G.R. No.

135190 April 3, 2002

SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
BALITE PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE and others similarly situated; and THE HONORABLE ANTONIO
CERILLES

FACTS:

On March 10, 1988, Marcopper Mining Corporation (Marcopper) was granted Exploration
Permit No. 133 (EP No. 133) over 4,491 hectares of land, which included the hotly-contested
Diwalwal Gold Rush area. Subsequently, a petition for the cancellation of EP No. 133 and the
admission of a Mineral Production Sharing Arrangement (MPSA) proposal over Diwalwal was filed.
However, on February 16, 1994, while such was pending, Marcopper assigned its permit to
Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM), which in turn applied for an integrated MPSA
over the land which was accepted and registered.

On April 1, 1997, Provincial Mining Regulatory Board of Davao passed Resolution No. 26,
Series of 1997, authorizing the issuance of ore transport permits (OTPs) to small-scale miners
operating in the Diwalwal mines. Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for damages alleging that the
illegal issuance of the OTPs allowed the extraction and hauling of P60,000.00 worth of gold ore per
truckload from SEM's mining claim. The DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order No. 97-03
stating that the agency shall study thoroughly and exhaustively the option of direct state utilization of
the mineral resources in the Diwalwal Gold-Rush Area. Petitioner contends that such would
effectively impair its vested rights under EP No. 133; that the DENR Secretary unduly usurped and
interfered with the jurisdiction of the RPA which had dismissed all adverse claims against SEM in the
Consolidated Mines cases; and that the memorandum order arbitrarily imposed the unwarranted
condition that certain studies be conducted before mining and environmental laws are enforced by
the DENR. The CA dismissed such petition, hence the foregoing case.

ISSUES:
1) WoN the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the assailed memorandum order did not
adopt the "direct state utilization scheme" in resolving the Diwalwal dispute.
2) WoN petitioner has vested rights over the Diwalwal area.
RULING:
1) No. The terms of the memorandum clearly indicate that what was directed thereunder was merely
a study of this option and nothing else. Contrary to petitioner's contention, it did not grant any
management/operating or profit-sharing agreement to small-scale miners or to any party, for that
matter, but simply instructed the DENR officials concerned to undertake studies to determine its
feasibility.
2) No. A reading of the appealed MAB decision reveals that the continued efficacy of EP No. 133 is
one of the issues raised in said cases, with respondents therein asserting that Marcopper cannot
legally assign the permit which purportedly had expired. In other words, whether or not petitioner
actually has a vested right over Diwalwal under EP No. 133 is still an indefinite and unsettled matter.
And until a positive pronouncement is made by the appellate court in the Consolidated Mines cases,
EP No. 133 cannot be deemed as a source of any conclusive rights that can be impaired by the
issuance of MO 97-03. Petitioner cannot claim any absolute right to the Diwalwal mines pending
resolution of the Consolidated Mines cases, much less ask the court to assume, at this point, that
respondent BCMC and the other mining firms are illegal miners.
G.R. No. L-69997 September 30, 1987

UNGAY MALOBAGO MINES, INC., petitioner,

vs.
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, et. al

FACTS:
On October 30, 1959, John Canson, Jr. and Carlos Stilianopulos assigned their rights to their
mining claims in favor of the petitioner. The aforestated mining patents, after their issuance on July
20, 1962, were all recorded in the Office of the Mining Recorder of Albay on August 28, 1962 and
transcribed on September 4, 1962 and consequently issued the respective original certificates of
titles. Subsequently, or from 1968 to 1974, the following free patents were granted by the respondent
Director of Lands and the corresponding original certificates of titles were issued covering portions of
the lots in the patents belonging to the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of patents against the private
respondents and prayed that all the free patent titles issued in their favor for properties over which
original certificates of title had already been issued in its favor be declared null and void. The
Director of Lands, alleged that the petitioner has no personality to institute the cancellation
proceedings inasmuch as the government is the grantor and not the petitioner, and it should be the
grantor who should institute the cancellation proceedings. The trial court dismissed the petition
stating that under Section 101 of the Public Land Law, only the Solicitor General or the officer acting
in his stead has the authority to institute an action on behalf of the Republic for the cancellation of
the respondents' titles and for reversion of their homesteads to the Government. The appellate court
affirmed such decision, thus the foregoing.
ISSUES:
1) WoN the appellate court committed an error of law when it ruled that the lands in question belong
to the public domain.
3) WoN the appellate court erred in discussing the complaint on the ground that the petitioner had no
personality to institute the same.
RULING:
1) No. The petitioner has been beguiling, less than candid, and inexplicably silent as to material
dates in the presentation of its case. Nowhere in the records of this petition is there any mention of a
date before November 15, 1935 as to when essential acts regarding its mining claims were executed
and other requirements under the Philippine Bill of 1902 were followed.
Petitioner has not established by clear and convincing evidence that the locations of its mining
claims were perfected prior to November 15,1935 when the Government of Commonwealth was
inaugurated. All that petitioner offers as evidence of its claims were the original certificates of titles
covering mining patents which embodied a uniform "WHEREAS" clause stating that the petitioner
"has fully complied with all the conditions, requirements, and provisions of the Act of the United
States of Congress of July 1, 1902, as amended, ..." In the absence of proof that the petitioner's
claims were perfected prior to the 1935 Constitution, the provision of the latter with regard to
inalienable lands of the public domain will apply.
2) No. The mineral lands over which it has a right to extract minerals remained part of the inalienable
lands of the public domain and thus, only the Solicitor General or the person acting in his stead can
bring an action for reversion.