Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Natres Second
Natres Second
FACTS:
Petitioner from DENR apprehended two vehicles carrying illegally
sourced lumber and thereafter confiscated them. The owners of the
vehicles filed an action for replevin to recover the vehicles. They won in the
trial court on the ground that petitioner did not act in accordance with the
law. So petitioner appeals on the ground that the replevin in this case is a
suit against the State and is therefore valid.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not a replevin may be instituted for recovery of
property under custodia legis.
RULING:
1) No, replevin cannot be issued to recover a property lawfully taken
by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law.
2) Yes, this suit is not valid because the State may not be sued
without its consent or when the public official acted in bad faith in the
discharge of his duties. It has been established that the DENR acted within
its authority. Hence, its action is the action of the State.
G.R. NO. 108619 JULY 31, 1997
EPIFANIO LALICAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. FILOMENO A. VERGARA,
PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC BRANCH 52, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
No, the Court ruled that, the word lumber includes timber. The
primary reason why the law was enacted is to secure and maximize the
use of the natural resources; the non inclusion of lumber on the law may
give rise for the circumvention of law.
Section 68 of the said law punishes these acts namely (a) the cutting,
gathering, collection, or removal of timber or other forest products from the
places therein mentioned without any authority; or (b) possession of timber
or other forest products without the legal documents as required under
existing forest laws and regulations. Be that as it may, the legislative intent
to include possession of lumber in Sec. 68 is clearly gleaned from the
expressed reasons for enacting the law which, under Executive Order No.
277. To exclude possession of "lumber" from the acts penalized in Sec. 68
would certainly emasculate the law itself. A law should not be so construed
as to allow the doing of an act which is prohibited by law, nor so interpreted
as to afford an opportunity to defeat compliance with its terms, create an
inconsistency, or contravene the plain words of the law. After all, the phrase
"forest products" is broad enough to encompass lumbers which, to
reiterate, is manufactured timber. Hence, to mention lumber in Sec. 68
would merely result in tautology.
G.R. NO. 131270 MARCH 17, 2000
PERFECTO PALLADA, PETITIONER, VS . PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
The irregularities and discrepancies make the documents in which they are
found not only questionable but invalid and, thus, justified the trial court in
giving no credence to the same. The presence of such glaring irregularities
negates the presumption that the CTOs were regularly executed by the
DENR officials concerned.
G.R. NO. 136142 OCTOBER 24, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALFONSO
DATOR ET.AL ,
ACCUSED- APPELANT
FACTS:
Pator Teala and his co accused Alfonso Dator and Benito Genol were
charged with the crime of violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No.
705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code. The accused while
transporting pieces of lumber bound to Maasin Souther Leyte, they were
apprehended by the police officer and seized pieces of lumber. As a result
SPO1 Bacala issued a seizure receipt covering the fifty-one (51) pieces of
confiscated Dita and Antipolo lumber and one (1) unit of Isuzu cargo truck
with Plate No. HAF 628. The confiscated pieces of lumber and the cargo
truck were turned over to SPO3 Daniel Lasala, PNP Property Custodian of
Maasin, Southern Leyte who, in turn, officially transferred custody of the
same to the CENRO, Maasin, Southern Leyte. The accused Telan alleged
that the pieces of lumber were cut from the track of land belonging to his
mother in San Jose, Maasin, Southern Leyte which he intended to use in
the renovation of his house in Barangay Abgao of the same municipality.
He further contends that he secured verbal permission to Boy Leonor an
officer-in -charge of the DENR.
The lower courts found out that the accused is guilty in violation of PD 705
sentencing the accused to suffer the indivisible penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA, with the accessory penalties provided by law, which is two (2)
degrees higher than PRISION MAYOR maximum, the authorized penalty
similar to Qualified Theft, and to pay the costs. Thus, this case was
elevated to the court.
ISSUE:
RULING:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner has the right to seek the nullification of the
Bureau orders cancelling his timber license agreement and the granting of
TLA to private respondent, which were issued way back in 1983 and 1984,
respectively.
RULING:
No. The failure of petitioner to file the petition for certiorari within a
reasonable period of time renders the petitioner susceptible to the adverse
legal consequences of laches. Laches is defined as the failure or neglect
for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to
assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the
party entitled thereto has either abandoned it of declined to assert it. The
rule is that unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in seeking to
enforce an alleged right may, depending upon the circumstances, be
destructive of the right itself. Verily, the laws did these who are vigilant, not
those who sleep upon their rights. In the case at bar, petitioner waited for at
least three years before it finally filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
attacking the validity of the assailed Bureau actions in 1983 and 1984.
Considering that petitioner, throughout the period of its inaction, was not
deprived of the opportunity to seek relief from the courts which were
normally operating at the time, its delay constitutes unreasonable and
inexcusable neglect, tantamount to laches. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari
requiring the reversal of these orders will not lie. There is a more significant
factor which bars the issuance of a writ of certiorari in favor of petitioner
and against public respondents herein. A long line of cases establish the
basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed
to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the
regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and
training of such agencies. More so where, as in the present case, the
interests of a private logging company are pitted against that of the public
at large on the pressing public policy issue of forest conservation. For this
Court recognizes the wide latitude of discretion possessed by the
government in determining the appropriate actions to be taken to preserve
and manage natural resources, and the proper parties who should enjoy
the privilege of utilizing these resources. Timber licenses, permits and
license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State
regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that
public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely
evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not
vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular
concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly
amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when
national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within
the purview of the due process of law clause.
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed
OPOSA,
minors, and represented by their parents petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as
the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
and THE
HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC,
Makati, Branch 66, respondents.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the
children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility. Their right to a healthy environment
carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding
generations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of
future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of
contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in
the interest of public welfare.
G.R. No. 120365 December 17, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILSON B. QUE,
accused appellant
FACTS:
Provincial Task Force got wind that a that a ten-wheeler truck bearing
plate number PAD-548 loaded with illegally cut lumber will pass through
Ilocos Norte. Acting on said information, members of the PTF went on
patrol
several times within the vicinity of General Segundo Avenue in Laoag City.
On March 8, 1994, SPO1 Corpuz, together with SPO1 Zaldy Asuncion and
SPO1 Elmer Patoc went on patrol around the area. At about1:00 in the
morning, they posted themselves at the corner of General Segundo Avenue
and Rizal Street. Thirty minutes later, they saw a ten-wheeler truck with
plate number PAD-548 pass by. They followed the truck and apprehended
it at the Marcos Bridge.On June 23, 1994, accused-appellant was charged
before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag with violation of Section 68 of P.D.
705as amended by E.O. 277. The Information alleged that, on or about the
8th day of March, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then
the owner of an I(s)uzu Ten Wheeler Truck bearing Plate No. PAD-548, with
intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
possession, control and custody 258 pieces of various sizes of Forest
Products Chain saw lumber (Species of Tanguile) with a total volume of
3,729.3 bd. ft. or equivalent to 8.79 cubic meters valued in the total amount
of P93,232.50 atP25.00/bd. ft., necessary permit, license or authority to do
so from the
proper authorities Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He
claimed that he acquired the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber from a legal
source. During the trial, he presented the private land timber permits
(PLTP) issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) to Enrica Cayosa and Elpidio Sabal The PLTP authorizes its holder
to cut, gather and dispose timber from the forest area covered by the
permit. He alleged that the tanguile lumber came from the forest area
covered by the PLTPs of Cayosa and Sabal and that they were given to
him by Cayosa and Sabal as payment for his hauling services.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
a. Whether a person who cuts trees for his own use within his property
without the necessary permit from the DENR and without transporting the
same outside said property, be criminally charged for violating PD 705?
RULING:
The OSG again opposed Sacays petition. The OSG argued that Sacay et
al do not have a vested right over their occupied portions in the island.
Boracay is an unclassified public forest land pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD
No. 705. Being public forest, the claimed portions of the island are
inalienable and cannot be the subject of judicial confirmation of imperfect
title. It is only the executive department, not the courts, which has authority
to reclassify lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable lands.
There is a need for a positive government act in order to release the lots for
disposition.
ISSUES:
Whether Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 pose any
legal obstacle for Yap et al and Sacay et al, and all those similarly situated,
to acquire title to their occupied lands in Boracay Island.
RULING:
Yes. The SC ruled against Yap et al and Sacay et al. The Regalian
Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State,
that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony. All lands that have not
been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong
to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.
(2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the
public domain.
Yap et al and Sacay et al insist that they have a vested right in Boracay,
having been in possession of the island for a long time. They have invested
millions of pesos in developing the island into a tourist spot. They say their
continued possession and investments give them a vested right which
cannot be unilaterally rescinded by Proclamation No. 1064.