Title
Supreme Court
Yinlu Bicol Mining Corp. vs. Trans-Asia Oil and Energy Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 207942
Decision Date
Jan 12, 2015
Dispute over 13 mining claims in Camarines Norte: Yinlu’s 1930 mining patents upheld as vested rights, invalidating Trans-Asia’s MPSA due to untimely appeal and constitutional protection of private property.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207942)

Petitioner

Yinlu Bicol Mining Corporation

Respondent

Trans-Asia Oil and Energy Development Corporation

Key Dates

• 1930 – PIMI’s original transfer certificates of title (TCTs) issued pursuant to Patents Nos. 15–18.
• 1975 – PIMI ceases mining; foreclosure sale transfers titles to MBC/PCIB.
• 2007 – DENR grants Trans-Asia MPSA No. 252-2007-V on July 28; Yinlu claims PIMI patents on August 31.
• May 21, 2009 – DENR Secretary Atienza rules in Yinlu’s favor.
• May 4, 2010 – Office of the President (OP) affirms DENR decision.
• October 30, 2012 – Court of Appeals reverses.
• January 12, 2015 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

– Philippine Bill of 1902 (mining claim location and patents)
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (effective basis for decisions after 1990)
– Presidential Decree No. 463 (Mineral Resources Development Decree)
– Republic Act No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995)

Antecedents

PIMI held 13 placer-type mining patents, four of which (Busser, Superior, Bussamer, Rescue) totaled 192 ha. After PIMI’s 1975 foreclosure, MBC/PCIB obtained new TCTs. From 1986, Trans-Asia explored the area, entered a 1996 agreement with Philex, and secured an MPSA in 2007. Yinlu notified DENR it held pre-1935 patents covering over half the MPSA area; Trans-Asia sought access but was refused.

Administrative Proceedings before the DENR Secretary

DENR Secretary Atienza was asked (1) whether Yinlu’s patents pre-dated the MPSA, and (2) whether they remained valid. On May 21, 2009, he:

  1. Found PIMI’s 1930 patents were validly issued and transferred to Yinlu.
  2. Held non‐compliance with PD 463’s registration and improvement obligations did not automatically extinguish those vested rights, especially given PIMI’s force majeure (financial collapse and foreclosure).
  3. Declared that under the Philippine Bill of 1902, minerals under patented lands were private property, not subject to the Regalian doctrine until post-1935 Constitutions.
  4. Ordered MPSA No. 252-2007-V amended to exclude Yinlu’s patented lands, subject to compliance with RA 7942 and its IRR.

Trans-Asia’s reconsideration was denied on November 27, 2009.

OP’s Review

On May 4, 2010, the Office of the President:
– Affirmed the DENR Secretary’s decision in toto, reaffirming that placer claims perfected before November 15, 1935 are vested private rights immune from alienation bans in the Constitution;
– Recognized the Torrens titles derived from Act No. 496 and the 1902 Bill as conclusive and indefeasible;
– Upheld that PD 1529 ensured the indefeasibility of titles, even against the government;
– Confirmed that PD 463 could not impair vested rights without specific cancellation;
– Denied Trans-Asia’s motion for reconsideration on June 29, 2010, and again on March 31, 2011 (second motion barred absent exceptional merit).

Court of Appeals Decision

On October 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals reversed, agreeing that Yinlu held pre-1935 patents but ruling that failure to register under PD 463 caused abandonment and lapse of those patents, thus invalidating Yinlu’s claims.

Issues on Supreme Court Appeal

  1. Whether Trans-Asia’s appeal to the CA was timely.
  2. Whether Yinlu’s pre-1935 mining patents remain valid, existing, and superior to a subsequent MPSA.
  3. Nature of Yinlu’s titles (mining patents vs. homestead).
  4. Whether the sale to Yinlu included minerals in situ.
  5. Protection of Yinlu’s private-property rights under the Constitution.
  6. Applicability of laches to titled property.
  7. Impact on the Republic’s share in natural resources.

Procedural Ruling: Tardiness of Trans-Asia’s Appeal

– Rule 43, Sec. 4 requires appeals within 15 days from notice of denial of the first motion for reconsideration; only one such motion is allowed absent exceptional merit.
– Trans-Asia received notice on July 14, 2010 and should have appealed by July 29, 2010, but filed only on May 11, 2011—well beyond the reglementary period.
– The second motion for reconsideration did not toll the appeal period once the OP deemed it “clearly unmeritorious.”
– The CA therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain Trans-Asia’s tardy petition for review.

Substantive Ruling: Vested Nature of Pre-1935 Mining Patents

– Under the Philippine Bill of 1902 (Secs. 21 & 27), valid mining claims and patents perfected before November 15, 1935 were private property, segregated from the public domain, granting exclusive possession




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.