CONSTANCIA D. VEGA, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE FERNANDO LOPEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMEN…

Vega versus Lopez

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Constancia D. Vega against the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation, asking the Supreme Court to set aside the Secretary's affirmance of the Director of Mines' ruling that gave Atlas the preferential right to lease twelve lode mining claims in Toledo, Cebu. The case matters because it is the classic teaching vehicle on the presumption of regularity of registered declarations of location in mining law, on the finality of administrative findings of fact, and on how a party who refuses to submit to an administrative body's jurisdiction cannot later complain of the evidence taken in her absence.

Procedural History

The dispute began as Mines Administrative Case Numbered V-262 before the Bureau of Mines, where Atlas appeared as protestant and Vega as respondent. On February 13, 1962, the Director of Mines rendered a decision giving Atlas the preferential right to lease the twelve claims, based solely on Atlas' evidence, because Vega refused to recognize and submit to the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Mines. Vega appealed, and on June 3, 1963, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources set aside that decision and directed the Director of Mines to continue the proceedings, allow Vega to present her evidence, and decide on the evidence of both parties. Hearings were then conducted in Cebu City in February 1966, where Vega presented evidence and Atlas offered none in addition. The Director of Mines again ruled for Atlas, and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources affirmed. Vega then filed this petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court under Section 61 of the Mining Law, as amended by Republic Act Numbered 4388.

Facts

Atlas' predecessor, Zenon Panimdim, located eight claims named Nemy, Nimfa, Rom, Pat, Bar, Art, Nong and Sol between April and July 1953, registering the declarations of location with the Mining Recorder of Cebu. Simon C. Dumaguing located four more claims, Jack, Ike, Joe and Lim, from July 1 to 15, 1953, and registered their declarations on July 27, 1953. Panimdim and Dumaguing later sold all their rights to Atlas by separate registered deeds of absolute sale, and on April 27, 1957, Atlas filed its Lode Lease Application covering the twelve claims.

Vega, on the other hand, acting through Gregorio Ravago under a special power of attorney registered in August 1957, located twelve claims with the names Mars, Earth, Sun, Pluto, Venus, Cobra, Jupiter, Mercury, Moon, Comet and Universe, registering the declarations also in August 1957. She filed her own lease applications. The two sets of claims overlapped, and the existence of conflicting locations was admitted by both parties.

When Atlas presented its evidence before the Bureau of Mines, Vega refused to recognize the Bureau's jurisdiction and did not appear. She later submitted to the proceedings in 1966 and presented her evidence, but offered no additional evidence from Atlas.

Issues

• Whether or not Atlas' claims Jack, Ike, Joe and Lim were validly located and tied to permanent monuments, and whether the failure to present Dumaguing as a witness amounted to willful suppression of evidence.
• Whether or not Dumaguing was disqualified under Section 25 of the Mining Act from locating mining claims because he was a deputy mineral land surveyor.
• Whether or not the survey of the four claims followed the bearings and distances in the declarations of location.
• Whether or not Panimdim's eight claims were void for failure to tie them to a fixed natural object or permanent monument.

Applicable Provisions

Section 61 of the Mining Law, as amended by Republic Act Numbered 4388, provides:

Findings of facts in the decision or order of the Director of Mines when affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be final and conclusive, and the aggrieved party or parties desiring to appeal from such decision or order shall file in the Supreme Court a petition for review wherein only question of law may be raised.

This fixes the narrow scope of review and makes the administrative findings binding on the Court.

Section 31 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:

Every instrument affecting real property acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law may be used in evidence without further proof.

This is the basis for treating the registered declarations of location as public instruments and prima facie evidence.

Section 25 of the Mining Act, Commonwealth Act Numbered 137, as amended, disqualifies certain officials from locating claims. The Court construed it to cover only officers and employees of the executive branch whose duties relate to the administration or disposition of mineral resources, not private mining surveyors in practice.

Section 13 of the Mining Act declares it unlawful:

to move Number 1 post of a lode mineral claim although Number 2 post may be moved by the mineral land surveyor when the distance between posts Number 1 and 2 exceeds 300 meters.

This supports the presumption that the surveyors did their duty and did not move the location posts.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the registered declarations of location are sworn public instruments that carry the presumption of regularity and constitute prima facie evidence that the locations were actually made in accordance with law. There was no willful suppression of evidence in not presenting Dumaguing, because Vega had refused to submit to the Bureau's jurisdiction when Atlas presented its evidence ex parte, and she herself could have presented him as her own or as a hostile witness in 1966.

On the second issue, the Court held that Dumaguing, as a deputy mineral land surveyor in private practice, was not disqualified; only officers and employees of the executive branch whose duties relate to mineral resources are covered by Section 25.

On the third issue, the Court held that the discrepancies in paragraphs 5 and 7 of Atlas' exhibits were clerical errors, and that the true locations appear in the certified copies tallying with Vega's own exhibits, showing the surveyed areas are exactly those originally staked and monumented.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the sketch plans show Panimdim's eight claims were fixed and tied to each other and to reference points on the ground, so they were not floating claims.

Doctrine

A registered declaration of location is a sworn public instrument that carries the presumption of regularity and is prima facie evidence that the acts of location were performed in accordance with the Mining Act. The burden shifts to the opposing party to overcome that presumption with contrary evidence. A party who refuses to submit to the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Mines cannot later complain that she had no opportunity to object to the evidence presented in her absence. Findings of fact of the Director of Mines, when affirmed by the Secretary, are final and conclusive and may be reviewed only on questions of law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources giving Atlas the preferential right to lease the twelve mining claims.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a registered declaration of location is a public instrument presumed regular and is prima facie evidence of a valid mining location. Examiners use this case on the presumption of regularity of public instruments, on the finality of administrative findings of fact, and on the effect of refusing to submit to an administrative body's jurisdiction.