Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

APEX MINING CO. v. CANCIO C. GARCIA ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 152613 & 152628 2009-11-20	APEX MINING CO. v. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner SEM vigorously argues that Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia[1] vested in MMC mining rights over the disputed area. It claims that the mining rights that MMC acquired under the said case were the ones assigned to SEM, and not the right to explore under MMC's EP 133. It insists that mining rights, once obtained, continue to subsist regardless of the validity of the exploration permit; thus, mining rights are independent of the exploration permit and therefore do not expire with the permit. SEM insists that a mining right is a vested property right that not even the government can take away. To support this thesis, SEM cites this Court's ruling in McDaniel v. Apacible and Cuisia[2] and in Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez,[3] which were decided in 1922 and 1938, respectively.
	GR NO. 163509 2006-12-06	PICOP RESOURCES v. BASE METALS MINERAL RESOURCES CORPORATION TINGA, J.
The area status clearances obtained by Base Metals also allegedly show that the area covered by the MPSA is within timberland, unclassified public forest, and alienable and disposable land. Moreover, PICOP allegedly chose to cite portions of Apex Mining Corporation v. Garcia,[15] to make it appear that the Court in that case ruled that mining is absolutely prohibited in the Agusan-Surigao-Davao Forest Reserve. In fact, the Court held that the area is not open to mining location because the proper procedure is to file an application for a permit to prospect with the Bureau of Forest and Development.