G.R. No. 93540 December 13, 1999
FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, VICENTE A. ROBLES and NESTOR GAPUZAN, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Third Division), Hon. BENIGNO T. DAYAW, as, Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, JESUS SY and LILY FRANCISCO UY, respondents.

FACTS

On August 9, 1988, police intercepted a truck carrying 4,000 board feet of narra lumber. The driver, Jesus Sy, was apprehended, and the cargo was brought to the DENR. An investigation by DENR’s PIC/SAID, led by petitioner Vicente Robles, revealed multiple violations of forestry regulations. The documentation presented, including a Certificate of Timber Origin, did not match the actual cargo of lumber, and the truck’s plate number differed from those listed. These discrepancies violated BFD Circular No. 10 and Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 (The Revised Forestry Code). Consequently, DENR Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, Jr. ordered the confiscation and forfeiture of the lumber and the truck in favor of the government.
Private respondents Sy and Lily Francisco Uy did not appeal the confiscation order. Instead, days before a scheduled public auction, they filed a complaint for replevin with the RTC to recover the properties. The trial court granted a writ of replevin, ordering petitioners to deliver the seized items. Petitioners refused, attempted to post a counterbond which was initially denied on procedural grounds, and elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via certiorari. The CA initially issued a preliminary injunction but later lifted it and dismissed the petition, prompting the petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the replevin suit and ordering the return of the confiscated narra lumber and truck.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, annulling the RTC’s orders. The Court held that the trial court acted without jurisdiction. The core legal principle is that replevin will not lie to recover property seized under a valid administrative forfeiture proceeding in pursuance of a statute. The DENR Secretary’s confiscation order, issued pursuant to the police power provisions of the Revised Forestry Code (P.D. No. 705), was a final and executory administrative act after the private respondents failed to appeal it to the Office of the President. At that point, the government’s ownership over the confiscated items was settled. A replevin action is a possessory suit that presupposes the plaintiff is entitled to possession. Since the properties were lawfully seized and forfeited by the state, private respondents had no right of possession to enforce. The proper remedy for an aggrieved party is to appeal the administrative order within the executive hierarchy, not to institute a separate replevin action in court. By entertaining the suit, the RTC interfered with a concluded administrative process and effectively reviewed an unappealed order, which it had no jurisdiction to do. The Court emphasized that allowing replevin in such cases would undermine the state’s regulatory and police powers over forest resources.