POLO, YNTE, ANDRES FIANZA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Polo, et. al. claimed to have located sometime in November, 1933 three placer
claims situated in Bokod, Benguet, Mt. Province, which he registered in the
mining register of said province. On March 30, 1953, Jose Piok, one of the claim
owners, filed in their behalf a protest with a contractor of the National Power
Corporation objecting to the extracting on the part of the latter of gravel and
sand from said placer claims on the ground that the same had been relocated by
them not only for gold but also for the gravel and sand that might be found
therein. As a consequence, the National Power Corporation registered on July 10,
1953 with the Bureau of Mines an opposition to the relocation of the placer
mining claims on the part of protestants alleging that the latter were merely
trying to establish the basis on which to claim some compensation from the
National Power Corporation. On August 31, 1953, the Director of Mines addressed
a letter to Jose Piok advising him of the opposition of the National Power
Corporation and requiring the claim owners he was representing to file an answer
to said opposition with the advice that the incident would be set for hearing
sometime later.

After seeking pertinent data regarding the disputed mining claims, the
National Power Corporation, thru its general manager, addressed on June 21, 1954
a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, thru the
Director of Mines, requesting Information as to whether said claims might be
deemed as abandoned and forfeited. On August 14, 1954, the placer claim owners
wrote the Director of Mines requesting that they be given 10 days within which
to submit memorandum to support their contention that their claims have not
been forfeited or abandoned wherein it was insinuated that once the said
memorandum is submitted the matter would then be ripe for “an opinion or
decision” on the part of the Director of Mines on the status of said mineral
claims. On August 22, 1955, the Director of Mines advised the National Power
Corporation that the claim owners, represented by counsel, presented evidence in
support of their contention, who in addition submitted a memorandum in support
thereof. On December 20, 1955, the Director of Mines forwarded to the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources his written opinion on the status of the
mining claims in question in the form of an indorsement wherein, after a mature
study of the questions raised and the evidence submitted by the claim owners as
well as of the other officials called to testify in the investigation conducted
for the purpose, he held “that the claim owners herein have already lost
whatever rights they might have to the three placer claims in question.” He
further held that “the area covered by these claims is no longer open to
relocation or new location as the same has been reserved for water-power
purposes of the National Power Corporation.” Copy of this ruling was served on
the counsel of the claim owners on January 5, 1956 when on said date he went to
the Office of the Director of Mines to inquire about the action taken by said
official on the status of the mineral claims in question. On January 13, 1956,
the Under-Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources returned to the
Director of Mines said first indorsement concurring in the ruling laid down by
him. In view of such ruling, the general manager of the National Power
Corporation informed the counsel of claim petitioners that, inasmuch as the
decision of the authorities concerned is to the effect that the rights of his
clients to the mineral claims in question had already been lost, he was
considering the matter closed. Hence, on September 5, 1956, Polo, et al.
commenced the present action before the Court of First Instance of the City of
Baguio praying that they be declared the rightful owners of the placer mineral
claims alleged in the complaint and that defendants be ordered to pay them the
value of said claims in the amount of P192,000.00.

Defendants, in their answer, alleged that plaintiffs had already lost
whatever rights they had to the claims in question as the area covered by the
same was no longer open to relocation and the same had been reserved for
water-power purposes by the National Power Corporation; that plaintiffs having
filed the instant action beyond the period of 30 days from their receipt of the
decision of the Director of Mines, said decision had already become final and
binding upon plaifltiffs; and that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the
case since plaintiffs’ cause of action had already prescribed. And having
defendants moved that the court rule on the prejudicial question raised relative
to the court’s lack of jurisdiction as averred in their answer, the lower court
issued on April 28, 1958 an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that it
has no jurisdiction over the case in view of plaintiffs failure to file it
before the expiration of 30 days from their receipt of the decision of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hence, the present appeal which
was certified to us by the Court of Appeals on the ground that it merely
involves questions of law.

Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 137, as amended by Republic Act No. 746,
reads as follows:

“Sec. 61. Conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations shall be
submitted to the Director of Mines for decision: Provided, That the
decision or order of the Director of Mines may be appealed to the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources within thirty days from the date of its
receipt. In case any one of the parties should disagree from the decision or
order of the Director of Mines or of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, the matter may be taken to the court of competent jurisdiction within
thirty days from the receipt of such decision or order; otherwise the said
decision or order shall be final and binding upon the parties
concerned.”

It would appear from the above that in case one of the parties should
disagree from the decision or order of the Director of Mines or of the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources over a conflict or dispute which arises out
of a mining location the matter may be taken to the court of competent
jurisdiction within 30 days from receipt of such order or decision, otherwise
the same shall become final and binding upon the parties concerned. Here there
is no dispute that the required period of 30 days had already lapsed when
appellants actually instituted the present action, and such being the case it
would appear that the court a quo was correct in ruling that the action
of appellants is already lost and the case should be dismissed.

But appellants now contend that the controversy which was submitted to the
Director of Mines for determination is not one which comes within the purview of
the legal provision above-quoted for the reason that the same does not refer to
a conflict or dispute that arises out of a mining location. Thus, they contend
that said legal provision only contemplates a case where one party lays claim to
certain rights over a mining location and another party lays claim to the same
rights or interest therein. In other words, they express the view that there is
no conflict or dispute arising out of the mine location when one of the parties
is not a locator, owner, or transferee of a mining claim.

We disagree with this view. In order that there may be a conflict or dispute
arising out of a mining location it is not necessary that there be two parties
claiming the same rights over the same mining claim. This would be a very narrow
interpretation of the law for otherwise there would be many conflicts or
disputes which even if they refer to mining claims cannot be considered as such
because they are not disputed by two locators, owners or transferees. In our
opinion, when one party, though not a locator or transferee of a mining claim,
but whose rights may be affected or impaired by the claim of a mining locator,
disputes the status of such mining claim either because of failure to comply
with the requirements of the law or because of forfeiture or abandonment, and
submits the matter to the Director of Mines for decision, there is a dispute
arising out of a mining location within the purview of the law, and this is so
because, by the very nature of the controversy, the matter has to be submitted to
the Director of Mines for decision before any of parties could go to court for
relief in connection with the controversy. And such is the situation that
obtains herein.

Thus, as found by the court a quo: “The admitted facts are that when
Plaintiffs sought to locate placer claims along the Agno River which would
subsequently be flooded by the waters of the Ambuklao Dam, Defendant presented
an apposition to these placer mining claims before the Bureau of Mines.
Plaintiffs were given 15 days to file sworn answers to this opposition of
Defendant. The Answers were properly filed by Plaintiffs and thereafter the
Bureau of Mines conducted a hearing wherein Plaintiffs, through counsel,
presented evidence, oral and documentary, to support their claims and Defendant
in turn also presented testimony of mining engineers and geologists to support
its theory of forfeiture. Thereafter, the Director of Mines made an indorsement
to the effect that Plaintiffs had lost all rights to their placer mining claims
and that the same were no longer subject of relocation. The Undersecretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources concurred with this opinion. Plaintiffs
received copy of this indorsement on January 5, 1956. More than 30 days passed
when Plaintiffs finally came to this Court and filed an original action on
September 7, 1956.”

It cannot, therefore, be denied that appellees disputed the claim of
ownership of appellants over the placer claims in question on the basis not only
of their allegation that appellants had already abandoned their rights to said
claims because of failure to comply with the requirement relative to the
assessment work to be done but of their claim that the pertinent area has
already been reserved to the government for the development of power since 1936.
Common sense dictates that that is a dispute that pertains to a mining claim. As
such, it is a matter that has to be submitted to the Director of Mines for
decision. It is therefore a case that comes within the purview of Section 61 of
Commonwealth Act 137, as amended.

The contention that the administrative investigation conducted by the
Director of Mines on the claims in question cannot be considered as such because
it was not initiated in the form of a complaint, nor was it docketed nor
numbered, nor was a docket fee paid, as required by Mines Administrative Order
No. B-9. is of no avail not only because it is merely a matter of form that
cannot divest it of its character as mining controversy, but also because said
administrative order was approved only on May 24, 1956, much after this matter
was investigated and decided by the Director of Mines. Nor can the fact that the
decision of this official was merely contained in an indorsement deprive it of
its character as such thus sacrificing substance to form. As a matter of fact,
it has all the earmarks of a decision and was regarded as such by all parties
concerned, including appellants.

It is true that the present action was instituted by appellants to recover
damages as a result of their deprivation of the placer claims in question which
is a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the court a quo, but
this claim is merely an incident of their main theme that they are the rightful
owners of the mining claims of which they were divested by the Director of
Mines. The jurisdiction of the court a quo over the main claim having
failed, its jurisdiction over the incidental claim must also fail. Hence, this
contention has no merit.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, without costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.