7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

TodayisMonday,July27,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.L30440February7,1992
MAPULOMININGASSOCIATIONandE.V.CHAVEZ&ASSOCIATES,representedbyANTONIOM.CHAVEZ,
petitioners,
vs.
HON.FERNANDOLOPEZ,inhisofficialcapacityastheSECRETARYOFAGRICULTUREANDNATURAL
RESOURCESHON.FERNANDOS.BUSUEGO,JR.,inhisofficialcapacityastheDIRECTOROFMINES
andPROJECTS&VENTURES,INC.,respondents.
FORTUNECEMENTCORPORATION,intervenor.
Taada,Vivo&Tanforpetitioners.
LaurelLawOfficesforintervenor.

DAVIDE,JR.,J.:
ThisisapetitionunderSection61oftheMiningAct(C.A.NO.137),asamendedbyR.A.No.4388,forreviewof
the24March1969decisionofthenSecretaryoftheDepartmentofAgricultureandNaturalResources(DANR),
Hon.FernandoLopez,inDANRCaseNo.3359entitledMapuloMiningAssociationandE.V.Chavez&Associates
versusProjects&Ventures,Inc.,1affirmingthe5July1968OrderoftheDirectoroftheBureauofMines,Hon.Fernando
S. Busuego, Jr., which dismissed petitioners' adverse claim against private respondent's Application For Lease of Mining
Claims over certain mineral lands located at Taysan, Batangas, principally on the ground that said claim was filed one (1)
dayaftertheexpirationoftheperiodwithinwhichtodosopursuanttoSection72oftheMiningAct.2

Therecordsdisclosethefollowingfactualandproceduralantecedentsofthiscase:
In1940,EliseoChavezandhiswife,LuciaB.Mercado,locatedalimestoneminingclaim(thenknownastheSan
Jose Placer Claim) over a piece of registered private land situated at Barrio Mapulo, Taysan, Batangas with an
areaof12.4469hectares.Thesaidland,ownedbyQuilianoMercado,LuciaB.Mercado'sfather,iscoveredby
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO174(0510). On 612 and 1827 March 1943, the lease survey of the
placerclaimwasundertakenbythenAssistantMineralLandSurveyoroftheBureauofMines,Mr.JulianLagman
on5July1943,thenDirectorofMines,Hon.QuiricoA.Abadilla,approvedthesurveyplan(Pla163)preparedby
theformer.UnderatemporarypermittoextractmineralsissuedtothembytheDirectorofMineson3February
1943,spousesextractedandminedlimestonefromtheland.3
Subsequently,theMineralLandsandAdministrativeDivisionoftheBureauofMinesdeclaredasabandonedthis
claim of Mr. Chavez due to his failure to comply with requirements. 4 Thereafter, the Mapulo Mining Association,
petitionerherein,relocatedtheareathroughAntonioChavezon1622December1963andregistereditastheMapuloPlacer
Mining Area with the Office of the Mining Recorder (Register of Deeds) of Batangas on 22 January 1964. On 4 February
1964,theMapuloMiningAssociationfiledanapplicationforamininglease,whichwasdocketedasPLAV1136.5

On 2630 November 1963 and 14 December 1963, petitioner E.V. Chavez & Associates located mining claims
known as "Chavez I" and "Chavez II" inside private agricultural lands belonging to several individuals. On 5
December1963,thecorrespondingdeclarationsoflocationwereregisteredintheOfficeoftheMiningRecorder
ofBatangas.6Anapplicationforminingleaseovertheclaimswasfiledon25August1967.
Upontheotherhand,on610June1966,privaterespondentProjects&Ventures,Inc.(PROVEN)locatedmining
claimsknownas"BAT40,41,60,22,23,38,37,44,57,61,62,63,64,39,42.58,59,43,and24"overanarea
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

1/10

7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

embracedbypetitioners'miningclaims.Later,PROVENfiledwiththeBureauofMinesLodeLeaseApplications
Nos.V9176Amd.,V9177Amd.,V9178,V9226andV9227Amd.A.Thenoticeofapplicationwaspublishedin
the 7, 14, and 21 August 1967 issues of the OfficialGazette however, these issues were actually released for
circulation to the public only on 5, 19 and 29 September 1967, respectively, per certification of the Bureau of
Printing. 7 The notice was also published in the 15, 22 and 29 July 1967 issues of the Philippines Herald and El Debate,
bothpublishedinManila.Itwasnot,however,publishedinalocalnewspaperinBatangassuchasthePeople's Courier or
TheBatangasReporter.8Althoughdisputedbypetitioners,privaterespondentallegesthatthenoticewasalsopostedatthe
placesrequiredby
law.9

On 2 August 1967, petitioners filed with the Bureau of Mines an application for an order of lease survey of the
"MapuloPlacerClaim,""ChavezI"and"ChavezII"miningclaims.Thisapplicationwasdeniedonthegroundthat
saidclaimsareinconflictwiththeclaimsoftheprivaterespondent.10
In view of this denial, petitioners, on 15 August 1967, requested the Director of Mines to hold in abeyance any
actiononprivaterespondent'sapplicationforminingleasependingsubmissionbytheformerofaformalpetition.
Theirletterrequestreads:
WithreferencetotheLodeLeaseApplicationsNos.9176Amd.,V9177Amd.,V9178,V9226,and
V9227Amd.Acovering"BatNos.21,40,41,60,22,23,38,37,44,57,61,62,63,64,39,42,59,
58,43,&24"lodeminingclaimscontainingcopper,gold,silver,etc.,&limestone,etc.,situatedinthe
barrio of Mapolo (sic), Municipality of Taysan, Province of Batangas, applied for by the Projects &
Ventures, Inc., with post office address at c/o Mr. C. Castro, Philippine Banking Corp., Port Area,
Manila, it would be highly appreciated if action on the proposed grant or issuance of the lease
contractsbeheldinabeyancependingresolutionofourformalpetitionwhichwewillfileassoonas
possible.
Trustingthatthisrequestwillmerityourusualandpromptconsideration.11
On29August1967,petitionersfiledanAdverseClaimand/orOppositiontotheIssuanceofMiningLeasedated
28August1967.12
Privaterespondent,on20October1967,filedaMotiontoDismisspetitioners'adverseclaimonthegroundthat
thesamewasfiledone(1)day
late.13
On20November1967,petitionersopposedthemotiontodismisscontendingthat:(1)Section72oftheMining
Act,asamended,requiringthepublicationofthenoticeofminingleaseapplicationintheprovincialnewspaper,
hasnotyetbeencompliedwithandso,therefore,thereisnopublicationdeadlinetospeakof(2)theissuesof
the Official Gazette dated 7, 14 and 21 August 1967, where private respondent's notice of application was
inserted, were actually released to the public only on 5, 19 and 29 September 1967, respectively (3) private
respondent'sminingclaimswerelocatedinviolationofSections28(d)and60oftheMiningActasthesamehad
already been previously located by other parties and (4) private respondent's declarations of location are
fraudulentastheyaremeretablelocations,noactuallocationhavingbeenperformed.14
On5July1968,theDirectorofMinesdismissedpetitioners'adverseclaimonthegroundthat:(1)thepublication
ofprivaterespondent'snoticeoffilingofapplicationsforleaseinaprovincialnewspaperisnotnecessary(2)with
respecttothepublicationintheOfficialGazette,whatiscontrollingisnotthedateoftheactualreleasebutrather
thedateappearingthereonand(3)petitionersareguiltyoflachesinfilingtheiradverseclaimonlyon29August
1967.15
On25July1968,petitionersmovedforareconsiderationoftheOrderbutthesamewaslaterdenied.16
On 14 October 1968, petitioners appealed to the respondent Secretary of the DANR who, on 24 March 1969,
affirmedthedecisionoftheDirectorofMinesandgaveduecoursetoprivaterespondent'sapplicationformining
lease.17
Petitionersthenfiledon25April1969theinstantpetitionforreviewallegingthereinthat:
a)duecourseshouldnothavebeengiventoprivaterespondent'sapplicationforleasebecauseof
noncompliance with the Mining Act, the mining claims covered by said applications having been
validly located by petitioners before the alleged location by private respondent or its assignors and
with reference to one particular area, its location by private respondent's assignors having been
made without the owner's written permission and without a similar permission accompanying the
applications,inviolationofSection28(d),60,27and67oftheMiningAct
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

2/10

7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

b)thepublicationrequirementofthenoticeoftheapplicationforleasehadnotbeenmetfor:(1)the
dateofpublicationwithrespecttotheOfficialGazetteshouldbebasedonthedateappearingtherein
butonthedateofreleasefordistributionandsaletothepublic,and(2)therewasnopublicationof
theapplicationinaprovincialnewspaperpublishedinthemunicipalityorprovincewherethemining
claimislocated,ifsuchexistsor,initsabsence,inanewspaperpublishedinthenearestmunicipality
orprovince,asthisrequirementismandatoryandcannotbedispensedwithand
c)petitioner'sadverseclaimwasfiledontimeandthatevenassumingitwasfiledone(1)daylate,
suchadelaycouldbeconsideredasavalidgroundtojustifytherefusalbytheDirectorofMinesto
giveduecoursetotheadverseclaim.
IntheResolutionof30April1969,thisCourtgaveduecoursetothepetition 18andrequiredtherespondentstofile
theirAnswer.19

PrivaterespondentfileditsAnsweron7June1969.20
On18June1969,FortuneCementCorporationfiledaMotionforLeavetoFileanAnswerinInterventionalleging
that the mining claims involved in this case had been sold and assigned to it by private respondent Project
Ventures,Inc.underaDeedofAssignmentexecutedon9October1968. 21TheAnswerinIntervention 22wasfiled
onthesamedate.

On1July1969,publicrespondentsSecretaryoftheDANRandDirectorBusuegooftheBureauofMines,through
theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,filedtheirAnswertothepetitionmanifestingthattheyareadoptingtheAnswer
ofprivaterespondent.23
On8July1969,thisCourtgrantedFortuneCementCorporation'smotionandnoteditsAnswerinIntervention.24
ThepetitionerswerethenrequiredtofiletheirBrief,whichtheydidon28August1969.25
TheIntervenorfileditsBriefon14October1969,26whichprivaterespondentsadoptedperitsManifestationfiledon29
October1969,27andwhichthisCourtmerelynoted.28

DespiteseveralextensionsoftimegrantedthepublicrespondentswithinwhichtofiletheirBrief,nonewasfiled.
On20July1970,thisCourtconsideredthecasesubmittedfordecisionwithoutthesaidBrief.29
PetitionersfiledaReplyBriefon24August1970.30
Subsequently,theIntervenorfiledaRequestforOralArgument, 31 which this Court denied on 18 September 1970
nevertheless,theIntervenorwasallowedtofileaMemoranduminlieuoforalarguments. 32ItfiledtheMemorandumon10
October1970.33

On3September1986and26March1990,thepartieswererequiredtomoveinthepremises 34 both petitioners

IntheirBrief,petitionerscontendthatpublicrespondentserred:
1. In not holding that the Projects & Ventures, Inc. (herein private respondent) is a mere intruder
uponthelandcoveredbypetitioners'miningclaims.
2.InnotholdingthattheallegedlocationsonJune6to10,1966oftheProjects&Ventures,Inc.'s
mining claims known as BATS 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 59, and 60 were done in
violation of Section 25(d) of the Mining Law which prohibits prospecting "in lands which have been
locatedforminingleasesbyotherprospectorsundertheprovisionsofthisAct"andSection60which
providesthat"novalidminingclaimorpartthereofmaybelocatedbyothersuntiltheoriginallocator
orhissuccessorininterestabandonstheclaimorforfeitshisrightsonthesameundertheprovisions
of this Act", because the abovementioned BATS mining claims were located on land which was
alreadypreviouslyvalidlylocatedforminingleasebythepetitioners.
3.InnotholdingthatthelocationsofBATS37,38,39,40,41,and42miningclaimswerelikewise
voidonthefurthergroundthattheallegedlocatorsthereofdidnotgetthepriorwrittenpermissionof
Quiliano Mercado to enter his land, as required in Section 27 of the Mining Law, to locate the
aforesaidsix(6)BATSclaims.
4.InnotholdingthatbecausethelocationsofBATS21,22,23,24,37,38,39,40,41,42,44,59and
60miningclaimswerenullandvoid,theapplicationsforleasefiledbytheProjects&Ventures,Inc.of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

3/10

7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

itsminingclaimscannotbeentertainedunderSection72oftheMiningLaw.
5. In not holding that the applications for lease of BATS 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 mining claims
cannotbeentertainedonthefurthergroundthatProjects&Ventures,Inc.,didnotaccompany(sic)
the applications with the written permission of Quiliano Mercado nor (sic) with a written permission
grantedbyacompetentcourtinaproceedingunderSection67oftheMiningLaw.
6.InholdingthattherequirementsprescribedinSection72oftheMiningLaw,forthepublicationof
thenoticeoftheapplicationforleasehadbeensubstantiallycompliedwithandthatthepublicationof
the notice of the application for lease in a newspaper published in the municipality or province in
which the mining claims are situated, if there is such newspaper, otherwise, in the newspaper
publishedinthenearestmunicipalityorprovince,isnotmandatory.
7.Innotholdinginanyeventthattheperiodofpublication(threeweeks)fixedinSection72within
whichanadverseclaimmaybefiledunderSection72ofthelaw,hadnotyetevencommencedto
runonAugust29,1967whenpetitioners'adverseclaimwasfiled,becauseonthatdate,i.e.,August
29,1967,theissuesoftheOfficialGazettedatedAugust7,1967,August14,1967andAugust21,
1967, where the notice of the applications for lease of the Projects & Ventures, Inc., was inserted,
hadnotyetbeenreleasedfordistributionandsaletothepublicandprobablyhadnotyetevenbeen
printed.
8. In holding that the petitioners were guilty of laches and that the adverse claim and/or opposition
filedbythemonAugust29,1967,wasfiledoutoftime.
9.Innotholdingthattheearliestpossibledeadlineforthefilingofpetitioners'oppositionandadverse
claim was September 5, 1967, which was the three weeks (sic) (the normal period of publication)
from August 15, 1967 when the petitioners requested the Director of Mines in writing to hold in
abeyanceactiononrespondentProjects&Ventures,Inc.'sapplicationforlease.
10.Innotholdingthatthepetitionershavebeenincontinuouspossessionoftheareacoveredbythe
"MAPULO", "CHAVEZ I", and "CHAVEZ II" mining claims and kept (sic) them valid and subsisting,
and had spent substantial amounts of money in preparatory work for their development on a
commercialbasis.
11. In dismissing the petitioners' adverse claim and/or opposition on the basis of the motion to
dismissfiledbytheProjects&Ventures,Inc.,and
12.InnotholdingthattheDirectorofMines,inissuingtheOrdersdatedJuly5,1968andOctober7,
1969sanctionedclaimjumpingandoverlappinglocationsinviolationoftheMiningLaw.
Stripped of the nonessentials which adorn the pleadings of the parties, the main issues in this case are: (a)
whether or not there was valid and sufficient publication of the notice of private respondent's application for a
miningleaseoveritsclaimsand,(b)assumingthattherewas,whetherornotpetitioners'AdverseClaimand/or
Oppositiontosuchapplicationwasseasonablyfiled.
TheseissuesmustberesolvedinthelightoftheMiningAct(C.A.No.137,asamended)whichwasthegoverning
law at the time of the filing of application and the subsequent issuance by the public respondents of the
challenged Order and decision. This Act was superseded by P.D. No. 463, otherwise known as the Mineral
ResourcesDevelopmentDecreeof1974.
Section72oftheMiningActprovides,interalia,that:
Upon receipt of the application, and provided that the requirements of this Act have been
substantially complied with, the Director of the Bureau of Mines shall publish a notice that such
application has been made, once a week for a period of three consecutive weeks, in the Official
Gazetteandintwonewspapers,onepublishedinManilaeitherinEnglishorSpanish,andtheother
published in the municipality or province in which the mining claim is located, if there is such
newspaper,otherwise,inthenewspaperpublishedinthenearestmunicipalityorprovince....The
DirectoroftheBureauofMinesshallalsocausetobepostedonthebulletinboardoftheBureauof
Minesthesamenoticeforthesameperiod.Theapplicantshallpostforthesameperiodacopyof
the plat of the claim or claims applied for, together with a notice of such application for lease, in a
conspicuousplaceonthelandembracedinsuchplat,onthebulletinboard,ifany,ofthemunicipal
building of the municipality, and also in the office of the mining recorder or district mining officer of
theprovinceordistrictinwhichtheclaimorclaimsarelocatedandshallfilewiththeDirectorofthe
BureauofMinestheaffidavitofatleasttwopersonsstatingthatsuchnoticehasbeendulypostedin
theplacesabovespecified.Attheexpirationoftheperiodofpublicationtheapplicantshallfilewith
theDirectoroftheBureauofMinesanaffidavitshowingthattheplatandnoticehavebeenpostedin
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

4/10

7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

aconspicuousplaceontheclaimorclaimsconcernedandintheplacesabovespecifiedduringsuch
periodofpublication,andthereupon,ifnoadverseclaimshallhavebeenpresentedtotheDirectorof
the Bureau of Mines, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such adverse claim exists and
thereafter no objection from third parties of the granting of the lease shall be heard, and the lease
shall within fortyfive days be granted to the applicant, or to his successors or assigns, by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, provided that all amounts then due to the
Government of the Philippines, or any of its branches or subdivisions, under the provisions of this
Act,shallhavebeenpaid.
Asearliershown,itisnotdisputedbythepartiesthatthenoticeinthiscasewaspublished:
a)intheissuesofthePhilippinesHeraldandtheElDebatedated15,22and29July,1967,and
b) in the issues of the Official Gazette dated 7, 14, and 21 of August 1967, which, however, were
respectivelyreleasedon5,19and29September1967.
Therewasnopublication,however,ofthenoticeinanewspaperpublishedinthemunicipalityorprovincein
whichtheminingclaimwaslocated,i.e.,inBatangas.Itisnotdeniedthatatthattime,thereweretwo(2)
weekly newspapers in Batangas, namely the People's Courier and The Batangas Reporter. All that
respondentDirectorofMinescouldsayinhischallengedOrderof5July1968isthat"Wearenotawareof
thepublicationinBatangasofsuchnewspapers."35Thisnonawarenessdoesnotmeanthatthenewspapersdo
notinfactexistsbesides,thepetitionerspresentedhimwithcertificationsissuedbytheCirculationManagerofthe
People'sCourier(Exh."5")andtheEditorofTheBatangasReporter (Exh. "4") 36 attesting to the existence of said
periodicals.

Andevengrantingforthesakeofargumentthatthesetwo(2)localnewspapersdonotexist,thefactremainsthat
therewasstillnopublicationofthenoticeinanewspaperpublishedinthenearestmunicipalityorprovince.
Petitionersmaintainthatpublicationinanewspaperpublishedinthemunicipalityorprovincewheretheclaimsare
located, if there be such a newspaper, or in a newspaper published in the nearest municipality or province, is
mandatory.Publicrespondentsmaintainotherwise.RespondentDirectorofMinesbelievesthat"consideringthe
proximityofBatangastoManilaandthespeedymeansoftransportation,...thenoticeinthePhilippinesHerald,
ElDebate,andtheOfficialGazette,aswellasthepostingofthenoticeintheplacesabovementioned,speciallyin
the bulletin board of the Mining Recorder of Batangas, . . . constitute substantial compliance with the
requirements of publication." 37 Respondent Secretary believes that "[t]he publication in the Official Gazette and El
Debate,respectively,wasstrictlyincompliancewithlawthepublicationinthePhilippinesHerald could have produced the
same effects as if the publication was made in a newspaper published in Taysan or the nearest town or province. The
Philippines Herald is one of the capital's dailies which are [sic] extensively distributed and read throughout the country.
Therehadbeenthereforea(sic)substantialcomplianceof(sic)thelaw."38

We agree with petitioners that the publication requirements prescribed in Section 72 of the Mining Act are
mandatory and that substantial compliance therewith is not enough. Such mandatory character is obvious from
theSectionitself,whichprovidesthat:
...theDirectoroftheBureauofMinesshallpublishanoticethatsuchapplicationhasbeenmade,
onceaweekforaperiodofthreeconsecutiveweeks,intheOfficialGazetteandintwonewspapers,
one published in Manila either in English or Spanish, and the other published in the municipality or
provinceinwhichtheminingclaimislocated,ifthereissuchnewspaper,otherwise,inthenewspaper
publishedinthenearestmunicipalityorprovince....
It is evident that the newspaper first mentioned refers to a periodical published in Manila and circulated in the
Philippineswhilethesecondreferstoalocalnewspaper.Publicationinonedoesnotmeanthattheapplicantcan
dispensewithpublicationintheother.Otherwise,itwouldhavebeenabsurd,nayridiculous,forthelawtorequire
publication in both newspapers in addition to publication in the OfficialGazette. The legislature certainly abhors
absurdity.Corollarily,courtsshouldnotgiveastatuteameaningthatwouldleadtoabsurdity. 39 Besides, Section
72imposesupontheDirectorofMinestheduty,"[u]ponreceiptoftheapplication,andprovidedthattherequirementsofthis
Acthavebeencompliedwith,"topublishthenoticeintheOfficialGazetteandinthesaidtwo(2)newspapers.Thelanguage
ofthemandateisundeniablyclearandunequivocal.Itshouldbetakentomeanexactlywhatitsays:

...Itistheruleinstatutoryconstructionthatifthewordsandphrasesofastatutearenotobscureor
ambiguous, its meaning and the intention of the legislature must be determined from the language
employed,and,wherethereisnoambiguityinthewords,thereisnoroomforconstruction(Blackon
Interpretation of Laws, sec. 51). The courts may not speculate as to the probable intent of the
legislatureapartfromthewords(Hondorasvs.Soto,8Am.St.,Rep.744).Thereasonfortheruleis
thatthelegislaturemustbepresumedtoknowthemeaningofwords,tohaveusedwordsadvisedly
andtohaveexpresseditsintentbytheuseofsuchwordsasarefoundinthestatute(50Am.Jur.p.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

5/10

7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

212).40
Anotherreasonwhythepublicationrequirementsshouldbestrictlycompliedwithisthatanypersonwhofailsto
file an adverse claim against the applicant during the period of publication is forever barred to file such a claim
sincethesectionitselfprovidesthat"ifnoadverseclaimshallhavebeenpresentedtotheDirectoroftheBureau
of Mines, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such adverse claim exists and thereafter no objection from
thirdpartiesofthegrantingoftheleaseshallbeheard."41Inviewthenofitsadverseconsequencesontherightsof
others,nothingshortofstrictcomplianceisdemanded.Statutesinderogationofrightsmustbeconstruedstrictly.42

Thus, the contention and rationalization of public respondents that substantial compliance with the publication
requirementswouldsuffice,iswhollyunacceptablefortheletterandthespiritofthelawdonotsustainit.
Consideringthenthattherewasnopublicationinanewspaperpublishedinthemunicipalityorprovincewherethe
subjectclaimsarelocatedBatangasdespitetheexistenceoftwo(2)weeklynewspaperstherein,itisclear
that there was noncompliance with Section 72 of the Mining Act and that public respondents acted with grave
abuseofdiscretioninholdingthatthepublicationinthePhilippinesHerald,ElDebateandtheOfficialGazettewas
sufficient.
Respondents, however, maintain that petitioners were well aware of the publication for on 15 August 1967, the
latter filed a letter with the Director of the Bureau of Mines requesting that action on the proposed grant of the
leasecontractsinfavorofprivaterespondentbeheldinabeyancependingresolutionofa"formalpetition"which
petitioners"willfileassoonaspossible."
Upontheotherhand,thereisnoshowingthatthefilingoftherequestwasduetopetitioners'knowledgeofthe
publication.Inanycase,whetherornotpetitionersknewofthepublicationisofnomomentsincetherewasinfact
noncompliancewiththepublicationrequirementsfurthermore,atthetimetheyactuallyfiledtheiradverseclaim
on 29 August 1967, the period of publication was not yet completed. Granting that petitioners had such
knowledge,thesamedidnotcurethefataldefectorcompleteandvalidatethedefectivepublication.Neitherthe
Directornortheprivaterespondentshouldbemadetoprofitfromthelatter'snoncompliancewiththepublication
requirements.
Of course, the result would be entirely different if there had in fact been full compliance with the publication
requirements for indeed, the period of publication, taking into account of publication in the Official Gazette and
assumingthatpublicationinthelocalnewspaperwasmadeearlier,expiredona28August1967.Thenoticewas
published in the 7, 14 and 21 August 1967 issues. Although actually released and distributed on 5, 19 and 29
September1967,respectively,thisCourthadalreadyruledinBarretovs.Republic43that:
...Withreferencetothedateoftheeffectivityofstatutes,itisprovidedthattheOfficialGazette"is
conclusivelypresumedtobepublishedonthedateindicatedthereinasthedateofissue."(Sec.11,
Revised Administrative Code.) This is obviously for the purpose of avoiding uncertainties likely to
ariseifthedateofpublicationistobedeterminedbythedateoftheactualreleaseoftheGazette.If
thepolicyregardingsoimportantamatterasfixingthedateoftheeffectivityofstatutes,istoaccept
thedateofissueindicatedintheOfficialGazette as conclusive, there is better reason for adopting
said date of issue in respect of publication of notices in naturalization cases. This is specifically so,
because, as we have said in AntiChinese League of the Philippines vs. Felix (44 Off. Gaz., 1480,
148344),thepurposeofthepublicationintheOfficialGazetteand in one newspaper of general circulation,
ofthepostingofnoticesinapublicandconspicuousplaceintheofficeoftheclerkofcourtorinthebuilding
where said office is located, and of the sending of copies of the petition to the Bureau of Justice, the
Department of the Interior, the Provincial Inspector of the Philippine Constabulary and the Justice of the
Peaceofthemunicipalitywhereinthepetitionersreside,"istoinformthoseofficersandthepublicingeneral
ofthefilingofsuchapetitioninorderthatthepublicofficersandprivatecitizenssupposedtobeacquainted
with the petitioner may furnish the Solicitor General or the provincial fiscal with such necessary information
andevidenceastheremaybeagainstthepetitioner."...

Thereisnoreasontodepartfromthisrule.
ThisCourtcannotthenacceptpetitioner'scontentionthatthedateofreleaseoftheOfficialGazetteiscontrolling.
Petitioners further argue that it was even premature for the Director of the Bureau of Mines to cause the
publicationofthenoticeofprivaterespondent'sapplicationsinceithadnotcompliedwith,amongothers,Section
27,28(d),60and67oftheMiningActand,perSection72,substantialcompliancewiththerequirementsofthe
Actisaconditionprecedentthatmustbefulfilledbeforepublicationofthenotice.Thefirstpartofsaidsection,to
quoteitagainforemphasis,reads:
UponreceiptoftheapplicationandprovidedthattherequirementsofthisActhavebeensubstantially
compliedwith,theDirectoroftheBureauofMinesshallpublishanotice....
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

6/10

7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

Accordingtopetitioners,privaterespondent'sclaimsspecificallyBAT37,38,39,40,41and42,arelocatedina
parcel of private agricultural land and are covered by petitioners prior mining locations the rest of private
respondent'sclaimarecoveredbypetitioners'priormininglocations.Privaterespondentdoesnotlikewisedeny
thefactthatapplicationsforminingleaseisnotaccompaniedbythewrittenpermissionoftheowneroftheprivate
agriculturalland.
Consequently,petitionersargueinthealternativethateitherSections27,28(d),60and67oftheMiningActwere
violated,or,inreferencetoSection72,werenotcompliedwith.Hence,nonoticeoughttohavebeenpublished.
Thecitedsectionsprovideasfollows.
Sec.27.Beforeenteringprivatelandstheprospectorshallfirstapplyinwritingforwrittenpermission
of the private owner, claimant, or holder thereof, and in case of refusal by such private owner,
claimant, or holder to grant such permission, or in case of disagreement as to the amount of
compensationtobepaidforsuchprivilegeofprospectingtherein,theamountofsuchcompensation
shall be fixed by agreement among the prospector, the Director of the Bureau of Mines and the
surfaceowner,andincaseoftheirfailuretounanimouslyagreeastotheamountofcompensation,
allquestionsatissueshallbedeterminedbytheCourtofFirstInstanceoftheprovinceinwhichsaid
landsaresituatedinanactioninstitutedforthepurposebytheprospector,orhisprincipal:Provided,
however, That the prospector, or his principal, upon depositing with the court the sum considered
jointlybyhimandtheDirectoroftheBureauofMinesorbycourt(sic)tobejustcompensationforthe
damagesresultingfromsuchprospecting,shallbepermittedtoenterupon,andlocatethesaidland
withoutsuchwrittenpermissionpendingfinaladjudicationoftheamountofsuchcompensationand
in such case the prospector, or his principal, shall have a prior right as against the world, form the
date of his application. The court in its final judgment, besides determining the corresponding
compensation for the damages which may be caused by the prospecting , shall make a
pronouncement as to the value of the land and the reasonable rental for the occupation and
utilization thereof for mining purposes in case the prospector decides to locate and exploit the
mineralsfoundtherein.
Sec.28.Noprospectingshallbeallowed:
xxxxxxxxx
(d)Inlandswhichhavebeenlocatedforminingleasesbyotherprospectorsundertheprovisionsof
thisAct.
xxxxxxxxx
The regulations to be promulgated under this Act shall prescribe in detail the various restrictions
underthissection.
xxxxxxxxx
Sec.60.Novalidminingclaimoranypartthereof,maybelocatedbyothersuntiltheoriginallocator
or his successors in interest abandons the claim or forfeits his rights on the same under the
provisionsofthisAct.
xxxxxxxxx
Sec.67.AnypersonauthorizedtolocateaminingclaimunderthisAct,havingclaimedandlocateda
piece of land for mining purposes who has complied with the terms of this Act, may file with the
DirectoroftheBureauofMinesanapplicationunderoathforaminingleasethereon,showingsuch
compliance. A plan and a technical description of the mining claim or claims covered by the
application shall be filed therewith or as soon thereafter as the same may be obtained from the
BureauofMinesundertheprovisionsofthisAct.Inthecaseofanapplicationtoleaseaminingclaim
locatedonprivatelands,thesameshallbeaccompaniedbyawrittenauthorityoftheownerofthe
land: Provided, however, That in case of refusal of the owner of the land to grant such written
authority,thesameshallbegrantedbythecourtassoonastheapplicantdepositstheamountfixed
as the value of the land and as compensation for any resulting damage or files a bond to be
approved by the court sufficient to insure the payment of the rental of the land as determined in
accordance with section twentyseven of this Act. Should there have been no proceeding instituted
bytheapplicant,asprovidedforundersectiontwentysevenofthisAct,theCourtshalldeterminethe
value of the land and the compensation for any resulting damage or its reasonable rental for the
purposesabovementionedandgrantthewrittenauthorityrequiredtherein.
TheissuethusposedwouldbebestdeterminedduringthehearingoftheAdverseClaim.Itshould,however,be
stressedherethatitwasheldinStandardMineralProducts,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,etal.45thatfailuretocomply
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

7/10

7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

withSection27isfatal:

WeagreewiththedeclarationofbothlowerCourtsthatSMPIisnotentitledtosaidsurfacerightsas
itfailedtocomplywiththerequisiteofpriorwrittenpermissionbytheLandownersbeforeenteringthe
privatelandinquestion.
Section27oftheMiningActexplicitlyprovides:
xxxxxxxxx
Thepurposeofthelawisobvious,whichis,topreventtrespassonprivateproperty.Theimportance
ofthewrittenpermissionoftheownerofprivatelandisalsoapparentfromtheformsprescribedby
theBureauofMinesforthedeclarationoflocationofaminingclaimwhichrequirethelocatortostate
that the landowner has granted written permission for the prospecting and location of the mining
claimifthelatterislocatedonprivateproperty.
The subsequent amendments requiring only mere notification to the owner of the private land
(Section2,P.D.No.512)arenotdiscussedforbeinginapplicableduringtheperiodpertinenttothis
controversy.
SMPIargues,however,thatSection27isinapplicableasitneverenteredthelandforthepurposeof
"prospecting" but already for "locating" a mining claim inasmuch as the limestone deposits were
prominentlyexposedandspreadvisiblyandrecognizablyonthesurfaceofthelandsuchthat"there
was no need of "entering" the land." In finding the same to be without merit, suffice it to state that
"entering"hastobeprecede(sic)"prospecting""prospecting"necessarilyprecedes"discovery"and
a valid "discovery" is essential for the "location" of a mining claim. As expounded by the Court of
Appeals:
Section26oftheMiningActprovidesthatprospectingshallbecarriedon"inaccordance
with the provisions of this Act." As appellant's prospecting was done in violation of the
law,itwasanillegalactandthesubsequentlocationoftheminingclaimswasalsoillegal
andnullandvoid.FortheMiningActregardsavaliddiscoveryasthatwhichgivesthe
prospectortherighttolocateaminingclaim(Sections29and30),andthevalidityofa
locationdependsuponcompliancewiththelaw.
Itisclear,ofcourse,thatthevalidityofalocationdependsuponcompliance
with the statutes. The law requires that the locator shall act in good faith,
and it will not countenance a trespass as the basis of a mining right' (36
Am.Jr.Sec.77).
In view of the foregoing, it would no longer be necessary to discuss the second issue as well as the other
assignederrors.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the then Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources of 24 March 1969 in DANR Case No. 3359 affirming the Order of the then Director of the
BureauofMinesof5July1968inMinesAdministrativeCaseNo.V417isherebySETASIDEandtheAdverse
Claimand/orOppositionfiledbypetitionersisherebyREINSTATED.
Costsagainsttheprivaterespondent.
SOORDERED.
Gutierrez,Jr.,Feliciano,BidinandRomero,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Rollo,3842.
2Rollo,6871.
3Id.,818294.
4Id.,82.
5Rollo,4546.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

8/10

7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

6Id.,44.
7Id.,69.
8Rollo,6871.
9Id.,39.
10Id.,47.
11Rollo,45.
12Id.,543.
13Id.,553.
14Id.,675867.
15Rollo,76871.
16Id.,77274.
17Id.,3842.
18Rollo,101.
19Id.,102.
20Id.,112146.
21Id.,258,etseq.
22Id.,286,etseq.
23Id.,321322.
24Id.,324.
25Rollo,340.
26Id.,356.
27Id.,367.
28Id.,373.
29Id.,396.
30Id.,405.
31Id.,407.
32Id.,411.
33Id.,419.
34Rollo,438.
35Rollo,70.
36Id.
37Rollo,70.
38Id.,41.
39AutomotiveParts&EquipmentCo.vs.Lingad,etal.,30SCRA248DirectorofLandsvs.Abaja,et
al.63Phil.559.
40Aparrivs.CourtofAppeals,etal.,127SCRA231seealsoInsularBankofAsiaandAmerica
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

9/10

7/27/2015

G.R.No.L30440

EmployeesUnionvs.Inciong,132SCRA663andBarandavs.Gustilo,165SCRA757.
41Emphasissupplied.
42RealtyInvestments,Inc.vs.Villanueva,84Phil.842PhilippineNationalBankvs.Jacinto,88Phil.
376.
4387Phil.731.
44Citing77Phil.,p.1012.
45184SCRA571.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_30440_1992.html

10/10