Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1938 > June 1938 Decisions > G.R. No. 45826 June 27, 1938 - DAMASO P. PEREZ ET AL. v. CEFERINO HILARIO

065 Phil 728:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 45826. June 27, 1938.]

DAMASO P. PEREZ ET AL., Petitioners, v. CEFERINO HILARIO, Judge of First Instance of Cagayan, ET AL., Respondents.

Domitilio G. Abordo, for Petitioners.

Conrado V. Singson for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. MINING CLAIMS; POWER AND JURISDICTION OVER CONFLICTS AND DISPUTES REGARDING LOCATION OF MINING CLAIMS. — The petitioners contend that the respondents could not commence their action originally in the Court of First Instance, but should first submit it to the Bureau of Mines. However, Commonwealth Act No. 137, according to its plain wording, does not provide that the conflicts therein referred to should be, but simply may be submitted to the Bureau of Mines; and it can not be construed as prohibiting their original submission to the courts of justice whose general jurisdiction cover them.

2. ID.; ID. — It can not be the intention of the law to withdraw these controversies from the general jurisdiction of the courts, in view of its own provision that they may eventually be appealed thereto. On the other hand, since no procedure is provided in taking such appeal, the ordinary procedure should be followed as if the conflicts had been originally brought before them. Thus the parties interested may, if they so desire, have their controversy finally settled, on appeal, by the courts as if it had been submitted to them originally. If such is the case, the requirement that they submit it first to the Bureau of Mines and afterwards to the Department of Agriculture and Commerce, is purposeless and only prolongs the litigation unnecessarily by encumbering it with useless details.


D E C I S I O N


AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


On May 1, 1937 the respondents originally filed a complaint, civil case No. 2165, in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan against the petitioners concerning priority in the location of certain mining claims situated in Lalloc, Cagayan.

This petition for certiorari filed against the respondents and the Judge of First Instance of Cagayan prays that all the proceedings had in civil case No. 2165 be annulled. It is alleged that the Judge of First Instance of Cagayan lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of said case by virtue of section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 137, which says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 61. Conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations may be submitted to the Director of the Bureau of Mines for decision: Provided, That such decision may be appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce within ninety days from the date of its entry. In case any one of the interested parties should disagree from the decision of the Director of the Bureau of Mines or of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, the matter may be taken to the court of compotent jurisdiction within ninety days after notice of such decision, after which time without the institution of such action the said decision shall be final and binding upon the parties concerned."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioners contend that, under the provisions of said section, the respondents could not commence their action originally in the Court of First Instance, but should first submit it to the Bureau of Mines. However, the section above-quoted, according to its plain wording, does not provide that the conflicts therein referred to should be, but simply may be submitted to the Bureau of Mines; and it can not be construed as prohibiting their original submission to the courts of justice whose general jurisdiction cover them. It can not be the intention of the law to withdraw these controversies from the general jurisdiction of the courts, in view of its own provision that they may eventually be appealed thereto. On the other hand, since no procedure is provided in taking such appeal, the ordinary procedure should be followed as if the conflicts had been originally brought before them. Thus the parties interested may, if they so desire, have their controversy finally settled, on appeal, by the courts as if it had been submitted to them originally. If such is the case, the requirement that they submit it first to the Bureau of Mines and afterwards to the Department of Agriculture and Commerce, is purposeless and only prolongs the litigation unnecessarily by encumbering it with useless details.

The undoubted purpose of the law in providing that these conflicts may be submitted to the Bureau of Mines is only to afford the parties interested the opportunity to adjust their differences through prompt administrative action if this is satisfactory to them.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is hereby denied with costs against the petitioners. So ordered.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1938 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45693 June 4, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO LOMUNTAD

    065 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 45364 June 7, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JORGE LEYNEZ

    065 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45435 June 17, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO B. CHAN

    065 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 45925 June 7, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO CUSI

    065 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 45312 June 13, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS L. MINA

    065 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 45363 June 13, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHONG HONG ET AL.

    065 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 45414 June 13, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO RAAGAS

    065 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45474 June 13, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER

    065 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 43579 June 14, 1938 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. JUAN AZARRAGA ET AL.

    065 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 45267 June 15, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO PONTILLAS

    065 Phil 659

  • G.R. Nos. 45471 & 45472 June 15, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MERCADO

    065 Phil 665

  • G.R. No. 45655 June 15, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE T. FERNANDEZ

    065 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 45522 June 20, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA VIUDA DE SABARRE

    065 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. 45950 June 20, 1938 - LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA v. DIEGO LOCSIN

    065 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 45611 June 21, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HUSSIN TALOK

    065 Phil 696

  • G.R. Nos. 45727-45729 June 22, 1938 - FLORENCIA A. DE MONDIA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    065 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 45353 June 27, 1938 - SIO CHU TIAN v. MANILA ELECTRIC Co.

    065 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 45357 June 27, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELIGIO OVILLA

    065 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 45712 June 27, 1938 - LAUREANO EMBUDO v. JUAN G. LESACA

    065 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. 45826 June 27, 1938 - DAMASO P. PEREZ ET AL. v. CEFERINO HILARIO

    065 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45856 June 27, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAMON ROCES

    065 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 46021 June 27, 1938 - MAMERTO FERRARIS v. SOTERO RODAS

    065 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 45396 June 30, 1938 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION CO.

    065 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. 45398 June 30, 1938 - TELESFORO GILIJES v. ANATALIO HALILI and PUBLIC SERVICE COMM.

    065 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 45431 June 30, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO ORAIS and DAMIAN JIMENEZ

    065 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 45623 June 30, 1938 - JESUS CRISOSTOMO v. PASTOR M. ENDENCIA

    066 Phil 1