G.R. No. 115104 Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals CASE DIGEST

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 115104 October 12, 1998

FACTS:

The Supreme Court recognized the possessory right of Macawiwili and Omico over mining claims in Benguet as against Philex Mining Corp. On the surface of these mining claims,Philex owned improvements consisting of roads, facilities, and bunkhouses that were used byPhilex in its other mining claims. Philex sought to expropriate the surface of the area wherethese improvements were located pursuant to Section 59 of PD 463.

HELD:

The land cannot be expropriated. Expropriation demands that the land be private land.When the Supreme Court awarded the possessory rights over the land to Macawiwili andOmico, it stripped the land of its private character and gave it its public character – to be utilizedfor mining operations. Property already devoted to public use may be expropriated only if donedirectly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to the delegate. Theauthority granted by PD 463 is merely general and will not suffice.

Comments

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al CASE DIGEST

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al G.R. No. 152619-20 BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corp. G.R. No. 152870-71 THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (Chairman), UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO MARCELO (Member) and DIRECTOR HORACIO RAMOS (Member) vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corporation FACTS: A motion for reconsideration was filed by SEM. The Assailed Decision held that the assignment of Exploration Permit (EP) 133 in favor of SEM violated one of the conditions stipulated in the permit. It also ruled that the transfer of EP 133 violated Presidential Decree No. 463, which requires that the assignment of a mining right be made with the prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Moreover, the Assailed Decision pointed out that EP 133 expired by non-renew...

2015 Last Reviewer Criminal Law

1. If the marriage is not solemnized in accordance with Muslim Law, the accused cannot claim criminal exemption from liability for bigamy on the basis his religious belief as a Muslim because of the generality principle. The Code of Personal Muslim Laws, which exempts Muslim from being prosecuted for bigamy, is not applicable since the marriage was not made in accordance with the Muslim law (Nollora, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011). 2. C onsular officers are immune from criminal prosecution of acts performed in the exercise of function (1967 Convention on Consular Relation). Immunity does not cover slander or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide for not being function-related. A Chinese diplomat, who killed another Chinese diplomat in Cebu, is immune from criminal prosecution ( T he Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations). Unlike consular officers, diplomatic agents are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits (M...

LAW SCHOOL HELP

Search This Blog