336 Phil. 804
PADILLA, J.:
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, protestee Brett and Kapawen and intervenor Panganiban are hereby given the exclusive and preferential right to occupy, develop, operate, exploit and lease the areas covered by their mining claims 'KEDSER I', 'KEDSER II', 'EDGAR II' and 'JAIME I', respectively, and that protestant ITOGON is hereby given the preferential right to occupy, develop, operate, exploit and lease the area covered by its mining claims 'DURAY', 'NENA', 'PALIDAN' 'PAL', 'AL', 'GUANZO', 'REDGE' and 'LEBENG'."[1]Petitioner ISMI appealed the decision of the Bureau to the then Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) which consolidated MAC Nos. V-960, V-973, V-974 and V-975 as MNR Case No. 5254. Initially, the MNR dismissed petitioner's appeal for its failure to seasonably submit its appeal memorandum. The MNR also stated in the order dismissing petitioner's appeal that it "found the decision appealed from to be strictly based on a correct appreciation of the facts and application of the pertinent law. In fact, it was to be (sic) so exhaustive and comprehensive as to preclude doubt that any error can be traceable in its promulgation."[2]
"WHEREFORE, the Order dated 12 July 1984 of this Office should be, as hereby it is MODIFIED in that the 'KEDSER I' and 'KEDSER II', 'EDGAR', 'JAIME I', 'JAIME II' mining claims of appellees James Brett, Edgar Kapawen and Jaime Paul B. Panganiban are hereby declared null and void ab initio for having overlapped the valid and subsisting mining claims of appellant Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. Appellant ISMI is hereby granted the exclusive and preferential right to occupy, develop, operate, exploit and lease the area covered by its mining claims overlapped by appellees."[3]Private respondent Brett then moved to reconsider the MNR decision reversing its earlier order. On 15 June 1986, the MNR issued another order which states that:
"WHEREFORE, this Office resolves to reconsider and set aside its Decision dated February 13, 1986, thereby reinstating its original Order dated July 12, 1984.Petitioner ISMI filed a motion for reconsideration of the latest order but the MNR denied the same in an Order dated 7 October 1986 which states, in part, that:
So Ordered.[4]
"x x x Itogon's appeal was dismissed because (1) it filed its appeal memorandum with this Office only after the lapse of three (3) months and seven (7) days from its receipt of the decision appealed from which is far beyond the five-day reglementary period specially prescribed by law in mining case. The law mandates speedy proceedings in mining cases, which are specially impressed with public interest. 'Perfection of appeals within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional x x x' (Miranda vs. Guanzon, No. L-4992, October 27, 1952) and the rule is more exacting in mining cases where the five-day reglementary period for appeal (instead of 30 days as prescribed in other cases) is statutorily prescribed and is not ordinarily extendible and (2) with respect to the merits of the case, this Office found the decision appealed from to be strictly based on correct appreciation of the facts and application of the pertinent laws involved."[5]Petitioner received a copy of the aforesaid order of denial on 7 November 1986.
"1. ISMI's motion for reconsideration of the decision of the OP dated 12 January 1993 was filed out of time;At the outset, it must be stated that the applicable law governing procedures in cases involving mining claims is Presidential Decree No. 309 entitled "Establishing Rules and Procedure for the Speedy Disposition or Settlement of Conflicting Mining Claims." Section 5 thereof provides in part that — "[f]rom the decision of the Secretary an appeal may be taken within five (5) days to the President whose decision shall be final and executory."
2. Under Section 28 of the Philippine Bill of 1902, tie points are necessary for the validity of mining locations;
3. The mining claims of ISMI have not been validly assigned or transferred by their original locators to ISMI;
4. ISMI's declarations of location have not been validly reconstituted; and
5. ISMI's appeal from the 17 February 1984 decision of the Bureau to the MNR was not perfected on time."[8]
"Sec. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall, except as otherwise provided by special laws, become final after lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for reconsideration is filed within such period."As stated earlier, however, the applicable law in this case is P.D. No. 309 involving as it does conflicting mining claims of petitioner ISMI and Brett, et al. Section 5 thereof states in full that —
"Sec. 5. Any party not satisfied with the decision or order of the Director of Mines may, within five (5) days from receipt thereof, appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources who shall render his decision within five (5) days from receipt of the appeal or submission of the report of the Department panel of investigators, as the case may be. From the decision of the Secretary, an appeal may be taken within five (5) days to the President whose decision shall be final and executory.
The decision of the Director of Mines shall be immediately executory, notwithstanding the appeal, unless the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources or the President directs otherwise."
"WHEREAS, efforts of the government to encourage and accelerate the development of our mineral resources has been hampered by difficulties and delays in the settlement of conflicting mining claims because of obsolete laws, rules and regulations;
"WHEREAS, in order to hasten the exploitation and development of our mineral resources conflicting mining claims must be settled promptly and decisively;
"Upon restudy, We find no cogent reason to disturb, much less set aside the subject Decision, the argument relied upon by movant having been previously considered, discussed at length, and found unmeritorious by this Office in the Decision sought to be reconsidered. Consequently, the present motion for reconsideration being pro forma (Dacanay vs. Avenida, 30 SCRA 31 [1969]), and movant having failed to adduce new or additional grounds that would warrant a reversal of said Decision, this Office is left with no other recourse than to deny the subject motion.
"Sec. 28. That no mineral claim of the full size shall be recorded without the application being accompanied by an affidavit made by an applicant or some person on his behalf cognizant of the facts — that the legal notices and posts have been put up; that mineral has been found in place on the claim proposed to be recorded; that the ground applied for is unoccupied by any person. In the said declaration shall be set out the names of the applicant and the date of the location of the claim. The words written on the number one and number two posts shall be set out in full, and as accurate a description as possible of the position of the claim given with reference to some natural object or permanent monuments." (Emphasis supplied)
DECLARATION OF LOCATION.
The undersigned hereby declares and gives notice that, having complied with the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved July 1, 1902, relative to the location of mining claims, he has located _________ linear feet on a lode of mineral-bearing rock, situated in the barrio of _______________________ within the jurisdictional limits of the municipality of ___________________, Province of _______________, district of _________________ Island of ______________________, P.I.
That the name of the above location is the ___________________ mineral claim, and that the same was located by him on the _____ day of _________________, A.D. 19___
That there is written on post No. 1 (here insert an exact copy of what is inscribed on post No. 1); and upon post No. 2 (here insert an exact copy of what is inscribed on post No. 2).
That the said claim is situated (here state as accurately as possible, preferably by course and distance, the position of the claim with reference to some natural object or permanent monument).
_________________
Locator
Witness: __________________
Witness: __________________
Drummond v. Long.[13]Equally persuasive is the fact that under the Mining Act, Commonwealth Act No. 137, as amended, the law which superseded the provisions in the Philippine Bill of 1902 relating to the exploitation of mineral resources, it is expressly provided that:
"x x x requires the certificate of location of mining claims to contain a description of the claim by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify it. Stone monuments, blazed trees, the conference of streams, the point of intersection of well-known gulches, permanent hills, mining shafts, etc. are enumerated as satisfying the requirements of law. The permanent monuments of a mining claim are also regarded as sufficient. The intention of the provision is to give one seeking the location of a recorded claim something in the nature of an inner point from which to start, and following the course of distance given, to define with reasonable certainty the claim located. A description of a claim as being so many feet north of a certain lode is insufficient."
Cloninger v. Finlaison.[14]
"Location certificate describing claim as 'No. 1 on Bear Creek.' with little or no further description held void."
Miehlich v. Tintic Standard M. Co.[15]
"A certificate which fails to describe the land is void as to a later valid location."
"SEC. 47. The record of a lode or placer[16] claim shall consist of a declaration of location which shall contain, among others, the name of the claim, the name of each locator, the date of location, the names of the sitio, barrio, municipality, province and island, in which the claim is situated, the words written on the number one and number two posts in the case of lode claims, and a true copy of the notice posted on the placer claim and shall recite all the facts necessary to the identification of the lode or placer claim, as well as a description of the claim as staked and monumented, showing the length and approximate compass bearing, as near as may be, of each side or course thereof, and stating in what manner the respective corners are marked, whether by standing tree, rock in place, post, or stone, and giving in detail the distinguishing marks that are written or cut on each, and also stating as accurately as possible the bearing and distance of corner post number one to the point, which shall be a permanent and prominent object: Provided, That in the location of contiguous claims by the same locator, the tying of corner post number one of any of the said claims will constitute substantial compliance with this provision. The declaration of location that has no bearing and distance to a tie point as herein described shall be null and void.
For the purpose of this section, a permanent and prominent object used as a tie point may be an intersection of known roads; a junction of known rivers or creeks, a known public or private structure; a corner of approved public, private or mineral land survey; a kilometer post of public road; or location monument or triangulation station established by the Bureau of Lands, Bureau of Mines, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey, or other government agencies."
"As shown in the alleged Affidavit for Reconstitution of Declaration of Location of Mineral Lode Claims (Exh. "D" of protestant), no mining claim was originally located by Itogon. The allegation of Itogon that the subject mining claims were legally transferred to it is highly doubtful and questionable because the alleged deed of conveyance and/or transfer does not exist, that the said affidavits were executed by third parties; and that the affidavits of confirmation of such transfers or conveyance executed by some original locators were presented after almost thirty (30) years from the date of the alleged transfer. This conclusion finds support from the Decision of the Minister of Natural Resources in MNR Case No. 5096 dated October 8, 1982 in resolving the appeal in MAC No. V-942, pertinent portion of which is quoted herein below for ready reference:
This Office finds no sufficient and justifiable reason to disturb the aforequoted conclusion of the Minister of Natural Resources inasmuch as the affidavits executed by R.W. Crosby, Pedro Tawas and Mary T. Douglas presented as Exhibits under said MNR Case No. 5096 'by ITOGON are the same exhibits presented by ITOGON in MAC No. V-960. While it is true that ITOGON presented additional affidavits executed by the original locators confirming the transfers of the claims, namely: 'NOGAT', 'MARY', 'GUBAC FR.', 'TANGADAN FR.', 'TODAYAN FR.' and 'NEBRASKA FR.' (Exh. Nos. 'AA', 'BB', 'CC', 'DD', 'EE', and 'HH' respectively) yet these affidavits were executed and presented by ITOGON only after almost thirty years from the date the said claims were allegedly transferred. This Office firmly holds the view that such kind of affidavits cannot serve as valid and legal substitute to the deed of transfer or assignment or proof of existence thereof, indispensably required by law, a fortiori when said affidavits, allegedly having been lost or burned during the last war, were not reconstituted under Republic Act No. 739 or Mines Administrative Order No. V-5, pertinent portion of which is quoted as follows:
The records of this Office do not show any petition for reconstitution or reconstruction of lost or destroyed mining records or those salvaged by interested parties filed by protestant ITOGON in connection with the subject declarations of location of the mining claims, and/or the deed of conveyances and/or transfer of the said mining claims. Neither is there any record of administrative proceedings conducted by this Bureau for the reconstitution and reconstruction of the subject mining instruments nor any Order of approval issued by the Director of Mines in connection therewith, within two (2) years from June 18, 1952, the date of approval of Republic Act No. 739 and the effectivity date of Mines Administrative Order V-5. Emphasis is being made on the last portion of the aforequoted provisions of law that failure on the part of the locator, lease applicant, permittee, lessee, concessionaire, assignee, owner or holder to inform the Director of Mines of the existence of mining document, instrument or record for reconstitution or reconstruction as prescribed in the regulation and file the petition in due form within the reglementary period shall open the area covered by such mining document, instrument or record to relocation.'Respectfully referred to the District Mining Officer, Mineral District No. 1, Baguio City, with the advise that, in the matter of reconstituting lost or destroyed pre-war declarations of location, there is no need of executing or accomplishing Bureau of Mines Form No. 62, Affidavit to Reconstitute Declaration of Location, if there are available salvaged certified true copies of the original declarations of location. Certified true copies of such salvaged certified true copies of the original declarations of location will serve the purpose. Bureau of Mines Form No. 62, aforementioned, is required only in case where no salvaged original or duplicate or certified copy of the declarations of location is available, and the reconstitution of the declaration of location is accomplished on the basis of the memory of best recollection of the locator or holder of the mining claim.
It appears that the Affidavit of Reconstitution of Declaration of Location of Mineral Lode Claims presented by ITOGON (Exh. 'D') was not filed and processed in accordance with the provisions of Mines Administrative Order No. V-5, therefore, has no legal force and effect and does not serve the purpose for which R.A. 739 was promulgated. And even if such declaration of locations were in fact and in law reconstituted, the non-reconstitution of the supposed documents of transfer in favor of ITOGON nevertheless opened the areas of such claims to the subsequent locations.
To bolster ITOGON's position that its declarations of location were properly reconstituted, it submitted a letter indorsement signed by the then Director of Mines Demetrio Andres dated May 26, 1952, which reads as follows:
In the first place, the above-quoted opinion/conclusion of the Director of Mines was the system or procedure allowed for reconstituting declaration of location being followed at that point of time, but the same was deemed superceded by the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 739 which was approved on June 18, 1952. Since the affidavits for reconstitution covering the mining claims involved in these cases were filed on August 20, 1952, as shown in Exh. 'D' (MAC-V-960), it should have been filed, processed and approved in accordance with the provisions of R.A. and its implementing rules and regulations.The OP generally relied upon the above-quoted analysis of the facts by the Bureau and its evaluation of the evidence presented, in affirming the order of the MNR dismissing petitioner's appeal. We cannot characterize this as grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the OP. On the contrary, we find that the findings of the Bureau were correctly accorded respect by the OP for the Bureau is, after all, the government agency tasked by law to implement our mining laws and, as such, is presumed to have special knowledge and expertise on the matter.[18] Moreover, well-settled is the rule that in reviewing administrative decisions of the Executive Branch of the government, the findings of fact made therein must be respected, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, if not overwhelming or preponderant. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of the evidence. The administrative decision in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.[19]
In the second place, this Office noticed in MAC No. V-974 that the basis of ITOGON for its reconstitution are the supposed true copies of the declarations of location certified by an Acting Provincial Treasurer in 1942. The production and source of these supposed certified true copies are obviously improper and irregular. Mankayan is in Benguet and Benguet has its own mining recorder since 1932, hence the proper certifying officer should be the Mining Recorder (the Register of Deeds) of Benguet who was then holding office in the City of Baguio — not the Acting Provincial Treasurer who was not the custodian of mining instruments. Moreover, the supposed true copies emanated from the original copies which were filed in Bontoc, Mountain Province — the fact of filing in Bontoc becomes unbelievable not only because the locators were residents of the City of Baguio and that there was then, in 1932, a Mining Recorder in the City of Baguio, but more importantly, because the data appearing in the records of this office, particularly Book IV of the Lode Mining Claims for Benguet, conclusively prove that during that period of time, claims located in the Municipality of Mankayan were registered with the Mining Recorder for Benguet. The records for Bontoc do not reflect any which were registered in Bontoc for mining claims located in Mankayan. The foregoing discrepancies prompted this Office to conclusively assume that the supposed true copies certified in 1942 were either prepared from imaginary declarations of location, or were obtained irregularly.
In either case, the reliability, evidentiary and probative values of said instrument are completely destroyed."[17]