G.R. No. 191249 . March 14, 2018
CORAZON LIWAT-MOYA, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER SURVIVING HEIRS, NAMELY: MARIA THERESA MOYA SIOSON, ROSEMARIE MOYA KITHCART AND MARIA CORAZON MOYA GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA AND RAPID CITY REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FOR ITSELF AND AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CENTURY PEAK CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Corazon Liwat-Moya filed an application for a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) in 1991. Following the enactment of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the DENR issued guidelines requiring holders of pending applications to submit a status report and letter of intent by September 15, 1997, and to fully comply with all mandatory requirements within 45 days thereafter. The MGB sent multiple notices to petitioner regarding these requirements, but she failed to respond. Consequently, in 2001, the MGB denied her application for non-compliance.
Subsequently, respondent Rapid City Realty & Development Corporation (RCRDC) filed exploration permit applications covering the same area. In 2004, petitioner belatedly moved for reconsideration of the MGB’s denial order. The DENR Secretary, in 2006, reinstated petitioner’s application. RCRDC moved for reconsideration and intervention, which the DENR Secretary denied, prompting an appeal to the Office of the President (OP). The OP reversed the DENR Secretary, finding petitioner negligent and barred by laches. The Court of Appeals affirmed the OP’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the President correctly denied petitioner’s MPSA application on the grounds of non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements and laches.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the OP and the CA. The legal logic rests on the mandatory nature of the procedural deadlines established by DENR Memorandum Order (DMO) No. 97-07, issued pursuant to the Philippine Mining Act. These deadlines are not mere technicalities but essential requisites for acquiring a mining right. Petitioner’s failure to submit the required status report and letter of intent by the set deadline, despite repeated notices from the MGB, constituted a fatal omission that warranted the denial of her application. Her subsequent inaction for years demonstrated neglect in pursuing her claim.
The Court emphasized that laches had set in due to petitioner’s unreasonable delay in challenging the MGB’s 2001 order only in 2004, which prejudiced RCRDC, which had already invested in its own application in good faith. The DENR Secretary’s reinstatement order, based on equitable grounds without a substantive legal basis to excuse petitioner’s clear non-compliance, was a reversible error. The OP correctly exercised its appellate jurisdiction to review and correct this error, as the DENR Secretary’s discretion is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of law and established rules. Petitioner’s failure to adhere to straightforward procedural mandates justified the forfeiture of any preferential right.