ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU…

Itogon-Suyoc Mines versus Office of the President

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Incorporated against the Office of the President, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Director of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, and private respondents James Brett, Edgar Kapawen, Lily Camara, and intervenor Jaime Paul Panganiban. Itogon-Suyoc asks the Supreme Court to annul the decision and resolution of the Office of the President which upheld the validity of the private respondents' mining claims and declared several of Itogon-Suyoc's own claims null and void. The case matters because it fixes the reglementary period for a motion for reconsideration of a decision of the President in mining conflicts, and because it settles that the tie-point requirement in the old mining laws is mandatory, not merely directory.

Procedural History

The dispute began as separate protests lodged by Itogon-Suyoc with the Bureau of Mines and Geosciences against the mining claims of Brett, Kapawen, and Camara, with Panganiban intervening. The Bureau rendered a decision on 17 February 1984, giving Brett, Kapawen, and Panganiban the exclusive and preferential right to occupy and operate the areas covered by their claims, and giving Itogon-Suyoc the preferential right over a listed set of its own claims.

Itogon-Suyoc appealed to the then Ministry of Natural Resources, which consolidated the cases. The Ministry initially dismissed the appeal for failure to seasonably submit the appeal memorandum. On motion for reconsideration, the Ministry reversed itself on 13 February 1986 and declared the private respondents' claims null and void for overlapping Itogon-Suyoc's valid and subsisting claims. On Brett's motion, the Ministry set aside that decision on 15 June 1986 and reinstated its original order. Itogon-Suyoc's motion for reconsideration was denied on 7 October 1986.

Itogon-Suyoc then filed a notice of appeal with the Office of the President on 10 November 1986 and later submitted its appeal memorandum. On 12 January 1993, the Office of the President affirmed the Ministry's order reinstating the original decision. Itogon-Suyoc's motion for reconsideration was denied on 15 June 1993, both because the arguments had already been passed upon and because the motion was filed late. Itogon-Suyoc came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Facts

Itogon-Suyoc held a large number of mining claims in Suyoc, Mankayan, Benguet. It protested before the Bureau of Mines and Geosciences that its claims were overlapped by the claims of Brett, known as KEDSER I and KEDSER II; by the claim of Kapawen, known as EDGAR II; and by the claims of Camara and of intervenor Panganiban. Itogon-Suyoc argued that the private respondents' claims were null and void for overlapping its own valid and existing claims, and that Panganiban's claims were unregistered.

The Bureau ruled in favor of Brett, Kapawen, and Panganiban, and gave Itogon-Suyoc preferential rights only over a smaller set of its claims. On appeal, the Ministry of Natural Resources first reversed, then reinstated the Bureau's decision. The Office of the President affirmed the reinstated decision, relying on the Bureau's findings that Itogon-Suyoc's claims were floating because their corner posts were tied only to their own initial posts and not to any fixed natural object or permanent monument, in violation of Section 28 of the Philippine Bill of 1902; that Itogon-Suyoc failed to show any valid deed of assignment or transfer from the original locators; and that there was no valid reconstitution of its declarations of location.

Itogon-Suyoc received the decision of the Office of the President on 24 March 1993 and filed its motion for reconsideration by registered mail on 7 April 1993, fourteen days later. The Office of the President denied the motion, holding among other things that it was filed out of time.

Issues

• Whether or not the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Office of the President was filed out of time.
• Whether or not tie points are necessary for the validity of mining locations under Section 28 of the Philippine Bill of 1902.
• Whether or not the mining claims of Itogon-Suyoc were validly assigned or transferred by their original locators to Itogon-Suyoc.
• Whether or not the declarations of location of Itogon-Suyoc were validly reconstituted.
• Whether or not Itogon-Suyoc's appeal from the decision of the Bureau to the Ministry of Natural Resources was perfected on time.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Presidential Decree Number 309 provides:

Any party not satisfied with the decision or order of the Director of Mines may, within five days from receipt thereof, appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources who shall render his decision within five days from receipt of the appeal or submission of the report of the Department panel of investigators, as the case may be. From the decision of the Secretary, an appeal may be taken within five days to the President whose decision shall be final and executory. The decision of the Director of Mines shall be immediately executory, notwithstanding the appeal, unless the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources or the President directs otherwise.

This is the governing law for conflicting mining claims, and it fixes the five-day periods that the Court uses to measure the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration.

Section 28 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 provides:

That no mineral claim of the full size shall be recorded without the application being accompanied by an affidavit made by an applicant or some person on his behalf cognizant of the facts — that the legal notices and posts have been put up; that mineral has been found in place on the claim proposed to be recorded; that the ground applied for is unoccupied by any person. In the said declaration shall be set out the names of the applicant and the date of the location of the claim. The words written on the number one and number two posts shall be set out in full, and as accurate a description as possible of the position of the claim given with reference to some natural object or permanent monuments.

This is the provision the Court construes as mandatory, so that a claim without a valid tie point is void.

Section 47 of the Mining Act, Commonwealth Act Number 137, provides in part:

The declaration of location that has no bearing and distance to a tie point as herein described shall be null and void.

This confirms that the tie-point requirement is an essential part of a valid declaration of location.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. Presidential Decree Number 309 is silent on the period for reconsideration of a decision of the President, but since Section 5 uniformly sets the appeal period at five days from the Director of Mines to the Secretary and from the Secretary to the President, the Court ruled that the motion for reconsideration must likewise be filed within five days from receipt of the decision of the President, in keeping with the intent of the law. Itogon-Suyoc filed its motion fourteen days after receipt, so the Office of the President correctly denied it. The Court added that the denial was in any event not based solely on tardiness, since the motion was pro forma and raised no new grounds.

On the second issue, the Court held that the tie-point requirement is mandatory. The last sentence of Section 28 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 requires as accurate a description as possible of the position of the claim with reference to some natural object or permanent monument. Act Number 624, which prescribed the form of the declaration of location, confirms that this description is an integral part of a valid declaration. The Court found persuasive American cases holding that a certificate which fails to describe the land is void, and noted that Section 47 of the Mining Act expressly provides that a declaration of location without a bearing and distance to a tie point is null and void. The purpose of the requirement is precisely to prevent floating claims. Itogon-Suyoc's claims were tied only to their own initial posts, so they were void.

On the third and fourth issues, the Court upheld the findings of the Bureau that no mining claim was originally located by Itogon-Suyoc, that the alleged deeds of conveyance did not exist, and that the affidavits of confirmation were executed by third parties some thirty years after the alleged transfers. Such affidavits were not the public instruments contemplated by law to effect a transfer of mineral claims, and the claims remained in the names of the original locators. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in these findings.

On the fifth issue, the Court upheld the dismissal of Itogon-Suyoc's appeal to the Ministry of Natural Resources, which was filed three months and seven days after receipt of the decision, far beyond the five-day reglementary period prescribed by law for mining cases.

Doctrine

First, in conflicting mining claims governed by Presidential Decree Number 309, a motion for reconsideration of a decision of the President must be filed within five days from receipt, following the uniform five-day periods fixed in Section 5 of that decree. Second, the requirement in Section 28 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 that a mining claim be described with reference to a natural object or permanent monument is mandatory, and noncompliance renders the mining claim null and void, because the purpose of the requirement is to prevent floating claims. Third, a transfer of a mineral claim must be evidenced by a public instrument, and unrecorded affidavits of third persons executed long after the alleged transfer cannot serve as secondary evidence of conveyance. Fourth, the decision of the President in mining cases is final and executory, so it may be reviewed only by certiorari on a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the decision and resolution of the Office of the President were affirmed, so Itogon-Suyoc lost and the mining claims of the private respondents were upheld.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the tie-point requirement is mandatory, and a mining claim without a valid tie point is a floating claim and therefore void. Examiners use this case to test the five-day period for reconsideration of a decision of the President in mining conflicts, and the rule that the decision of the President in such cases is final and executory.