Primary Holding

Strict compliance with the publication requirements under Section 72 of the Mining Act is mandatory and cannot be substituted with "substantial compliance." Failure to publish in local newspapers where the mining claim is located invalidates the lease application process.

Background

The case arose when Project Ventures, Inc. (PROVEN) filed mining lease applications conflicting with prior claims by Mapulo Mining Association and E.V. Chavez & Associates. Petitioners opposed PROVEN’s applications, arguing that the notice's publication did not strictly comply with the Mining Act and that PROVEN’s claims violated sections of the law relating to mining claims on private lands.

Facts

• 1. Petitioners relocated mining claims in Batangas in the early 1960s, while PROVEN filed conflicting claims in 1966. PROVEN’s lease application notice was published in the Official Gazette and two Manila-based newspapers, but not in local Batangas newspapers, as required by law. Petitioners later filed an adverse claim, which was denied as late by the Director of Mines, and this denial was upheld by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The publication of the lease application notice did not comply with Section 72 of the Mining Act.
• 2. PROVEN’s claims were made on private agricultural land without the owner’s written permission, violating Sections 27 and 67 of the Mining Act.
• 3. Petitioners’ adverse claim was timely filed.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Substantial compliance with the publication requirements suffices under the Mining Act.
• 2. The notice was published in widely circulated Manila newspapers, which was sufficient.
• 3. Petitioners’ adverse claim was filed beyond the statutory period.

Issues

• 1. Was the publication of private respondent’s lease application notice valid under Section 72 of the Mining Act?
• 2. Was the adverse claim filed by the petitioners timely?
• 3. Did PROVEN’s claims comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Mining Act?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, nullifying the orders of the Director of Mines and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Court held that the publication of the mining lease application notice must strictly comply with the requirements of Section 72 of the Mining Act. The lack of publication in local newspapers where the mining claims were situated invalidated the lease application of the private respondents. Consequently, the petitioners’ adverse claim was deemed valid and reinstated for further proceedings. Strict adherence to statutory requirements was emphasized to protect public interest and the rights of third parties.

Doctrines

• 1. Mandatory Publication Requirement: Section 72 of the Mining Act requires publication in Manila-based newspapers and local newspapers where the mining claim is located. Absence of such publication renders the application invalid.
• 2. Strict Compliance with Statutes: The letter of the law must be followed, especially when non-compliance could affect third-party rights.

Precedents Cited

• 1. Barreto v. Republic: Established that the date appearing in the Official Gazette is the controlling date, not the actual date of release.
• 2. Standard Mineral Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: Declared that failure to secure written permission from private landowners before locating mining claims renders such claims invalid.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Mining Act (C.A. No. 137): Sections 27, 28(d), 60, 67, and 72.
• 2. Revised Administrative Code (Section 11): Conclusively presumes the publication date of the Official Gazette.