G.R. NO.

134030 April 25, 2006

ASAPHIL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
VICENTE TUASON, JR., INDUPLEX, INC. and MINESADJUDICATION BOARD,
Respondents.

FACTS:

On March 24, 1975, respondent Vicente Tuason, Jr. (Tuason) entered into a Contract for
Sale and Purchase of Perlite Ore (1st contract) with Induplex, Inc. (Induplex) , wherein Induplex
agreed to buy all the perlite ore that may be found and mined in Tuason’s mining claim located
in Taysa, Daraga, Albay. In exchange, Induplex will assist Tuason in securing and perfecting his
right over the mining claim. Then on May 29, 1976, Tuason executed an Agreement to Operate
Mining Claims (2nd contract) in favor of Asaphil Construction and Development Coporation
(Asaphil). On November 9, 1990, Tuason filed with the Bureau of Mines – DENR against
Induplex and Asaphil for the nullity of the two contracts alleging that the stockholders of Induplex
created Ibalon Mineral Resources Inc. and then extracted in Ibalon’s mining claim and thereafter
entered into a joint venture with Grefco, Inc.; that said acts adversely affected not only his
interests as claimowner, but the government’s interest as well.

The DENR Regional Executive Director found that the DENR does not have jurisdiction over
Tuason’s complaint.

Upon appeal, Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) assailed the DENR’s decision. The MAB ruled
that the complaint is for the cancellation and revocation of the contract with Asaphil, the
Agreement to Operate Mining Claims, which is within the jurisdiction of the DENR under Section
7 of PD No. 1281. But the contract with Induplex, the Contract to Sell and Purchase Perlite Ore,
is dismissed for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

WON the DENR has jurisdiction over Tuason’s complaint.

WON the MAB erred in invalidating the Agreement to Operate Mining Claims.

HELD:

No. The DENR has no jurisdiction over the case. Section 7 of PD 1281 provides: "In addition to
its regulatory and adjudicative functions over companies, partnerships or persons engaged in
mining exploration, development and exploitation, development and exploitation, the Bureau of
Mines shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:

(a) a mining property subject of different agreements entered into by the claim holder
thereof with several mining operators;

(b) complaints from claimowners that the mining property subject of an operating
agreement has not been placed into actual operations within the period stipulated
therein; and

(c) cancellation and/or enforcement of mining contracts due to the refusal of the
claimowner/operator to abide by the terms and conditions thereof."

In Pearson v. Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court observed that the trend has been to make
the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter, although it does not mean that
administrative bodies have complete rein over mining disputes. In several cases on mining
disputes, the Court recognized a distinction between (1) the primary powers granted by
pertinent provisions of law to the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (and the
bureau directors) of an executive or administrative nature, such as granting of license, permits,
lease and contracts, or approving, rejecting, reinstating or canceling applications, or deciding
conflicting applications, and (2) controversies or disagreements of civil or contractual nature
between litigants which are questions of a judicial nature that may be adjudicated only by the
courts of justice.
The allegations in Tuason’s complaint do not make out a case for a mining dispute or
controversy within the jurisdiction of the DENR. The 2nd contract although a mining contract
does not make a mining dispute, the resolution of its nullity is not based on Asaphil's violation of
the conditions but due to Induplex's alleged violation in entering into a joint venture with Grefco
Ltd. which is a judicial question. The nullity shall be determined by regular courts. "A judicial
question is raised when the determination of the question involves the exercise of judicial
function, which involves the determination of what the law is all about and what are the legal
rights of the parties are with respect to the matter in controversy."

Thus, the DENR Regional Executive Director was correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction over Tuason’s complaint; consequently, the MAB committed an error in taking
cognizance of the appeal, and in ruling upon the validity of the contracts.

GR No. 157882 March 30, 2006

Didipio Earth-Savers’ Multipurpose Association, Incorporated et al vs DENR Secretary Elisea Gozun

This petition for prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails
the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7942 otherwise known as the Philippine Mining
Act of 1995, together with the Implementing Rules and Regulations issued pursuant
thereto, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative
Order No. 96-40, s. 1996 (DAO 96-40) and of the Financial and Technical Assistance
Agreement (FTAA) entered into on 20 June 1994 by the Republic of the Philippines and
Arimco Mining Corporation (AMC), a corporation established under the laws of Australia
and owned by its nationals.

On June 20, 1994, before the passage of Republic Act 7042 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995),
President Fidel V. Ramos executed a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with Arimco
Mining Corporation (AMC), over a total land area of 37,000 hectares covering the provinces of Nueva
Vizcaya and Quirino. Included in that area was Barangay Didipio, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya.

Subsequently, AMC consolidated with Climax Mining Limited to form a single company that did business
under the new name of Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation (CAMC), of which the controlling 99 percent
of stockholders were Australian nationals.

The CAMC FTAA grants in favor of CAMC the right of possession of the Exploration
Contract Area, the full right of ingress and egress and the right to occupy the same. It
also bestows CAMC the right not to be prevented from entry into private lands by
surface owners or occupants thereof when prospecting, exploring and exploiting
minerals therein.

Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc., an organization of farmers and

indigenous peoples organized under Philippine laws, representing a community actually
affected by the mining activities of CAMC, as well as other residents of areas affected
by the mining activities of CAMC.

Whether or not RA 7942 and the DENR RRs are valid.

HELD: The SC ruled against Didipio. The SC noted the requisites of eminent domain. They are:
(1) the expropriator must enter a private property;
(2) the entry must be for more than a momentary period.
(3) the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;
(4) the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected;
(5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive
him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
In the case at bar, Didipio failed to show that the law is invalid. Indeed there is taking involved but it is
not w/o just compensation. Sec 76 of RA 7942 provides for just compensation as well as section 107 of
the DENR RR. To wit,

Section 76. xxx Provided, that any damage to the property of the surface owner, occupant, or
concessionaire as a consequence of such operations shall be properly compensated as may be provided
for in the implementing rules and regulations.

Section 107. Compensation of the Surface Owner and Occupant- Any damage done to the property of
the surface owners, occupant, or concessionaire thereof as a consequence of the mining operations or
as a result of the construction or installation of the infrastructure mentioned in 104 above shall be
properly and justly compensated.

Further, mining is a public policy and the government can invoke eminent domain to exercise entry,
acquisition and use of private lands.