Yinlu Bicol v. Trans-Asia PDF
Yinlu Bicol v. Trans-Asia PDF
Yinlu Bicol v. Trans-Asia PDF
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 1 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
155
with the manner and within the period set by the law
establishing the right to appeal. To allow Trans-Asia to transgress
the law would be to set at naught procedural rules that were
generally mandatory and inviolable. This is because appeal, being
neither a constitutional right nor part of due process, is a mere
statutory privilege to be enjoyed by litigants who comply with the
law allowing the appeal. Failure to comply will cause the loss of the
privilege. Moreover, procedural rules prescribing the time within
which certain acts must be done are indispensable to the prevention
of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of
judicial business. Among such rules is that regulating the perfection
of an appeal, which is mandatory as well as jurisdictional. The
consequence of the failure to perfect an appeal within the limited
time allowed is to preclude the appellate court from acquiring
jurisdiction over the case in order to review and revise the judgment
that meanwhile became final and immutable by operation of law.
Mines and Mining; Mining Claims; Mining Patents; Words and
Phrases; The term mining claim connotes a parcel of land
containing a precious metal in its soil or rock; A mining patent
pertains to a title granted by the government for the said mining
claim.·The term mining claim connotes a parcel of land containing
a precious metal in its soil or rock. It is usually used in mining
jargon as synonymous with the term location, which means the act
of appropriating a mining claim on the public domain according to
the established law or rules. A mining patent pertains to a title
granted by the government for the said mining claim.
BERSAMIN, J.:
156
Antecedents
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 3 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 112.
2 Id., at p. 113.
157
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 4 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
158
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 5 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
8 Id.
9 Id., at p. 127.
10 Id., at pp. 123-128.
11 Id., at pp. 127-128.
159
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 6 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
12 Id., at p. 128.
13 Id.
14 Id., at pp. 129-144.
15 Id., at pp. 121-122.
160
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 7 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
161
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 8 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
162
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 9 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
xxxx
After a second thorough evaluation and study of the records of
this case, this Office finds no cogent reason to disturb its earlier
Decision. The second paragraph of Section 7, Administrative Order
No. 18 dated February 12, 1987 provides that „[o]nly one motion for
reconsideration by any one party shall be allowed and entertained,
save in exceptionally meritorious cases.‰ This second motion is
clearly unmeritorious.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion is
hereby DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of this Office dated
May 4, 2010 and June 29, 2010, respectively, affirming the DENR
decisions, are hereby declared final. Let the records of the case be
transmitted to the DENR for its appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED.20
_______________
163
Issues
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS FILED
BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER YINLUÊS MINING
PATENTS ARE VALID, EXISTING AND IMPERVIOUS TO THE
MINERAL PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT
SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT TRANS-
ASIA.
_______________
164
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 11 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
III.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER YINLUÊS TITLES BASED
ON „PATENTS‰ WERE MINING PATENTS OR SOME OTHER
PATENT.
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER YINLUÊS PURCHASE OF
ITS TITLES INCLUDED PURCHASE OF THE MINERALS
FOUND THEREIN.
V.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
DISREGARDED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PETITIONER
YINLU THAT ITÊS PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN
FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.
VI.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINCIPLE OF LACHES APPLY TO
TITLED PROPERTY.
VII.
WHETHER OR NOT THE SHARE OF THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES IN ITS NATURAL RESOURCES WAS
AFFECTED BY THE MINING PATENTS OF PETITIONER
YINLU.25
Ruling
I
Procedural Issue:
Tardiness of Trans-AsiaÊs Appeal
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 12 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
165
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 13 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
166
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 14 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
rules.31
It is true that Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18
of the OP Rules on Appeal authorizes the filing of a second
mo-
_______________
except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen
(15) days. (n)
29 Rollo, p. 360.
30 Id., at pp. 73-100.
31 Id., at pp. 53-56.
167
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 15 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
168
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 16 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
169
II
Substantive Issues:
YinluÊs mining patents constituted
vested rights that could not be disregarded
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 17 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
170
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 18 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
171
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 19 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
39 Id., at p. 35.
40 Peña, supra note 36 at p. 104.
41 Atok Big-Wedge Mining Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 63528, September 9, 1996, 261 SCRA 528, 546.
42 Section 21. That all valuable mineral deposits in public lands in
the Philippine Islands, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby
declared to be free and open to exploration, occupation, and purchase,
and the land in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by
citizens of the United States, or of said Islands: Provided, that when on
any lands in said Islands entered and occupied as agricultural lands
under the provisions of this Act, but not patented, mineral deposits have
been found, the working of such mineral deposits is hereby forbidden
until the person, association, or corporation who or which has entered
and is occupying such lands shall have paid to the Government of said
Islands such additional sum or sums as will make the total amount paid
for the mineral claim or claims in which said deposits are located equal
to the amount charged by the Government for the same as mineral
claims.
172
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 20 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
minerals that lie within his claim, but he could not mine
outside the boundary lines of his claim. Pursuant to the
Philippine Bill of 1902, therefore, once a mining claim was
made or a mining patent was issued over a parcel of land in
accordance with the relative provisions of the Philippine
Bill of 1902, such land was considered private property and
no longer part of the public domain. The claimant or patent
holder was the owner of both the surface of the land and of
the minerals found underneath.
The term mining claim connotes a parcel of land
containing a precious metal in its soil or rock. It is usually
used in mining jargon as synonymous with the term
location, which means the act of appropriating a mining
claim on the public domain according to the established law
or rules.43 A mining patent pertains to a title granted by
the government for the said mining claim.
Under the 1935 Constitution, which took effect on
November 15 1935, the alienation of natural resources,
with the exception of public agricultural land, was
expressly prohibited. The natural resources being referred
therein included mineral lands of public domain, but not
mineral lands that at the time the 1935 Constitution took
effect no longer formed part of the public domain.
Consequently, such prohibition against the alienation of
natural resources did not apply to a mining claim or patent
existing prior to November 15, 1935. Jurisprudence has
enlightened us on this point.
In McDaniel v. Apacible,44 the petitioner sought to
prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources from leasing a parcel of petroleum land in San
Narciso in Province of Tayabas. He claimed that on June 7,
1916 he entered an unoccupied land in San Narciso and
located therein three petroleum mineral claims in
accordance with the Philippine
_______________
173
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 21 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 22 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
174
but little to his security. (18 Ruling Case Law, p. 1152 and cases
cited)
The owner of a perfected valid appropriation of public mineral
lands is entitled to the exclusive possession and enjoyment against
everyone, including the Government itself. Where there is a valid
and perfected location of a mining claim, the area becomes
segregated from the public domain and the property of the locator.
It was said by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, „The
Government itself cannot abridge the rights of the miner to a
perfected valid location of public mineral land. The Government
may not destroy the locatorÊs right by withdrawing the land from
entry or placing it in a state of reservation.‰ (Belk v. Meagher, 104
U.S., 279; Sullivan v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 143 U.S., 431)
A valid and subsisting location of mineral land, made and kept
up in accordance with the provisions of the statutes of the United
States, has the effect of a grant by the United States of the present
and exclusive possession of the lands located, and this exclusive
right of possession and enjoyment continues during the entire life of
the location. There is no provision for, nor suggestion of, a prior
termination thereof. (Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S., 45; Clipper
Mining Co. v. Eli Mining & Land Co., 194 U.S., 220)
There is no pretense in the present case that the petitioner has not
complied with all the requirements of the law in making the location
of the mineral placer claims in question, or that the claims in
question were ever abandoned or forfeited by him. The respondents
may claim, however, that inasmuch as a patent has not been issued
to the petitioner, he has acquired no property right in said mineral
claims. But the Supreme Court of the United States, in the cases of
Union Oil Co. v. Smith (249 U.S., 337), and St. Louis Mining &
Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co. (171 U.S., 650), held that even
without a patent, the possessory right of a locator after discovery of
minerals upon the claim is a property right in the fullest sense,
unaffected by the fact that the paramount title to the land is in the
United States. There is no conflict in
175
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 23 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
the rulings of the Court upon that question. With one voice they
affirm that when the right to a patent exists, the full equitable title
has passed to the purchaser or to the locator with all the benefits,
immunities, and burdens of ownership, and that no third party can
acquire from the Government any interest as against him. (Manuel
v. Wulff, 152 U.S., 504, and cases cited)
Even without a patent, the possessory right of a qualified locator
after discovery of minerals upon the claim is a property right in the
fullest sense, unaffected by the fact that the paramount title to the
land is in the Government, and it is capable of transfer by
conveyance, inheritance, or devise. (Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249
U.S., 337; Forbes v. Jarcey, 94 U.S., 762; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S.,
279; Del Monte Mining Co. v. Last Chance Mining Co., 171 U.S., 55;
Elver v. Wood, 208 U.S., 226, 232)
Actual and continuous occupation of a valid mining location,
based upon discovery, is not essential to the preservation of the
possessory right. The right is lost only by abandonment as by
nonperformance of the annual labor required. (Union Oil Co. v.
Smith, 249 U.S., 337; Farrell v. Lockhart, 210 U.S., 142; Bradford v.
Morrison, 212 U.S., 389)
The discovery of minerals in the ground by one who has a valid
mineral location perfects his claim and his location not only against
third persons, but also against the Government. A mining claim
perfected under the law is property in the highest sense of that
term, which may be sold and conveyed, and will pass by descent,
and is not therefore subject to the disposal of the Government. (Belk
v. Meagher, 104 U.S., 279, 283; Sullivan v. Iron Silver Mining Co.,
143 U.S., 431; Consolidated Mutual Oil Co. v. United States, 245
Fed. Rep., 521; Van Ness v. Rooney, 160 Cal., 131, 136, 137)
The moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral deposit on
the lands located, and perfected his location in accordance with law,
the power of the United States Government to deprive him of the
exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of the located claim
was gone, the lands had become mineral lands and they were
176
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 24 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 25 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
177
This is one of several cases now pending in this court which call
for an interpretation, a determination of the meaning and scope, of
Section 1 of Article XII of the Constitution, with reference to mining
claims. The cases have been instituted as test cases, with a view to
determining the status, under the Constitution and the Mining Act
(Commonwealth Act No. 137), of the holders of unpatented mining
claims which were located under the provisions of the Act of
Congress of July 1, 1902, as amended.
In view of the importance of the matter, we deem it conducive to
the public interest to meet squarely the fundamental question
presented, disregarding for that purpose certain discrepancies
found in the pleadings filed in this case. This is in accord with the
view expressed by the Solicitor-General in his memorandum where
he says that the statements of facts in both briefs of the petitioners
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 26 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
may be accepted for the purpose of the legal issues raised. We deny
some of the allegations in the petitions and allege new ones in our
answers, but these discrepancies are not of such a nature or
importance as should necessitate introduction of evidence before the
cases are submitted for decision. From our view of the cases, these
178
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 27 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
179
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 28 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
180
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 29 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
181
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 30 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
182
with the provisions of the mining laws, his possessory right, for
all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by
patent.‰ (Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Krushnic, 280 U.S., 306; 74
Law. ed., 445)
The Solicitor-General admits in his memorandum that the
decision in the McDaniel case is determinative, of the fundamental
question involved in the instant case. But he maintains „that this
decision is based on a misapprehension of the authorities on which
the court relied,‰ and that it „is not well-founded and should be
abandoned.‰ We do not deem it necessary to belabor this point.
Whether well-founded or not, the decision in that case was the law
when Section 1 of Article XII of the Constitution became effective;
and even if we were disposed to overrule that decision now, our
action could not affect rights already fixed under it.
Our conclusion is that, as the mining claim under consideration
no longer formed part of the public domain when the provisions of
Article XII of the Constitution became effective, it does not come
within the prohibition against the alienation of natural resources;
and the petitioner has the right to a patent therefor upon
compliance with the terms and conditions prescribed by law.
It remains to consider whether mandamus is the proper remedy
in this case. In Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Krushnic, supra, the
Supreme Court of the United States held that „mandamus will lie
to compel the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of an application
for a patent for a mining claim on its merits, where his refusal to do
so is based on his misinterpretation of a statute.‰ In the course of its
decision the court said: While the decisions of this court exhibit a
reluctance to direct a writ of mandamus against an executive
officer, they recognize the duty to do so by settled principles of law
in some cases. (Lane v. Hoglund, 244 U.S., 174, 181; 61 L. ed., 1066,
1069; 37 Sup. Ct. Rep., 552; and case cited) In Roberts v. United
States (176 U.S., 221, 231; 44 L. ed., 443, 447; 20 Sup. Ct. Rep.,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 31 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
376), referred to and quoted in the Hoglund case, this court said:
183
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 32 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
184
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 33 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
185
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 34 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
186
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 35 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
187
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 36 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
188
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 37 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
189
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 38 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
_______________
60 Rollo, p. 128.
61 Id.
190
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 39 of 40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 745 9/5/20, 9:04 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e5d70a0833966e1003600fb002c009e/p/ASW902/?username=Guest Page 40 of 40