G.R. No. 89093 October 2, 1991
POE MINING ASSOCIATION AND PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. CANCIO C. GARCIA, ASST. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, MACAWIWILI GOLD MINING & DEVELOPMENT, CO., INC., AND OMICO MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Macawiwili Gold Mining located and registered 122 mining claims in Itogon, Benguet, in 1931, 1933, and 1935 under the Act of the U.S. Congress of 1902 (Philippine Bill of 1902). In 1970, Macawiwili protested that petitioners Poe Mining Association and Philex Mining Corporation had overlapped these prior claims with their later Lode Lease Contract (LLC) applications, specifically LLC Nos. V-748 and V-749. The Director of Mines initially ruled in favor of the petitioners in 1974. However, upon appeal, the Minister of Natural Resources reversed this in 1986, upholding Macawiwili’s prior rights. This decision was affirmed by the DENR Secretary and subsequently by the Office of the President in 1988.
The petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing that Macawiwili’s claims were invalid for alleged violations of subsequent mining laws, including Commonwealth Act No. 137 (the Mining Act) regarding registration and surveyor requirements, and for non-compliance with Presidential Decree No. 1214 concerning the filing of lease applications.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Macawiwili’s mining claims, located under the Philippine Bill of 1902, constitute prior, valid, and subsisting vested rights that take precedence over the petitioners’ later overlapping claims.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Office of the President, upholding Macawiwili’s mining claims. The Court’s ruling rests on the principle that mining rights are governed by the law in force at the time of their location and perfection. Macawiwili validly located and registered its claims under the Philippine Bill of 1902, which did not require certain formalities, such as specific tie points for claims, that were later imposed by CA No. 137. Consequently, the subsequent statutory requirements cited by the petitioners, including those under Sections 24 and 34 of CA No. 137, could not retroactively invalidate Macawiwili’s already-perfected claims.
The Court emphasized the preferential right of prior locators. Since Macawiwili’s claims were prior, valid, and subsisting, the petitioners’ later overlapping applications for LLC Nos. V-748 and V-749 were null and void for being filed on an area already closed to new mining location. The Court also noted, following Santa Rosa Mining Co., Inc. v. Leido, that while a perfected location under the old law is a property right, it is in the nature of a possessory right that must be pursued through a lease application under prevailing laws like P.D. No. 1214. This directive, however, did not negate the underlying vested right but merely outlined the subsequent procedural step for Macawiwili to secure a formal lease contract.