Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    CD NO. 9. R v. Rosemoor

    Uploaded by

    Lee
    The Supreme Court ruled that Proclamation No. 84, which cancelled the respondents' license to mine marble deposits, was valid. The court held that mining licenses do not confer permanent rights and can be revoked by the state in exercising its police power over natural resources. While the respondents' license was initially valid, it could still be cancelled through proclamation in accord with the state's sovereign power over public lands and mineral deposits. The proclamation did not violate the non-impairment clause since the license was not a contract protected under that clause and is subject to police power concerning public welfare.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CD NO. 9. R v. Rosemoor

    Uploaded by

    Lee
    139 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Proclamation No. 84, which cancelled the respondents' license to mine marble deposits, was valid. The court held that mining licenses do not confer permanent rights and can be revoked by the state in exercising its police power over natural resources. While the respondents' license was initially valid, it could still be cancelled through proclamation in accord with the state's sovereign power over public lands and mineral deposits. The proclamation did not violate the non-impairment clause since the license was not a contract protected under that clause and is subject to police power concerning public welfare.

    Original Title

    CD-NO.-9.-R-v.-Rosemoor.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Proclamation No. 84, which cancelled the respondents' license to mine marble deposits, was valid. The court held that mining licenses do not confer permanent rights and can be revoked by the state in exercising its police power over natural resources. While the respondents' license was initially valid, it could still be cancelled through proclamation in accord with the state's sovereign power over public lands and mineral deposits. The proclamation did not violate the non-impairment clause since the license was not a contract protected under that clause and is subject to police power concerning public welfare.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    139 views2 pages

    CD NO. 9. R v. Rosemoor

    Uploaded by

    Lee
    The Supreme Court ruled that Proclamation No. 84, which cancelled the respondents' license to mine marble deposits, was valid. The court held that mining licenses do not confer permanent rights and can be revoked by the state in exercising its police power over natural resources. While the respondents' license was initially valid, it could still be cancelled through proclamation in accord with the state's sovereign power over public lands and mineral deposits. The proclamation did not violate the non-impairment clause since the license was not a contract protected under that clause and is subject to police power concerning public welfare.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    REPUBLIC vs. ROSEMOOR MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et.al.

    426 SCRA 517, 30 MARCH 2004

    FACTS:
    Four respondents were granted the permission to prospect for marble deposits in the
    mountains of Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan. As a result, they succeeded in discovering marble
    deposits of high quality and in commercial quantities in Mt. Mabio which forms part of the Biak-na-
    Bato mountain range. They then applied for the issuance of the corresponding license to exploit marble
    deposits before the Bureau of Mines who in turn issued License No. 33 to the respondents.
    Shortly after Petitioner Ernesto R. Maceda was appointed Minister of the DENR, License No.
    33 was cancelled by him through his letter to Rosemoor. Proclamation No. 84 then confirmed the
    cancellation of the license. Respondents then assailed the cancellation of the license.

    The RTC ruled that the privilege granted under respondents’ license had already ripened into
    property right which was protected under the due process clause and the same was violated when the
    license was cancelled without notice and hearing; that the cancellation was unjustified since the area
    that could be covered by the four separate applications was 400 ha; that Proc. No. 84 which confirmed
    the cancellation of the license. The CA affirmed such decision of the RTC.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Proclamation No. 84 issued by then President Corazon Aquino is valid.
    HELD:
    The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
    RATIO DECIDENDI:
    The court held in previous cases that licenses merely evidences a privilege granted by the
    State which may be amended, modified or rescinded when the national interest so requires and that
    the same do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area
    and the forest products therein. Moreover, they are not also deemed to be contracts within the purview
    of the due process of law clause.
    Granting that respondents’ license is valid, it can still be validly revoked by the State in the
    exercise of police power. The exercise of such power through Proclamation No. 84 is clearly in accord
    with jura regalia, which reserves to the State ownership of all natural resources. Such doctrine is an
    exercise of its sovereign power as owner of lands of the public domain and of the patrimony of the
    nation, the mineral deposits of which are a valuable asset.
    Proclamation No. 84 cannot be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause since
    respondents license is not a contract to which the protection accorded by the non-impairment clause
    may extend. Even if the license were, it is settled that provisions of existing laws and a reservation of
    police power are deemed read into it, because it concerns a subject impressed with public welfare. As
    it is, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.

    You might also like