Mary Rovytte Banas DIGEST/AGATA MINING VENTURES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF TERESITA ALAAN, REPRESENTED BY DR. LORENZO ALAAN, RESPONDENTS

AGATA MINING VENTURES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF TERESITA ALAAN, REPRESENTED BY DR. LORENZO ALAAN, RESPONDENTS

GR NO. 229413, June 15, 2020

Facts:

Respondent owned a parcel of land located at Payong Payong, Tiningbasan, Tubay, Agusan del Norte. This subject land was included in the mining area of the Operating Agreement between Minimax Mineral Exploration Corporation (Minimax) and Agata Mining Ventures, Inc. (petitioner).  The subject was included because petitioner Agata finds that the subject land as the most conducive location for the establishment of a sedimentation pond or settling pond needed for the mining operation.

Various negotiations took place between petitioner and the respondents wherein the former offered to buy the subject property however, respondent refused to take such offer. 

Petitioner then filed a complaint for expropriation of the respondent’s property with prayer for issuance of writ of possession against the respondents before the RTC.

Respondent claimed that petitioner is a private entity and has no authority to exercise eminent domain over them.

Petitioner argue that in determining whether a writ of possession should be issued, the trial court is limited only in determining whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance and that the provisional deposit was made in compliance with Section 2, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court; that under Section 76 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, qualified mining operators have the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain; and that under the Mineral Production and Sharing Agreement, Minimax has the right to transfer and assign its mining rights to petitioner subject to approval of the Government.

Issue: 

  WON  petitioner may file a complaint to expropriate the subject property? 

Ruling:

Yes. Petitioner may file a complaint to expropriate the subject property since that there is a law granting mining operators the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain.

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the State to take, or to authorize the taking of private property for a public use without the owner's consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation. Eminent domain, which is the power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular uses to promote public welfare, is essentially lodged in the legislature. While such power may be validly delegated to local government units (LGUs), other public entities and public utilities, the exercise of such power by the delegated entities is not absolute. In fact, the scope of delegated legislative power is narrower than that of the delegating authority and such entities may exercise the power to expropriate private property only when authorized by Congress and subject to its control and restraints imposed through the law conferring the power or in other legislations.

The two laws that the court cited, granting the exercise of eminent domain to a mining operators though they are a private entities are Sec. 76 of RA 7942 and Sec. 1 of PD 512. 

Section 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942 is a Taking Provision which states:

Before entering private lands the prospector shall first apply in writing for written permission of the private owner, claimant, or holder thereof, and in case of refusal by such private owner, claimant, or holder to grant such permission, or in case of disagreement as to the amount of compensation to be paid for such privilege of prospecting therein, the amount of such compensation shall be fixed by agreement among the prospector, the Director of the Bureau of Mines and the surface owner, and in case of their failure to unanimously agree as to the amount of compensation, all questions at issue shall be determined by the Court of First Instance.

And Sec. 1 of PD 512 states: 

SECTION 1. Mineral prospecting, location, exploration, development and exploitation is hereby declared or public use and benefit, and for which the power of eminent domain may be invoked and exercised for the entry, acquisition and use of private lands. x x x

Considering that Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 512 granted the qualified mining operators the authority to exercise eminent domain and since this grant of authority is deemed incorporated in Section 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942, the inescapable conclusion is that the latter provision is a taking provision.

 

From these pronouncements, it can be gleaned that the Legislature granted qualified mining operators the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain.

 

 

Case Principles: 

 

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the State to take, or to authorize the taking of private property for a public use without the owner's consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation. In most cases, eminent domain "is acknowledged as an inherent political right, founded upon the common necessity of appropriating the private property of individual members of the community for the great necessities of the whole community.

 

Eminent domain, which is the power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular uses to promote public welfare, is essentially lodged in the legislature. While such power may be validly delegated to local government units (LGUs), other public entities and public utilities, the exercise of such power by the delegated entities is not absolute.  In fact, the scope of delegated legislative power is narrower than that of the delegating authority and such entities may exercise the power to expropriate private property only when authorized by Congress and subject to its control and restraints imposed through the law conferring the power or in other legislations.

 

 

 

Case Digested by : Mary Rovytte Banas