LAHAR DEPOSITS FOUND ON PRIVATE LANDS ARE MINERALS AND THUS BELONG TO THE

STATE
Article XII, Section 2 of the Constitution, Sections 3 and 4 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and
E.O. No. 224, series of 2003 treat lahar deposits as minerals, which are owned by the State and are
covered by various laws on mining. (Batac vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 216949, July 3,
2019)

x—————x

LAHAR DEPOSITS FOUND ON PRIVATE LANDS ARE MINERALS AND THUS BELONG TO THE
STATE

Eduardo T. Batac vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Teddy C. Tumang, Rafael P. Yabut, and
Pantaleon C. Martin
G.R. No. 216949, July 3, 2019
Leonen, J.

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari assailing the Order of the Office of the Ombudsman, which reversed its
earlier Resolution and Decision dismissing the charges against Mayor Tumang, Barangay Captain
Yabut and Martin.

Petitioner Batac was informed that his property was being quarried without his consent, under the
instructions of Mayor Tumang. When he visited his property, Batac saw that his property had been
unevenly leveled and reduced to below ground level. He then asked Mayor Tumang why his property
was being quarried without his consent. In reply to Batac’s query, Mayor Tumang provided Batac a
copy of the Affidavit executed by Martin, wherein Martin asked the local government to quarry said
property since the lahar deposits on it had been preventing him from cultivating the land. Batac
claimed that Martin had never been a tenant of his land. This prompted Batac to file a case before the
Office of the Ombudsman against Mayor Tumang and his co-perpetrators for theft and violation of RA
3019 and RA 6713. In its Resolution, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges for theft and violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against the respondents. The Office of the Ombudsman reasoned that Batac
was not injured since he did not own the lahar deposits on his property. On the other hand, Batac
argued that since the lahar deposits were found on private land, they are not minerals under the
Philippine Mining Act. He insisted that under Article 440 of the Civil Code, he, as the landowner, has
the right to everything in his property, including the lahar deposits.

ISSUE:
Are the lahar deposits found on the property of the petitioner minerals and thus belong to the State?

HELD:
Yes, the lahar deposits found on private properties are considered as minerals and thus belong to the
State. Article XII, Section 2 of the Constitution, Sections 3 and 4 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995
and E.O. No. 224, series of 2003 treat lahar deposits as minerals, which are owned by the State and
are covered by various laws on mining.
Section 3 of the Philippine Mining Act defines “minerals” and “mineral resources” as follows:

“Minerals” refers to all naturally occurring inorganic substance in solid, gas, liquid, or any
intermediate state excluding energy materials such as coal, petroleum, natural gas,
radioactive materials, and geothermal energy.

“Mineral resources” means any concentration of minerals/rocks with potential economic value.

Nonetheless, the Court notes that there could have been some injury to petitioner since: (1) as a
landowner, he could have been granted a gratuitous permit to extract lahar deposits under Section 50
the Philippine Mining Act; and (2) the law contemplates compensating a surface owner like petitioner
for damages done by mining right holders when conducting mining operations on the private-owned
land. Thus, the Ombudsman did not err when it dismissed the charges against the respondents for
theft and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.