Benguet Exploration, Inc. vs. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Sofia ReyesFebruary 28, 1977Ponente: FernandoNature: Original petition in the Supreme Court. CertiorariFACTS:

P ->domestic mining corp. – exploration and dev’t of certain lode mineral claims Private Respondent Reyes filed with the Bureau of mining adverse claim against P’s Lode Lease Application covering 3

mining claims in Benguet, Mt. Province.o Countered by motion to dismiss -> failure of such adverse claim to comply with mandatory requirements of

Sec. 73 of Mining Act. Reyes submitted opposition with Bureau of Mines thereafter dismissing the adverse claim. Appealed to the Dept. of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) -> Reyes maintained sufficiency of adverse claim

under the law -> disputed by P. DANR dismissed appeal, but upon second motion for reconsideration, issued an order setting aside former dismissals

and directing to conduct a formal hearing, thus present petition. Court: petition lacks merit and should be dismissedI. Acts of a department head (challenged order in this case from then Acting Secretary Isosceles Pascual) “performed

and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumably the acts of the Chief Executive” (doctrine set forth in Villanueva v. Sec. of Interior (1939))

- Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion = “a decision rendered by the Director of Lands as approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, upon a question of fact, is conclusive and not subject to be reviewed by the courts, in the absence of the showing that such decision was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition, or mistake, other than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect of evidence, regardless of whether or not it is consistent with the preponderance of the evidence, so long as there is some evidence upon which the finding in question could be made”

- Such a stage has not been reached. Assailed order spoke of no “hearing on the merits, therefore, it is but right and proper and in the interest of justice that a formal hearing on the merits be conducted”

- Element of prematurity would suffice to merit dismissalII. Motivation behind petition is to preclude Sec of ANR from making own inquiry- Denied the power accorded to a bureau director = undue diminution of broad competence- Pinero, Jr. v. Director of Lands = Government, thru its officers, has authority to make inquiries into issues of public

interest. - If petitioner prevails, such power of inquiry vested in a subordinate would be denied a department head.- Jura regalia = Rep of the Phils is given the attributes of imperium and dominium, thru Sec of DANR, has utmost

latitude in ascertaining which party shall enjoy the privilege of exploiting natural resources.III. P-> weakens the force of authoritative doctrines by the allegation that there is failure to abide by the statutory

requirements in the Mining Act as amended by RA 4388. Basis: Sections 61 and 73 as amended by 4388.- Only upon the affirmance of the Secretary can findings of fact be conclusive, leaving questions of law for the Court.- In the order complained of, Secretary asked for rational basis for the acceptance or rejection of the conclusion

reached by Director of Mines. o P objects because matter has reached finality because order came only after second motion for

reconsideration.o P would ignore basic principle that unless administrative procedure followed conforms to procedural due

process, the actuation could be stigmatized as void, a hearing being deemed of the essence of such proceeding. Absence would result in loss of jurisdiction.

o Acts whether of Congress or Executive can deny due process only under pain of nullity.o Between two lines of interpretation of the statute, one of which would give it life and the other fatal to its

validity, the former should prevail.o Therefore, P’s proposition that Sec. Pascual should not have passed upon the second motion for

reconsideration is clearly without merit.IV. P’s contention that DANR acted in excess of jurisdiction when I arrogated the function of hearing the adverse

claims is even more bereft of support in law.- In the interest of due process.- Indispensability of complying with due process requirement in administrative proceeding

Petition dismissed