YINLU BICOL MINING CORPORATION VS TRANS-ASIA OIL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

GR NO. 207942 - JANUARY 12, 2015

PONENTE: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE BERSAMIN

SUMMARY

Rights pertaining to mining patents issued pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and
existing prior to November 15, 1935 are vested rights that cannot be impaired.

ANTECEDENTS

Philippine Iron Mines Inc (PIMI) owned several mining claims in Barrio Larap,

Municipality of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.

After financial losses, in 1975 PIMI sold these claims to Manila Banking Corporation

(MBC) and Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCHB, later BDO).
Government opened area for exploration after the submission of a feasibility study.
Trans-Asia filed an application in 1997, for the approval of Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement (MPSH) over the area in the Regional Office of DENR, which

was amended in 1999 and granted on July 28, 2007.

August 31, 2007 Yinlu Bicol Mining Operation (Yinlu) informed DENR that it
acquired the mining patents of PIMI from MBC/BDO by way of deed of absolute sale
and that the areas covered by those patents were within the areas of Trans-Asias

MPSA.
The matter was referred to the DENR secretary, Jose L. Atienza, Jr. He issued an
order in favor of Yinlu because the patents from PIMI were validly transferred to

and were now owned by Yinlu. He ordered the amendment of Trans-Asias MPSH by

excluding therefrom the mineral lands covered by Yinlus mining patents.

Trans-Asia moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the DENR secretary on

the grounds that it only rehashed matters already decided.

Trans-Asia appealed to the Office of the President (OP). OP rendered its decision
affirming the order an resolution of the DENR secretary on the grounds that PIMI
had a vested right to the mining patents and the appellee as the beneficial owner

has superior rights over the claims of the appellant.

Trans-Asia filed for motion for reconsideration twice. The OP denied it twice as well,
first because it only rehashed previously resolved arguments and second because
only one motion for reconsideration can be allowed except for especially

meritorious cases.
Trans-Asia appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which granted their petition on
the grounds that while Yinlu held mining patents over the disputed mining areas,
they were required to register the patents under Presidential Decree No. 463 in
order for these patents to be recognized. Since they did not do so, the patents

have lapsed and have no effect.

Yinlu sought reconsideration of the decision, which was denied by the CA on June
27, 2013.

ISSUES

Procedural: W/N Trans-Asias petition for certiorari filed before the CA was filed beyond
the reglementary period.

YES

The appeal to the CA must be taken within 15 days from notice of the award,
judgement, final order or resolution, or from date of its last publication (Sec 4,

Rule 43, Rules of Court)

Yinlu contended that the CA should have dismissed Trans-Asias appeal since it was
made beyond the required period for appealing and that Trans-Asias filing of the
2nd motion for reconsideration was improper since it did not cite any exceptional

circumstance.
Because the OP declared the 2nd motion for reconsideration clearly unmeritorious
on March 31, 2011, it did not stop the running of the appeal period that started on
July 14, 2010 when Trans-Asia received the OP resolution denying the 1st motion for

reconsideration.
OP decision became final and immutable on July 29, 2010, last day of the

reglementary period.
CA gravely erred in taking cognizance of Trans-Asias appeal despite its tardiness.

Substantive: W/N Yinlus mining patents constituted vested rights that could not be
disregarded.

YES
Decision of OP was unassailable in point of law and history.
o Spanish Mining Law of 1867 observed Regalian doctrine effect was that
minerals belonged to the State wherever it could be found.
o During the American Occupation, fundamental law in mining was
incorporated in the Philippine Bill of 1902. Sec 21 declared that all valuable
deposits in public lands are free for the citizens of the United States and the
State to use and purchase.
o However, once a mining claim was made, it became private property and the

claimant became the owner of both surface and minerals found underneath.
Yinlus mining patents were issued pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and
subsisted prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. This gave Yinlu and its

predecessors vested rights in the disputed mineral lands that could not and should
not be impaired even in light of their past failure to comply with registration

requirements and annual work obligation.

Presidential Decree No. 463 (Mineral Resources Development Decree) provides that
its provisions would not apply if it will impair vested rights under other mining
laws:
o Section 99. Non-impairment of Vested or Acquired Substantive Rights.
Changes made and new provisions and rules laid down by this Decree which
may prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with other
mining laws previously in force shall have no retroactive effect. Provided,
That the provisions of this Decree which are procedural in nature shall
prevail.

RULING

Reverse and set aside decision by the Court of Appeals. Reinstate decision and resolution
by the Office of the President. Direct the respondents to pay the costs of suit.