Gold Creek Mining Corp vs Rodriguez, Sec of Agriculture & Commerce

FACTS: Petitioner alleges that it owns the Nob Fraction mineral claim in the barrio of Gomok, Itogon,
Benguet, Mountain Province, and located on public lands. (That said claim was located on January 1, 1929;
perfected by virtue of Acts of Congress providing such unpatented mining claims.)

Petitioner filed an application for patent with respondents the area of 4.5 hectares. However, respondents
refused to issue such. Petitioner alleges that it is entitled as a matter of right to the patent applied for,
having complied with all the requisites of the law.
That petitioner by itself and its predecessors in interest has been in continuous and exclusive
possession of the land
A certificate from a surveyor that more than P1,600 worth of labor or improvements had already been
expended by them upon the land
That a notice of said app for patent has been posted in a conspicuous place, and affidavits of 2 persons
attesting to such
That its app was also published once a week for a period of 60 days in the Philippine Herald, El
Debate, and Official Gazette
That the sum of 113 pesos was tendered already, as payment for the purchase price

Respondents on the other hand allege that the Constitution provides that natural resources, with the
exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated. Thus, they are not only under no obligation
to approve the application, but actually duty bound to prevent such issuance.
ISSUE:
1. WON such applications for patents upon mining claims are prohibited by the Constitution
2. WON pet is entitled to the patents applied for as a matter of right

HELD:
1. No. A constitutional provision must be presumed to have been framed in the light and understanding
of prior and existing laws. When the Consitution became effective on November 15, 1935, the
location of the mining claim under consideration was already perfected prior thereto.

A valid location of a mining claim has already segregated the area from the public domain. (Location: when
it is actually located by miners.)

The moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral deposit on the lands located, and perfected his
location in accordance of law, the governments power to deprive him of the exclusive right to the
possession and enjoyment is gone. They became lands that could not be granted to any other person. By
such location and perfection, the land located is segregated from the public domain even as against the
Government. It has the effect of a grant by the government the right of present and exclusive possession,
with the right to the exclusive enjoyment of all the surface ground as well as the materials within.

A valid location of a mining claim grants to the locator the beneficial ownership of the claim and the right
to a patent therefor upon compliance with the conditions prescribed by aw. Thus, it was already excluded
by the time to Constitution took effect.

2. No. While the refusal of respondents to act on the application for a patent on its merits was due to
their misinterpretation of constitutional provisions, a mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance.
The respondents will still decide on whether they have complied with the requirements. At most,
mandamus will only lie to direct respondents to dispose of the application on its merits.