View full case

AGATA MINING VENTURES v. HEIRS OF TERESITA ALAAN

FACTS:

The case involves an expropriation proceeding filed by Agata Mining Ventures, Inc. (petitioner) against the heirs of Teresita Alaan (respondents). The respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land located in Tubay, Agusan del Norte.

Petitioner entered into a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) with the Republic of the Philippines and subsequently entered into an Operating Agreement with Minimax Mineral Exploration Corporation to explore and operate the mining area, which included the subject property. The Operating Agreement was approved by the DENR Mines and Geosciences Bureau and the Director of the MGB.

Petitioner claimed that the subject property was the most suitable location for a sedimentation pond needed for the mining operation. However, negotiations to purchase the property from respondents failed.

As a result, petitioner filed a complaint for expropriation with prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession against the respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the writ of possession, but the respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the writ of possession.

The CA ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that petitioner, being a private entity, does not have the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain. The CA concluded that granting petitioner the power to expropriate the subject property would violate the constitutional principle of non-delegation of inherent powers of the State. The writ of possession was declared null and void.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA. Hence, petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The issue to be resolved is whether petitioner may file a complaint to expropriate the subject property. Petitioner argues that it has the authority to exercise eminent domain under Section 76 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether qualified mining operators have the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain.

  2. Whether the entry and easement rights granted to mining rights holders under the relevant mining laws constitute a compensable taking.

  3. Whether the grant of authority to exercise eminent domain under Presidential Decree No. 512 is incorporated in Section 76 of Republic Act No. 7942.

  4. Whether a transferee of mining rights can file a complaint for expropriation.

  5. Whether the transferee of a mining permit can exercise the power of eminent domain without seeking a separate grant of authority.

  6. Whether the validity of the operating agreement between the petitioner and the transferror should be resolved during trial on the merits of the expropriation proceedings.

RULING:

  1. Yes, qualified mining operators have the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain.

  2. The entry and easement rights granted to mining rights holders under the relevant mining laws constitute a compensable taking.

  3. The grant of authority to exercise eminent domain under Presidential Decree No. 512 is incorporated in Section 76 of Republic Act No. 7942. The two provisions can stand together as they are not inconsistent with each other. Repeals by implication are not favored unless it is manifest that the legislature intended to do so. Since Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 512 grants mining operators the authority to exercise eminent domain, and this grant is deemed incorporated in Section 76 of Republic Act No. 7942, Section 76 is a taking provision.

  4. A transferee of mining rights can file a complaint for expropriation. Republic Act No. 7942 provides that a grantee of an exploration permit may transfer or assign its rights to another operator subject to the approval of the government. The law grants the rights and obligations of the exploration permittee to his heirs or successors-in-interest. Therefore, the transferee of mining rights is vested with the authority to file a complaint for expropriation.

  5. Yes, the transferee of a mining permit can exercise the power of eminent domain without seeking a separate grant of authority. Under Section 23 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, an exploration permit grants the permittee the right to enter, occupy, and explore the area. The transferee of a permittee enjoys the same privileges as the latter. The legislature would have made an express provision if it intended for the transferee to seek a separate grant of authority.

  6. The validity of the operating agreement between the petitioner and the transferror should be resolved during trial on the merits of the expropriation proceedings. The issuance of a writ of possession merely authorizes the petitioner to enter the property subject of the expropriation complaint. The trial court does not make a final determination on the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain at this stage. Any question as to the validity of the operating agreement should be resolved during trial on the merits regarding the authority of the petitioner to exercise the power of eminent domain.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Eminent domain is the inherent power of the State to take private property for public use without the owner's consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation.

  • The power of eminent domain may be delegated to local government units, public entities, and public utilities, but the exercise of such power is not absolute and is subject to authorization by Congress and control and restraints imposed through the law conferring the power or other legislation.

  • Mining operators may exercise the power of eminent domain as long as they are qualified and authorized by law.

  • The entry and easement rights granted to mining rights holders for the purpose of conducting mining activities constitute a compensable taking as it substantially deprives the owner of his proprietary rights and restricts the beneficial use and enjoyment of the property for public use.

  • In statutory construction, for one law to repeal another, the two laws must be inconsistent and irreconcilable. Repeals by implication are not favored and will not be decreed unless it is manifest that the legislature intended to do so.

  • Every effort must be made to reconcile laws and if they can be reasonably construed to stand together, the later act will not operate as a repeal of the earlier.

  • The power of eminent domain may be invoked and exercised by mining operators for the entry, acquisition, and use of private lands in areas open for mining operations.

  • The grant of authority to exercise eminent domain under Presidential Decree No. 512 is incorporated in Section 76 of Republic Act No. 7942, making Section 76 a taking provision.

  • Granting of exploration permits includes the rights and obligations of the permittee, including the right to enter, occupy, and explore the designated area. Transferees of mining rights are vested with the same rights.

  • The transferee of a permittee in a mining operation has the same privileges as the original permittee.

  • The validity of an operating agreement should be resolved during trial on the merits of expropriation proceedings.

  • The issuance of a writ of possession only authorizes the petitioner to enter the property subject to expropriation and does not make a final determination on the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain.