Basiana, Sr. v. Luna

A mining claim declaration is null and void if it lacks a bearing and distance to a permanent and prominent tie point of the kind exclusively enumerated in Section 47 of the Mining Act, and a claim recorded beyond the 30-day period under Section 34 is likewise void; a void location cannot be cured by amendment.

The Basiana and Luna families were the competing claim holders in Cabadbaran, Agusan, and their dispute involved overlapping mining claims recorded in their respective names. The claims were governed by Commonwealth Act No. 137, the Mining Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4388, which imposed mandatory requirements for recording, tie points, and powers of attorney for prospectors. The case reached the SC through a petition for review under Section 61 of the Mining Act, which limited review to questions of law because the Director of Mines' factual findings, when affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, were final and conclusive.

Antonio Basiana, Sr. prospected in the vicinity of Upper Asiga, Santiago (Paypay), Cabadbaran, Agusan, in the early part of February 1966 for possible mining claims. On February 21, 1966, he entered into an agreement with Cipriano Luna, contained in a private document, providing that of all mining claims that could be prospected and registered in the name of Asiga Copper Mines, Luna would receive a 60% share in consideration of his assumption of all expenses for prospecting and registering the claims, with the balance going to Basiana. Basiana prospected 183 claims; 93 were recorded in the Office of the Mining Recorder in the name of Basiana and members of his family, while the rest were recorded in the name of Cipriano Luna and other members of the Luna family.

Realizing that there was something wrong in the declarations of location records, Cipriano Luna, with the knowledge and consent of Basiana, filed on December 18, 1967 amended declarations to correct claim names and points. Basiana disclaimed knowledge of or consent to the amended claims in an August 14, 1968 letter to the Mining Recorder, giving notice that any amendments to his original declarations were without his knowledge and consent and asking that he be notified of any overlapping claims so he could protest. Consequently, Cipriano Luna executed an affidavit of cancellation of the registration of mining claims and filed it with the Mining Reporter. In July 1968 and thereabouts, the Luna side located the area covered by the original 183 claims to the exclusion of the Basiana side; these became the Cicafe and Mirador groups. On learning of these locations, the Basiana side filed a protest with the Director of Mines on December 2, 1968, amended December 23, 1968, against the Luna claims for overlapping their claims, giving rise to MAC No. V-457.

In March 1969, during the pendency of MAC No. V-457, Antonio J. Basiana, Sr. and Rosa Basiana allegedly located and claimed 73 mining claims known as the ABA group, covering the Luna portion of the original 183 claims. On April 22, 1969, they filed a protest with the Bureau of Mines alleging that the Luna mining claims were valid at inception but deemed abandoned for failure of the recorded locators to pay occupation fees under Section 241 of the National Internal Revenue Code and to file the application for lease and/or survey under Section 68 of the Mining Act, and that the Cicafe and Mirador claims were null and void under Sections 60 and 68; they prayed that the ABA claims be given preference. This protest gave rise to MAC No. V-477. The two cases were jointly heard; after the protestants closed their evidence, the protestees moved to dismiss, and the Director of Mines dismissed the protests in an order dated November 18, 1970.

The Director of Mines found the 183 claims prospected by Basiana and recorded in different names null and void because Basiana did not have a power of attorney for those for whom he prospected and because the claims did not have authorized tie points under Section 47. On appeal, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources found that the claims were located in rows or columns, with Romeo 1 as the mother claim tied to a cliff and the remaining 182 claims tied to the location post No. 1 of the adjoining or adjacent claim. Romeo 1 had three declarations: the original, recorded March 11, 1966, stated discovery on February 3, 1966 and location on February 3-5, 1966, tied to a cliff on the Asiga River intersection of Soogon Creek marked X; the amended declaration, covering an amendment from April 1-30, 1966, tied the claim to BLLM No. 2, Jagupit, Cabadbaran, Agusan, and was recorded July 29, 1966; the third, a relocation, stated discovery on October 5, 1966 and location on October 6-8, 1966, tied to BLLM No. 2, and was recorded October 20, 1966.

The Secretary held the original Romeo 1 declaration void under Section 34 because the location acts were completed on February 5, 1966 but recording was on March 11, 1966, beyond the 30-day period; the amended declaration was also void because an amendment presupposes a valid claim and was filed beyond the 30-day period; the relocation recorded October 20, 1966 was valid, but its validity commenced only on that date. The 182 other claims originally had no individual tie points under Section 47 because Romeo 1 did not yet exist, and they were tied to Romeo 1 as the mother claim. The amended declarations filed by Cipriano Luna on December 18, 1967 were cancelled after Basiana's August 14, 1968 letter, so the original declarations stood. The Secretary also noted lease contracts: Romeo 1 under Lode Lease Contract No. V-737, and Ester 1 and Ester 2 under Lode Lease Contract No. V-739; the Ester claims were based on declarations filed March 9, 1966 in the name of Ester A. Luna, who assigned them to Basiana on October 1, 1967. The Secretary ruled that the Romeo 1 lease was valid because it was based on the October 20, 1966 relocation, but that Ester 1 and Ester 2 and their lease were null and void because they were based on void original declarations.

As to the power of attorney, the Secretary found that Basiana prospected not only for himself but also for his family and the Luna family; the agreement with Luna was not a written power of attorney and was not registered with the Mining Recorder before the declarations, and the parties disregarded it, so claims recorded in others' names were null and void. The Secretary also held that MAC No. V-477 was not decided without evidence because its main basis—the validity of the 183 claims—was identical to MAC No. V-457, and further proceedings would be futile since the claims were void.

• Tie Points: Petitioners argued that the initial post No. 1 of a neighboring or adjacent claim is a valid tie point under Section 47 of the Mining Act, because the word "may" in the enumeration of permanent and prominent objects is not exclusive and because Sections 40, 42, and 43 make an initial post permanent and prominent; they also argued that their claims were tied to the initial post No. 1 of adjacent claims with proper bearings and distances, and that 37 amended claims, with 30 of them tied to BLLM No. 2, Jagupit, Cabadbaran, Agusan.
• Romeo 1 as Mother Claim: Petitioners argued that the Bureau of Mines erred in holding that Romeo 1, registered March 9, 1966, was the mother claim or sole tie point of all the adjacent or rest of their mining claims, and in holding that Romeo 1, tied to a cliff and registered March 9, 1966, was not a valid tie point.
• Lease Areas as Reference Points: Petitioners argued that the lease areas of Romeo 1, Ester 1, Ester 2, and Almanzor 1 should be considered proper reference points or tie points for the other adjacent or neighboring mining claims.
• Amendments as Remedy: Petitioners argued that the proper remedy was to make amendments, not new locations.
• Power of Attorney: Petitioners argued that Antonio Basiana, Sr. did not need a special power of attorney to prospect and locate mining claims for the Luna side, and that the relationship between Basiana and Cipriano Luna was one of partnership, not agency.
• MAC No. V-477 Evidence: Petitioners argued that the Bureau of Mines erred in deciding MAC No. V-477 without allowing them the chance to present their evidence in support of the same, considering that a reservation to that effect was made.
• Ester Lease: Petitioners argued that the Secretary erred in holding that Lease Contract No. V-739 covering Ester 1 and Ester 2 mining claims is null and void.
• Affidavit of Cancellation: Petitioners argued that the Secretary erred in holding that the filing of Cipriano Luna's affidavit of cancellation of registration with the Mining Recorder of Agusan del Norte affected or cancelled their mining claims.
• PD 463 and PD 1214: Petitioners argued that Section 180 of the Implementing Regulations of PD No. 463 is null and void insofar as it purports to destroy vested or acquired substantive rights under mining laws previously in force; and that, assuming arguendo that Section 180 is a valid implementation of PD No. 463, it does not apply to mining claims subject of a pending litigation. They later argued that PD No. 1214 clearly indicates that the application under Section 100 of PD No. 463 is optional and not mandatory, so even after the two-year period expired on May 17, 1976 without an application, the claims are still valid and not forfeited.

• PD 463 Compliance: Private respondents argued in their Manifestation and Motion dated November 24, 1976 that under Sections 100 and 101 of PD No. 463 and Sections 176 and 180 of the Implementing Regulations, holders of valid and subsisting mining locations and other rights under prior mining laws had to file the necessary application for approval by the Director of Mines within two years from approval of the Decree, or on or before May 17, 1976; failure would cause the grants, patents, locations, etc. to lapse and the area to be open to relocation. They argued they complied, petitioners did not, and petitioners' rights were considered lapsed.
• Solicitor General's Position: Public respondents argued that the mandatory or optional nature of Section 100 of PD No. 463 in relation to PD No. 1214 need not be resolved; the mining claims had not ripened into ownership rights because the cases were pending; neither party had vested rights; only the prevailing party could take advantage of Section 100 after finality; and applications during the pendency could serve only as notices without legal effect.

• Tie Points: Whether the initial post No. 1 of a neighboring or adjacent mining claim is a valid tie point under Section 47 of the Mining Act, as amended.
• Validity of the 182 Claims: Whether the 182 claims other than Romeo 1 are null and void for lack of valid tie points and because Romeo 1, to which they were tied, was originally recorded beyond the 30-day period under Section 34.
• Amendments: Whether the subsequent amendments tying the claims to BLLM No. 2, Jagupit, Cabadbaran, Agusan, cured the nullity of the original declarations.
• Ester 1 and Ester 2 Lease: Whether the lease contract covering Ester 1 and Ester 2 is null and void.
• Power of Attorney: Whether Antonio Basiana, Sr. needed a special power of attorney to prospect and locate mining claims recorded in the names of others, and whether his relationship with Cipriano Luna was one of agency or partnership.
• MAC No. V-477 Evidence: Whether the Director of Mines erred in deciding MAC No. V-477 without allowing petitioners to present evidence despite their reservation.
• PD 463 and PD 1214: Whether PD No. 463, its Implementing Regulations, and PD No. 1214 required petitioners to apply within the two-year period and rendered their claims lapsed.

• Tie Points: No. The enumeration of permanent and prominent tie points in Section 47, as amended by RA No. 4388, is exclusive; an initial post No. 1 of a neighboring claim is not one of them.
• Validity of the 182 Claims: No. The 182 claims were tied to initial posts of adjacent claims, which are not valid tie points, and their mother claim Romeo 1 was originally recorded beyond the 30-day period under Section 34; they were therefore null and void.
• Amendments: No. A void mining location cannot be amended; an amendment presupposes a valid claim, so the later tie to BLLM No. 2 did not cure the nullity.
• Ester 1 and Ester 2 Lease: No. Ester 1 and Ester 2 were based on void original declarations, so the lease contract covering them was also null and void.
• Power of Attorney: Yes. Basiana prospected for others and needed a written power of attorney duly acknowledged and recorded before the declarations; absent that, the claims recorded in others' names were null and void.
• MAC No. V-477 Evidence: No. MAC No. V-477 had the same basis as MAC No. V-457—the validity of the 183 claims—and further proceedings would be futile because those claims were void.
• PD 463 and PD 1214: No. The SC did not need to resolve the effect of PD No. 463 and PD No. 1214; the cases arose under CA No. 137 and were decided under that law, with the factual findings of the Director and Secretary binding.

• Tie Points: Section 47, as amended by RA No. 4388, requires the declaration of location to state the bearing and distance of corner post No. 1 to a tie point that is a permanent and prominent object. The second paragraph enumerates the objects that may be used, and the SC held the enumeration exclusive because RA No. 4388 added it to eliminate claim jumpers and minimize overlapping claims. The word "may" means that any one of the enumerated objects may be used, not that other objects may be used. An initial post No. 1 is not among the enumerated tie points, and Section 47 itself distinguishes "corner post number one" from "the tie point." Even if the enumeration were not exclusive, an initial post cannot be regarded as permanent because Section 43's prohibition on moving number one post refers to a valid claim; if the claim is invalid, the post marks nothing. The 182 claims were therefore tied to invalid tie points. The substantial-compliance clause for contiguous claims by the same locator did not apply because there was no valid tie point and the claims were registered in several names.
• Validity of the 182 Claims: Romeo 1's original declaration was recorded on March 11, 1966, after the location acts were completed on February 5, 1966, beyond the 30-day period under Section 34. Section 34 is mandatory, and a claim recorded after the prescribed period is null and void. The amended declaration was also void, and the relocation recorded October 20, 1966 was valid only from that date. The 182 other claims originally had no individual tie points under Section 47 because Romeo 1 did not yet exist, and they were tied to Romeo 1 as the mother claim. Since Romeo 1 was originally invalid and the initial posts used were not valid tie points, the 182 claims were null and void.
• Amendments: An amendment presupposes a valid claim. Since the amendment purports to correct a null and void claim, the amended claim must also be null and void. The amended declarations filed by Cipriano Luna on December 18, 1967 were cancelled after Basiana's August 14, 1968 letter, so the original declarations stood. The later amendments tying the claims to BLLM No. 2 did not help because a void location of a mining claim is not amendable; the proper remedy was relocation.
• Ester 1 and Ester 2 Lease: Ester 1 and Ester 2 were based on declarations of location filed on March 9, 1966 in the name of Ester A. Luna, who assigned them to Basiana on October 1, 1967. All claims covered by the original declarations were null and void. The issuance of a lease contract over void mining claims is necessarily null and void; legally, there had never been such mining claims, so the lease contract covered nothing.
• Power of Attorney: Section 24 requires a written power of attorney, duly acknowledged and recorded in the office of the mining recorder on or before the recording of the declaration of location; a power of attorney not registered on or before the recording makes the mining claims null and void. Basiana prospected not only for himself but also for his family and the Luna family, so for claims recorded in others' names he acted as an agent. The alleged co-locator relationship was negated by the fact that of the 183 claims, 75 were in Basiana's name, 18 in the name of his family, and the remaining in the name of Cipriano Luna and his family; each appeared to be the sole and exclusive locator of his individual claims. The agreements with Luna were not powers of attorney and were not registered; even if they were, non-registration made the claims void. The parties also disregarded the agreement, treating it as a scrap of paper.
• MAC No. V-477 Evidence: MAC No. V-477 related to the locations by Antonio and Rosa Basiana of the area registered in the names of the Luna family out of the 183 claims. The main basis of MAC No. V-477 and MAC No. V-457 was the same and identical—the alleged validity of the 183 claims. Further proceedings would be futile because the original 183 claims were null and void. Since the claims were void, the registered locators could not be required to pay occupation fees or file applications for lease and/or survey; there could be no abandonment where there was nothing to abandon. Sections 68 and 241 of the National Internal Revenue Code did not apply, and Section 60 did not apply because no valid claim existed on the area.
• PD 463 and PD 1214: The SC agreed with the Solicitor General that the issue need not be resolved. The cases arose under CA No. 137 and had to be decided under that law; under Section 61, as amended, the factual findings of the Director affirmed by the Secretary were final and conclusive, and only questions of law could be raised. The claims had not ripened into ownership because the cases were pending, so neither party had vested rights; only the prevailing party could take advantage of Section 100 after finality. The SC therefore resolved the appeal on the merits under CA No. 137.

• Tie point requirement under Section 47 — A declaration of location must state the bearing and distance of corner post No. 1 to a tie point that is a permanent and prominent object. The enumerated tie points are: intersection of known roads; junction of known rivers or creeks; known public or private structure; corner of approved public, private, or mineral land survey; 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. The enumeration is exclusive; an initial post No. 1 of a neighboring claim is not a valid tie point. For contiguous claims by the same locator, tying corner post No. 1 of any of the claims constitutes substantial compliance. A declaration without a bearing and distance to a valid tie point is null and void.
• Thirty-day recording rule — Under Section 34, a mining claim must be recorded within 30 days after completion of the acts of location. A claim recorded after the prescribed period is null and void. The SC applied this to Romeo 1's original declaration, which was recorded on March 11, 1966 after location was completed on February 5, 1966.
• Void location cannot be amended — An amendment presupposes a valid claim. Since an amendment purports to correct a null and void claim, the amended claim must also be null and void. The proper remedy for a void location is relocation, not amendment. The SC applied this to the 182 claims and to Ester 1 and Ester 2.
• Power of attorney for prospectors — A prospector may prospect for himself or for others qualified to locate mining claims. If he prospects for another, a written power of attorney must be given by the employer, duly acknowledged and recorded in the office of the mining recorder on or before the recording of the declaration of location. A power of attorney not registered on or before the recording makes the mining claim or claims null and void. The SC applied this to claims recorded in the names of persons other than Basiana.
• Finality of factual findings — Under Section 61 of the Mining Act, as amended, the findings of fact in the decision or order of the Director of Mines, when affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, are final and conclusive. A party appealing to the SC may raise only questions of law; the SC will not review factual findings absent grave abuse of discretion due to total absence of competent evidence.
• No abandonment of a void claim — A null and void claim is no claim at all. The registered locators cannot be required to pay occupation fees or file applications for lease and/or survey, and there can be no abandonment where there is nothing to abandon. The area covered by a void claim is open to relocation by qualified parties.

• "An amendment presupposes a valid claim. Since the amendment purports to effect a correction of a null and void claim necessarily the amended claim must also be null and void." — The SC used this to reject the argument that the later amended declarations could cure the original void locations.
• "It is settled that a void location of a mining claim is not amendable." — The SC stated this as the settled rule against validating a void mining location by amendment, citing Crame vs. Church.
• "The declaration of location that has no bearing and distance to a tie point as herein described shall be null and void." — This is the statutory command in Section 47, as amended, which the SC applied to hold that a declaration without a bearing and distance to a valid tie point is void.
• "As we have earlier stated, a null and void claim is no claim at all, so the provisions of Section 68 of the Mining Act, as amended, and Section 241 of the National Internal Revenue Code, do not apply. There could be no abandonment where there is nothing to abandon." — The Secretary's ruling, quoted in the decision, explains why no abandonment or occupation-fee liability arose from the void claims.

• Crame vs. Church, 340 P. 2d 1116 — Cited by the SC for the rule that a void location of a mining claim is not amendable.
• Tagumpay Minerals and Mining Association vs. Masangkay, 46 SCRA 608, 614 — Cited in the decision's footnote on the finality of factual findings of the Director of Mines when affirmed by the Secretary.

• Section 34, Commonwealth Act No. 137, Mining Act, as amended — Requires recording of a mining claim within 30 days after completion of the acts of location; a claim recorded after the prescribed period is null and void. Applied to invalidate Romeo 1's original declaration.
• Section 47, Commonwealth Act No. 137, as amended by Republic Act No. 4388 — Requires the declaration of location to state the bearing and distance of corner post No. 1 to a permanent and prominent tie point; enumerates the exclusive tie points; allows tying corner post No. 1 of contiguous claims by the same locator as substantial compliance; and declares a declaration without a bearing and distance to a tie point null and void. Applied to invalidate the 182 claims.
• Section 24, Commonwealth Act No. 137, as amended — Requires a written power of attorney, duly acknowledged and recorded in the office of the mining recorder on or before the recording of the declaration, for a prospector acting for another; non-registration makes the claims null and void. Applied to claims recorded in others' names.
• Section 43, Commonwealth Act No. 137 — Makes it unlawful to move number one post of a lode mineral claim; the SC noted this refers to a valid claim, so an invalid claim's post cannot be a permanent tie point.
• Section 61, Commonwealth Act No. 137, as amended by Republic Act No. 4388 — Provides that findings of fact of the Director of Mines, when affirmed by the Secretary, are final and conclusive; a petition for review raises only questions of law. Applied to accept the factual findings below.
• Section 68, Commonwealth Act No. 137 — Declares junior locations by original locators, their heirs, or assigns on abandoned claims null and void. The SC held it did not apply because there was no abandonment; void claims are no claims.
• Section 60, Commonwealth Act No. 137 — Prohibits locations by others on existing claims when the first locators have not forfeited their rights. The SC held it did not apply because no valid claim existed on the area.
• Section 241, National Internal Revenue Code — Requires payment of occupation fees. The SC held no duty to pay arose on void claims, and no abandonment could result from non-payment.
• Sections 100 and 101, Presidential Decree No. 463; Sections 176 and 180, Implementing Regulations; Presidential Decree No. 1214 — Invoked by respondents on the two-year application period; the SC did not resolve their effect because the case was decided under CA No. 137 and the claims had not ripened into ownership due to the pendency of the case.

• Justice Teehankee (Dissenting) — Justice Teehankee dissented, voting to grant petitioners' appeal and set aside the appealed decision. He argued that the record supported substantial compliance for the 182 claims, which were properly tied to initial post No. 1 of Romeo 1, and that Romeo 1 and its lease were recognized as valid; the majority rejected the claims on the technicality that Romeo 1's original registration was beyond the 30-day period. He questioned the majority's dictum that a void location is not amendable, citing Lecar & Sons, Inc. vs. Tanco, Jr., 60 SCRA 508, where the SC sustained amendments under PD No. 99-A, which grants the first registrant the exclusive right to possess, exploit, explore, develop, and operate a claim notwithstanding any defect in form or technicality. He also invoked Sections 68 and 60 of the Mining Act against the Luna side's junior locations and argued that substantial justice required granting the appeal; he noted that petitioners' right to recourse in the regular civil courts for specific performance or damages was not foreclosed, citing Pio vs. Marcos, 56 SCRA 726 [1974].