Standard Mineral Products, Inc. vs the Hon. Court of Appeals

Case: STANDARD MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC. vs THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS Gr No. L-432. Da!e: A"r#$ 2%, &''( Po)e)!e: MELENCIO-HERRERA,

J.:

Fa*!s:

 A Petition Petition for Review on Certiorari  of  of the Decision of Respondent Appellate Court, affirming the judgment of the former Court of First Instance of Rizal denying surface rights for mining purposes to Petitioner Petitioner!Appellant "tandard #ineral Products, Inc $"#PI, for short% claims that it is the locator of placer  Petitioner!Appellant mining claims &Celia I'& and &Celia 'I& containing limestone in (aysipot, Antipolo, Rizal, which were duly registered in the )ffice of the #ining Recorder of Rizal *he aforementioned mining claims cover a+out fiftee fif teen n $$-%% hec hectar tares es of the one hun hundre dred!t d!twe wenty nty $. $./% /% hec hectar tares es of lan land d reg regist istere ered d in the name of  Respondent!Appellee, Rufino Deeunhong  After locating the claims, "#PI applied for a mining lease from the 0ureau of #ines *he 1andowners opposed the application on the ground that "#PI had entered their land and filed its mining lease application without their permission "#PI +rought an action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Respondents!Appellees praying that it +e granted surface rights for mining purposes *he 1andowners traversed the Complaint, +y averring that "#PI is not entitled to the relief demanded +ecaus +ec ause e the pro prospe specti cting ng wa was s acc accomp ompli lishe shed d wi witho thout ut pre previ viousl ously y sec securi uring ng the 1an 1andow downer ner2s 2s wr writt itten en permission as surface owners as re3uired +y "ection .4 of the #ining Act $Commonwealth Act 5o 64, as amended% *rial Court, finding that the mine *rial mineral ral claims were not located in accor accordance dance with law dismi dismissed ssed the complaint and, on the counterclaim, sentenced "#PI to pay to Deeunhong and the *anjuatcos actual damages in the sum of P-/,///// each, attorney2s fees of P-,///// and costs *he Appellate Court  affirmed affi rmed that Deci Decision sion with the sole modi modificat fication ion that temp temperate erate or moder moderate ate damages $not actual damages% of P.-,///// each were a warded instead In another Resolution the Appellate Court li7ewise denied, for +eing devoid of legal interest, the Petition for Intervention filed +y the Repu+lic of the Philippines through the "olicitor 8eneral  After "#PI elevated the case to this Court for review on Intervention, which we granted in the Resolution

Certiorari ,

the Repu+lic reiterated its Petition for 

Iss+e:

9)5 "#PI is entitled to such surface rights He$:

"#PI is not entitled to said surface rights as it failed to comply with the re3uisite of prior written permission +y the 1andowners +efore entering the private land in 3uestion

"ection

.4

of

the

#ining

Act

e:plicitly

provides;

&"ection .4 0efore entering private lands the prospector shall first apply in writing for written permission of the private owner, claimant, or holder thereof, and in case of refusal + y such private owner, claimant, or  holder to grant such permission, or in case of disagreement as to the amount of compensation to +e paid for such privilege of prospecting therein, the amount of such compensation shall +e fi:ed +y agreement among the prospector, the Director of the 0ureau of #ines and the surface owner, and in case of their  failure to unanimously agree as to the amount of compensation, all 3uestions at issue shall +e determined +y the Court of First Instance of the province in which said lands are situated in an action instituted for the purpose +y the prospector, or his principal; Provided, however, that the prospector, or his principal upon depositing with the court the sum considered jointly +y him and the Director of the 0ureau of #ines and the court to +e of the #ining Act provides that prospecting shall +e carried on ?in accordance with the provisions of this Act2 As appellant2s prospecting was done in violation of the law, it was an illegal act and the su+se3uent location of the mining claims was also illegal and null and void For the #ining Act regards a valid discovery as that which gives the prospector the right to locate a mining claim $"ections .@ and 6/%, and the validity of a location depends upon compliance with the law ?It is clear, of course that the validity of a location depends upon compliance with the statutes *he law re3uires that the locator shall act in good faith, and it will not countenance a trespass as the +asis of a mining right2 "#PI2s suggestion that the remedy provided in "ection >4 of the #ining Act +e applied to it is also unaccepta+le It is evident that the foregoing spea7s of lease of a mining claim to which "#PI would neither +e entitled for failure to comply with the provisions of the #ining Act and to accompany its application for lease with a written authority of the 1andowners In fact, "#PI left the space provided for  the same in its application +lan7 For the same reasons, authority cannot +e granted +y the Court, nor can rental +e fi:ed, compliance with the terms of this Act +eing an indispensa+le prere3uisite  A condition sine 3ua non is that the prospecting, e:ploration, discovery and location must +e done in accordance with the law As it is, "#PI2s rights to use and e:ploit the mineral resources discovered and

located never matured +ecause of its omission to comply with a condition precedent *o allow "#PI its claim for surface rights and right of way would +e to countenance illegal trespass into private property 9BRBF)RB, with the sole modification as to the award of temperate damages, which are here+y reduced as indicated, the judgment under review is here+y affirmed in all other respects