G.R. No.

115634 April 27, 2000

FELIPE CALUB and RICARDO VALENCIA, DEPARTMENT of

ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), CATBALOGAN,
SAMAR, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, MANUELA T. BABALCON, and CONSTANCIO
ABUGANDA, respondents.

The case originated when respondent Abuganda, alongisde with Gabon were
apprehended due to the clear violation of PD 705 otherwise known as the
Revised Forestry Code. They were caught having in their trucks in possession
of illegally sourced lumber. They failed to provide legal documents and even
driver’s license when they were apprehended, prompting the apprehending
team of DENR-PENR to seize the vehicles and impound them along with the
illegally sourced lumber, however they were forcibly taken by the
Respondent, making way on the filing of the criminal case for grave coercion
against them, however, it was dismissed by the Public Prosecutor.

For sometime, one of the vehicles were again apprehended with the same
violation and against the same respondent Abuganda. But then the case was
dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

Subsequently, herein private respondents Manuela Babalcon, the vehicle

owner, and Constancio Abuganda, the driver, filed a complaint for the
recovery of possession of the two (2) impounded vehicles with an application
for replevin against herein petitioners before the RTC of Catbalogan.

The RTC granted the application for replevin, the petitioners filed a motion to
dismiss but was denied.

Petitioners now came to the Supreme Court to file for a case of Prohibition
and Mandamus with application for Preliminary Injunction and/or a Temporary
Restraining Order. The Court issued a TRO.

The Court further instructed the petitioners to see to it that the motor
vehicles and other forest products seized are kept in a secured place and
protected from deterioration, said property being in custodia legis and subject
to the direct order of the Supreme Court.

The Court then remanded the case to the CA.

The CA denied the petition for lack of merit. According to the CA, the mere
seizure of a motor vehicle pursuant to the violation of the Revised Forestry
Code does not make it in custodia legis making the replevin suit against the
State, which operates under the blanket of Constitutional Immunity From
Suit.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/s:
W/N the Replevin Suit filed by the Respondent will prosper?
RULING:

The Court reversed the ruling of the CA.

The Law under the Revised Forestry Code is clear particularly its Sec. 78,
making it that mere possession of timber or other forest products without the
accompanying legal documents unlawful and punishable with the penalties
imposed for the crime of theft, as prescribed in Articles 309-310 of the
Revised Penal Code. In the present case, the subject vehicles were loaded
with forest products at the time of the seizure. But admittedly no permit
evidencing authority to possess and transport said load of forest products was
duly presented. These products, in turn, were deemed illegally sourced. Thus
there was a clear violation of Section 68 [78] of the Revised Forestry Code.

Since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the seizure was
in accordance with law, it makes the seized vehicles and lumbers now in
custodia legis, thus it cannot be a subject matter of a Replevin Case. For it is
property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the
custody of the law, and not otherwise. Additionally, In implementing and
enforcing Sections 78-A and 89 of the Forestry Code through the seizure
carried out, petitioners were performing their duties and functions as officers
of the DENR, and did so within the limits of their authority. There was no
malice nor bad faith on their part. Hence, a suit against the petitioners who
represent the DENR is a suit against the State. It cannot prosper without the
State's consent.

Thus, the Court ruled in annulling the ruling of the CA.

Principle: property which was deemed in custodia legis, cannot be subject to

replevin suit, and protection from suit is afforded to public officers by the
doctrine of Immunity of Suit generally applies only to activities within the
scope of their authority in good faith and without willfulness, malice or
corruption. Such as in this case where the petitioners were performing
their duties and functions as officers of the DENR, and did so within the
limits of their authority.