GR 115634; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115634; April 27, 2000
FELIPE CALUB, RICARDO VALENCIA, and the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), CATBALOGAN, SAMAR, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MANUELA T. BABALCON, and CONSTANCIO ABUGANDA, respondents.
FACTS
The Forest Protection Team of the DENR-CENRO in Catbalogan, Samar, apprehended two motor vehicles loaded with illegally sourced lumber on January 28, 1992. The drivers, including respondent Constancio Abuganda, failed to present required documents. The DENR seized and impounded the vehicles. Subsequently, the vehicles were forcibly taken from DENR custody but one was later re-apprehended on February 11, 1992, again carrying illegal forest products. Criminal complaints for violation of the Revised Forestry Code were filed against the drivers, though they were later acquitted on reasonable doubt.
Thereafter, the vehicle owner, Manuela Babalcon, and the driver, Abuganda, filed a complaint for recovery of possession with an application for a writ of replevin against the DENR officials before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the writ. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the vehicles were in custodia legis due to the ongoing seizure process under forestry laws, thus barring a replevin action. The RTC denied the motion.
ISSUE
Whether the motor vehicles, seized for allegedly transporting illegal lumber, were considered in custodia legis, thereby rendering the replevin suit filed by private respondents improper.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic is that property is considered in custodia legis when it is lawfully held by an authorized public officer under a valid legal process. While Section 78 of the Revised Forestry Code authorizes the DENR to confiscate conveyances used in illegal logging, this authority is not self-executing. It is subject to the procedural guidelines outlined in DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990.
The Court found that petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under A.O. No. 59. They did not submit a required seizure report to the DENR Secretary, did not provide written notice to the vehicle owner, and no confiscation order had been issued prior to the replevin suit. Consequently, the seizure remained incomplete and provisional. Since the mandatory administrative steps for a valid confiscation were not followed, the vehicles were not lawfully in the custody of the law. Therefore, the condition of custodia legis was not attained, and the private respondents’ replevin action was a proper remedy to determine rightful possession. The DENR’s failure to adhere to its own rules precluded it from invoking the doctrine of custodia legis as a shield against the replevin suit.