Overlapping mining concessions in Chile: priority, opposition and nullity

Priority obliges you to oppose

If a later manifestante requests the survey before the earlier one, the earlier one loses preference by not opposing in time. A holder of an earlier pedimento or exploration concession who does not bring the action of art. 61 no. 1 loses their rights over the ground where the pertenencia is constituted (art. 65). In that case the defendant can only argue that their request does not cover that ground; anything else goes in a separate case (art. 68).

The grounds for nullity

Art. 95 is an exhaustive list. For overlaps these matter:

• No. 6: a pertenencia on ground covered by another survey presumed to be earlier.
• No. 7: a pertenencia on ground already covered by another pertenencia.
• No. 8: an exploration concession on ground of another whose pedimento is earlier.

Time bar and cure

Actions under nos. 1 to 7 are time-barred four years after the extract of art. 90 is published. After that the concession is cured of any defect. When the action under no. 6 or 7 is barred, the judgment also ends the pertenencia affected by the overlap, and the concession of the person who held the action survives in the part that does not overlap. The action under no. 8 ends another way: by not bringing the opposition of art. 61 no. 1 (art. 96).

Other limits

Someone who opposed on the second ground of art. 61 and lost cannot later claim nullity under nos. 6 or 7 (art. 67). An annulled concession allows correcting the request or the plan, without leaving the original perimeter and except for fraud or wilful misconduct (art. 98).

What a map shows

The cadastre's polygons are for reference, so two neighbours can cross through a drawing or datum error. A crossing on the map is a signal to check the titles. It does not by itself prove a legal overlap.