proclamation No. 297

• Proclamation No. 297 (25 November 2002) declared the disputed area a mineral reservation and environmentally critical area under RA 7942 Sec. 5
• Executive may directly undertake mining operations (subject to just compensation for existing claimants) or award operations to qualified contractors, recognizing existing rights
• Proclamation stands as a constitutionally presumed valid exercise of presidential power; challenges raised only in SEM’s motion for reconsideration (too late)

Relation to Apex Mining Co. v. Garcia

• Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia (G.R. No. 92605, 16 July 1991) addressed procedure for acquiring mining rights in a forest reserve, not EP 133’s expiration or assignment issues
• Subsequent developments (EP 133’s non-renewal, unlawful assignment, Proclamation No. 297) were not settled by Apex v. Garcia and legitimately supersede its ruling

Timeliness of Constitutional Challenge

• SEM’s objections to Proclamation No. 297 raised first in its motion for reconsideration—after initial pleadings and hearings—thereby forfeited by belatedness
• No pleading or evidence in earlier stages challenged Proclamation’s validity; constitutional questions must be raised at the earliest opportunity

Disposition of Motions and Application of Executive Prerogative




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.