ANTONIO BASIANA, SR., ROSA ODVINA BASIANA, WILHERMINA BASIANA KELLY, ANTONIO BASIANA, JR., AND ROMEO BASIANA, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. CIPRIANO LUNA, FELIX LUNA, THE HONORABL…

Basiana versus Luna

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Antonio Basiana, Senior, his wife Rosa Odvina Basiana, and their children against Cipriano Luna, Felix Luna, and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Basiana family asks the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in two consolidated mining protests, docketed in the Bureau of Mines as Mines Administrative Case Numbered V-457 and Mines Administrative Case Numbered V-477, which upheld the Director of Mines and declared the great majority of the Basiana mining claims null and void. The case matters because it teaches, in one clean sweep, the strict formal requirements for the validity of a mining claim: timely recording, a lawful tie point, and a duly recorded power of attorney for one who prospects in the name of another. It also shows how a claim that is void at inception cannot be saved by a later amendment, and how a lease contract built on a void claim covers nothing.

Procedural History

The controversy began as two protests filed with the Bureau of Mines, which were jointly heard. After the protestants, the Basiana side, closed their evidence, the protestees, the Luna side, moved to dismiss. The Director of Mines granted the motion and dismissed both protests in an order dated November 18, 1970. The Basiana side appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, assigning nine errors. On August 3, 1971, the Secretary rendered a decision affirming the Director of Mines, with the modification that the claim Romeo 1 and its lease agreement were declared valid, while the claims Ester 1 and Ester 2 and their lease agreement were declared null and void. From that decision the Basiana side came to the Supreme Court by petition for review under the Mining Act. While the case was pending, Presidential Decree Numbered 463 took effect, and the Luna side filed a manifestation and motion invoking it. The Court resolves the petition on the merits of the mining law as it stood.

Facts

Sometime in early February 1966, Antonio Basiana, Senior, prospected in the vicinity of Upper Asiga, Santiago, Cabadbaran, Agusan. On February 21, 1966, he entered into a private agreement with Cipriano Luna: of all the claims that could be prospected and registered in the name of Asiga Copper Mines, Luna would receive sixty percent in consideration of assuming all expenses of prospecting and registering, and the balance would go to Basiana. Basiana prospected one hundred eighty-three claims. Of these, ninety-three were recorded in the name of Basiana and his family, and the rest in the name of Luna and his family.

Realizing that something was wrong with the declarations of location, Cipriano Luna, with the knowledge and consent of Basiana, filed amended declarations on December 18, 1967 to correct claim names and tie points. Basiana then wrote the Mining Recorder on August 14, 1968 disclaiming knowledge of and consent to those amendments. Luna thereupon filed an affidavit cancelling the registration of the amended claims. In July 1968 the Luna side located the area of the original one hundred eighty-three claims as the Cicafe and Mirador groups, and the Basiana side protested, giving rise to the first case. In March 1969, during the pendency of that case, the Basiana spouses located seventy-three claims known as the ABA group over the Luna portion, and protested on the ground that the Luna claims were deemed abandoned for nonpayment of occupation fees and failure to apply for lease or survey, giving rise to the second case.

Issues

• Whether or not the mining claim Romeo 1, as originally declared and recorded, was valid, and whether its later relocation could cure the defect.
• Whether or not the remaining one hundred eighty-two claims, tied to Romeo 1 as their mother claim, had valid tie points under the Mining Act.
• Whether or not a claim that is null and void at inception may be the subject of a valid amendment.
• Whether or not the lease contracts over Romeo 1, Ester 1, and Ester 2 were valid.
• Whether or not a written power of attorney, duly acknowledged and recorded, was necessary for the validity of claims prospected by Basiana in the names of others.
• Whether or not the second protest could be decided without allowing the protestants to present evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 34 of the Mining Act provides:

Sec. 34. Within thirty days after the completion of the acts of location of a mining claim, as hereinafter provided, the locator thereof shall record the same with the mining recorder of the province or district within which the claim is situated. A claim recorded after the prescribed period shall be null and void.

This governs Romeo 1, whose acts of location were completed on February 5, 1966 but which was recorded only on March 11, 1966, beyond the thirty-day period.

Section 24 of Commonwealth Act Numbered 137, as amended, provides:

Prospectors may prospect for themselves, or for other persons, associations, corporations, or other entities qualified to locate mining claims and to acquire leases of mineral lands under the provisions of this Act. A proper power of attorney in writing shall, in each case, be given by the employer to his prospector which power of attorney shall be duly acknowledged and shall be recorded in the office of the mining recorder concerned on or before the recording this declaration of location. A power of attorney not registered on or before the recording this declaration of location shall make the mining claim or claims null and void.

This governs the claims Basiana prospected and which were recorded in the names of others, for which no such power of attorney existed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the original declaration of Romeo 1 was null and void under Section 34, because the acts of location were completed on February 5, 1966 but recording was made on March 11, 1966, beyond thirty days. The second declaration, an amendment recorded on July 29, 1966, was likewise void, being filed beyond the thirty-day period. Only the third declaration, a relocation recorded on October 20, 1966 with a permanent tie point at BLLM Numbered 2 of Jagupit, was valid, but its validity commenced only upon recording on October 20, 1966.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the other one hundred eighty-two claims, tied to Romeo 1 as their mother claim, had no authorized tie points when recorded, because Romeo 1 did not then exist as a valid claim. As recorded, they were null and void.

On the third issue, the Court holds that an amendment presupposes a valid claim. A void claim is no claim, and cannot be the subject of amendment; the proper remedy is relocation.

On the fourth issue, the Court holds that the lease over Romeo 1 rests on the valid relocation of October 20, 1966 and stands. The leases over Ester 1 and Ester 2 rest on original declarations that were void, so those leases are void as well, for the lease covers nothing.

On the fifth issue, the Court holds that Basiana prospected for others as their agent, and no written power of attorney duly acknowledged and recorded was executed, so those claims are null and void under Section 24. The private agreement with Luna was not a power of attorney, and even if it were, it was never recorded.

On the sixth issue, the Court holds that the second protest rested on the same alleged validity of the one hundred eighty-three claims, and since those claims were void, further proceedings would be an exercise in futility. There could be no abandonment where there was nothing to abandon.

Doctrine

A mining claim must be recorded within thirty days after completion of the acts of location; a claim recorded after the prescribed period is null and void. The validity or invalidity of a claim is determined as of its inception and cannot be affected by subsequent acts unrelated directly to its status. An amendment presupposes a valid claim, so a void claim cannot be amended; the remedy is relocation. A lease contract over a void mining claim is itself void, because it covers nothing. One who prospects for another must hold a proper written power of attorney, duly acknowledged and recorded on or before the recording of the declaration of location; otherwise the claim is null and void.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, sustaining the validity of Romeo 1 and its lease and the nullity of Ester 1, Ester 2, and the remaining claims.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a null and void claim is no claim at all, so it can neither be amended nor made the subject of a valid lease. Examiners use this case to test the thirty-day recording rule, the tie point requirement, and the recorded power of attorney under the Mining Act.