Title
Naredico, Inc. vs. Krominco, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 196892
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2018
Dispute over overlapping mining claims between Krominco and Naredico; Supreme Court upheld Mines Adjudication Board's decision, dividing areas based on actual occupation and contract terms.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196892)

Applicable Law

The decision is based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant laws governing mining operations, including the mining regulations set forth in Republic Act No. 7942 (the Mining Act) and its provisions on dispute resolution regarding rights to mining areas.

Background of the Case

On February 27, 1977, Krominco, then operating under a different name, entered into an Operating Contract with the government for the exploration and exploitation of chromite deposits over a large tract of land. This contract was later canceled in 1986 for violations of its terms. Krominco subsequently attempted to negotiate a new agreement with the government, leading to renewed discussions regarding mining rights within the mineral reservation.

Naredico's Application

In 1988, Naredico applied for an exploration contract covering approximately 500 hectares of the mineral reservation. By February 21, 1989, Krominco had entered into a new Operating Contract with the government, which stipulated that the area of operation was subject to confirmation through actual surveys.

Conflicting Claims and Legal Disputes

A significant development occurred when Naredico requested to increase its proposed area and convert its application into a mineral production sharing agreement. Notably, both parties were aware that their areas overlapped. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) subsequently acknowledged that Naredico's proposed area conflicted with Krominco's final operational area, leading to the execution of a mineral production sharing agreement that included a colatilla clarifying areas covered by existing mining rights.

Findings of the Mines Adjudication Board

The Mines Adjudication Board later determined that Krominco’s Operating Contract encompassed areas beyond what was initially allowed, particularly prohibitions against surplus or encroaching into Naredico's Agreement. The Board issued a decision in 2007 that recognized the overlapping claims and allocated the respective rights based on a Joint Relocation Survey that indicated areas occupied by Krominco’s structures.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

The Court of Appeals reversed the Mines Adjudication Board's finding, reinstating an earlier ruling that favored Krominco, claiming adherence to the principle of "first-in-time, first-in-right." It concluded that the initial geographic definitions of Krominco’s operating area sufficiently covered its claims to the disputed area.

Supreme Court's Ruling

Upon review, the Supreme Court identified the need for deference to the Mines Adjudication Board’s factual findings, emphasizing that these findings are supported by substantial evidence. The Court disagreed wi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.