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State which may be amended, modified or rescinded when the national interest so requires and that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.