VOL.

12, NOVEMBER 28, 1964 501 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rullan vs. Valdez Rullan vs. Valdez

No. 20031. November 28, 1964. tain public mineral lands comprising the amended locations of the SILICA and SELECTA
placer Mining Claims which was ordered published according to law. The first publication
MAGDALENA RULLAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BERNARDO O. VALDEZ, was made on December 3, 1961.
defendant-appellee.
During the period of the publication of the application, Magdalena Rullan and George
Mining law; Adverse claims; Method for claimant to have day in court.—Any person who Alabanza filed with the Bureau of Mines an opposition in the form of adverse claim to the
has an adverse interest in the whole or in a portion of the surface of a mining claim for application alleging, among other things, the following: Sometime in February, 1958,
which a lease is applied for by another may file an adverse claim which must state in full Bernardo O. Valdez and his associates executed certain documents stating that they are
the nature, boundaries and extent thereof, to be accompanied by the necessary plans, the members of the Baguio-Loakan Placer Mining Association the whole interest of which
documents and agreements upon which the same is based. The filing of said adverse is divided in 10,000 units and each unit being valued at P5.00. The interest of Valdez is
claim produced the effect of staying all the proceedings on the application filed with the only 4,000 units. Sometime in 1957, the Association located two placer mining claims,
Bureau of Mines, except only in relation to the publication and proof of notice, until the namely, MORNING GLORY containing an area of 45 hectares, and SILICA containing an
controversy shall have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. area of 8 hectares. Then, sometime in January or February, 1959, Magdalena Rullan
bought 1,000 units of the Association, while George Alabanza 300 units, thereby
becoming members thereof.
Same; Same; Exhaustion of administrative remedies not required before court action.—
The law is specific that the question of ownership affecting an adverse claim must first be
determined by the competent court before administrative action could proceed to its After some associates had sold their participation in the Association to third persons,
termination. It is, therefore, error for the court a quo to dismiss the complaint on the Valdez, without the knowledge or consent of his associates, reduced the area comprising
ground that plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies before coming to the SILICA PLACER Mining Claim from 8 to 6.1284 hectares by excluding therefrom the
court. southeastern portion having an area of 1.8716 hectares which he added to the original
.area of 4 hectares that comprises the SELECTA Placer Mining Claim which he located
and the lease of which he applied for with the Bureau of Mines. And pending
APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City. De Veyra, J. consideration of their adverse claims filed with the Bureau of Mines, Magdalena Rullan
and George Alabanza commenced the present action on January 10, 1962 before the
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Court of First Instance of Baguio setting forth the foregoing facts and praying that their
rights and interests as co-lessees of the 8 hectares of public mineral land originally
     Bienvenido L. Garcia, for plaintiffs-appellants. comprising the SILICA Placer Mining Claim be declared and recognized irrespective of
the amended location made by defendant insofar as the SELECTA Placer Mining Claim is
     Benjamin P. Cardenas for defendant-appellee. concerned.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: 503

On November 24, 1961, Bernardo O. Valdez filed with the Bureau of Mines an application VOL. 12, NOVEMBER 28, 1964 503
for the lease of cer- Rullan vs. Valdez

502 Defendant Valdez filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that, not having alleged that
they are locators, holders or owners of the mining claims in question, plaintiffs cannot be
considered adverse claimants within the purview of Section 73 of Commonwealth Act. No. applied for by another may file an adverse claim which must state in full the nature,
137, as amended. To this motion plaintiffs filed their opposition. On February 13, 1962, boundaries and extent thereof, to be accompanied by the necessary plans, documents
the court a quo denied the motion to dismiss. On February 21, 1962, defendant filed a and agreements upon which the same is based. The filing of said adverse claim produces
motion for reconsideration alleging that the court a quo had not acquired jurisdiction over the effect of staying all the proceedings on the application filed with the Bureau of Mines,
the case inasmuch as the Director of Mines had not given due course to the adverse except only in relation to the publication and proof of notice, until the controversy shall
claim of plaintiffs for which reason they filed a motion for reconsideration which at that have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since then the functions of the
time has not yet been acted upon. And on February 26, 1962, the court a quo issued an Bureau of Mines are suspended to await the action of the court.
order declaring itself without jurisdiction considering that the Director of Mines had not yet
acted on the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs. And when their motion for This is the situation herein obtained. After plaintiffs had filed their adverse claim with the
reconsideration was denied, plaintiffs interposed the present appeal. Bureau of Mines with regard to the lease application of certain mining claims filed by
defendant, they at the same time commenced the present action wherein they squarely
The only issue to be determined is whether the court a quo has jurisdiction to act on the brought to the fore the issue of ownership over the mining claim controverted. The
case considering that action on the adverse claim herein involved is still pending in the question, therefore, comes well within the jurisdiction of the court a quo regardless of
Office of the Bureau of Mines. It appears that the Director of Mines has not yet acted one whether the action of the Director of Mines on the adverse claim filed in his office is still
way or the other on the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs. pending. This is the reverse situation of a case involving the ownership of a portion of
public land wherein exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, for here the law is
The law applicable to the issue before us is Section 73 of Commonwealth Act No. 137, as specific that the question of ownership affecting an adverse claim must be determined by
amended by Republic Act No. 746, which we quote: the competent court before administrative action could proceed to its termination. It is,
therefore, for the court a quo to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs have
not exhausted their administrative remedies before coming to court. The situation
“SEC. 73. At any time during the period of application, any adverse claim may be filed obtained herein is just the contrary.
under oath with the Director of Mines, and shall state in full detail the nature, boundaries,
and extent of the adverse claim, and is based: x x x Upon the filing of any adverse claim
all proceedings except the making and filing of the affidavit in connection therewith, as 505
herein prescribed, shall be stayed until the controversy shall have been settled or decided
by a court of competent jurisdiction, or the adverse claim waived. It shall be the duty of VOL. 12, NOVEMBER 28, 1964 505
the adverse claimant, within thirty days after filing his claim, to commence proceedings in Ramirez-Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno
a court of competent jurisdiction to determine the controversy and to prosecute the same
with reasonable diligence to final judgment, and failure to do so shall be considered as a
WHEREFORE, the order. appealed from is set aside. This case should be remanded to
waiver of his adverse claim. x x x”
the court a quo for further proceedings. Costs against appellee.
504
     Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar,
JJ., concur.
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rullan vs. Valdez Order set aside and case remanded to court a, quo for further proceedings.

The above statutory provision prescribes the method by which a person having an _____________
adverse claim to a certain mineral land can have his day in court. If he fails to file an
adverse claim within the time therein provided for or fails to commence the proceeding
within the statutory period, his claim is deemed waived. Any person who has an adverse © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
interest to the whole or to a portion of the surface of a mining claim for which a lease is