SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.115634.April27,2000]

FELIPECALUBandRICARDOVALENCIA,DEPARTMENTofENVIRONMENT
andNATURALRESOURCES(DENR),CATBALOGAN,SAMAR,petitioners,vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,MANUELAT.BABALCON,andCONSTANCIO
ABUGANDA,respondents.
DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:
Forreviewisthedecision.[1]datedMay27,1994,oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.
29191,denyingthepetitionfiledbyhereinpetitionersforcertiorari,prohibitionandmandamus,
inordertoannultheOrderdatedMay27,1992,bytheRegionalTrialCourtofCatbalogan,
Samar.SaidOrderhaddeniedpetitioners(a)MotiontoDismissthereplevincasefiledby
hereinprivaterespondents,aswellas(b)petitionersMotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderof
saidtrialcourtdatedApril24,1992,grantinganapplicationforaWritofreplevin..[2]hY
Thepertinentfactsofthecase,bornebytherecords,areasfollows:
OnJanuary28,1992,theForestProtectionandLawEnforcementTeamoftheCommunity
EnvironmentandNaturalResourcesOffice(CENRO)oftheDENRapprehendedtwo(2)motor
vehicles,describedasfollows:
"1.MotorVehiclewithPlateNo.HAK733loadedwithonethousandandtwenty
six(1,026)boardfeetofillegallysourcedlumbervaluedatP8,544.75,being
drivenbyonePioGabonandownedby[acertain]JoseVargas.
2.MotorVehiclewithPlateNo.FCN143loadedwithonethousandtwohundred
twentyfourandninetyseven(1,224.97)boardfeetofillegallysourcedlumber
valuedatP9,187.27,beingdrivenbyoneConstancioAbugandaandownedby[a
certain]ManuelaBabalcon.".[3]
ConstancioAbugandaandPioGabon,thedriversofthevehicles,failedtopresentproper
documentsand/orlicenses.Thus,theapprehendingteamseizedandimpoundedthevehicles
anditsloadoflumberattheDENRPENR(DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources
ProvincialEnvironmentandNaturalResources)OfficeinCatbalogan..[4]Seizurereceiptswere
issuedbutthedriversrefusedtoacceptthereceipts..[5]FelipeCalub,ProvincialEnvironment
andNaturalResourcesOfficer,thenfiledbeforetheProvincialProsecutorsOfficeinSamar,a
criminalcomplaintagainstAbuganda,inCriminalCaseNo.3795,forviolationofSection68
[78),PresidentialDecree705asamendedbyExecutiveOrder277,otherwiseknownasthe
RevisedForestryCode.[6]Missc
OnJanuary31,1992,theimpoundedvehicleswereforciblytakenbyGabonandAbuganda
fromthecustodyoftheDENR,promptingDENROfficerCalubthistimetofileacriminal

complaintforgravecoercionagainstGabonandAbuganda.Thecomplaintwas,however,
dismissedbythePublicProsecutor..[7]
OnFebruary11,1992,oneofthetwovehicles,withplatenumberFCN143,wasagain
apprehendedbyacompositeteamofDENRCENRinCatbaloganandPhilippineArmy
elementsofthe802ndInfantryBrigadeatBarangayBuray,Paranas,Samar.Itwasagain
loadedwithforestproductswithanequivalentvolumeof1,005.47boardfeet,valuedat
P10,054.70.CalubdulyfiledacriminalcomplaintagainstConstancioAbuganda,acertain
Abegonia,andseveralJohnDoes,inCriminalCaseNo.3625,forviolationofSection68[78],
PresidentialDecree705asamendedbyExecutiveOrder277,otherwiseknownastheRevised
ForestryCode..[8]
InCriminalCasesNos.3795and3625,however,AbegoniaandAbugandawereacquittedon
thegroundofreasonabledoubt.Butnotethetrialcourtorderedthatacopyofthedecisionbe
furnishedtheSecretaryofJustice,inorderthatthenecessarycriminalactionmaybefiled
againstNoePagaraoandallotherpersonsresponsibleforviolationoftheRevisedForestry
Code.ForitappearedthatitwasPagaraowhocharteredthesubjectvehicleandorderedthat
cuttimberbeloadedonit..[9]
Subsequently,hereinprivaterespondentsManuelaBabalcon,thevehicleowner,and
ConstancioAbuganda,thedriver,filedacomplaintfortherecoveryofpossessionofthetwo(2)
impoundedvehicleswithanapplicationforreplevinagainsthereinpetitionersbeforetheRTCof
Catbalogan.Thetrialcourtgrantedtheapplicationforreplevinandissuedthecorresponding
writinanOrderdatedApril24,1992..[10]Petitionersfiledamotiontodismisswhichwasdenied
bythetrialcourt.[11]
Thus,onJune15,1992,petitionersfiledwiththeSupremeCourtthepresentPetitionfor
Certiorari,ProhibitionandMandamuswithapplicationforPreliminaryInjunctionand/ora
TemporaryRestrainingOrder.TheCourtissuedaTRO,enjoiningrespondentRTCjudgefrom
conductingfurtherproceedingsinthecivilcaseforreplevinandenjoiningprivaterespondents
fromtakingorattemptingtotakethemotorvehiclesandforestproductsseizedfromthe
custodyofthepetitioners.TheCourtfurtherinstructedthepetitionerstoseetoitthatthemotor
vehiclesandotherforestproductsseizedarekeptinasecuredplaceandprotectedfrom
deterioration,saidpropertybeingincustodialegisandsubjecttothedirectorderofthe
SupremeCourt..[12]InaResolutionissuedonSeptember28,1992,theCourtreferredsaid
petitiontorespondentappellatecourtforappropriatedisposition..[13]
OnMay27,1994,theCourtofAppealsdeniedsaidpetitionforlackofmerit.Itruledthatthe
mereseizureofamotorvehiclepursuanttotheauthoritygrantedbySection68[78]ofP.D.No.
705asamendedbyE.O.No.277doesnotautomaticallyplacesaidconveyanceincustodia
legis.Accordingtotheappellatecourt,suchauthorityoftheDepartmentHeadoftheDENRor
hisdulyauthorizedrepresentativetoordertheconfiscationanddispositionofillegallyobtained
forestproductsandtheconveyanceusedforthatpurposeisnotabsoluteandunqualified.Itis
subjecttopertinentlaws,regulations,orpoliciesonthatmatter,addedtheappellatecourt.The
DENRAdministrativeOrderNo.59,seriesof1990,isonesuchregulation,theappellatecourt
said.Foritprescribestheguidelinesintheconfiscation,forfeitureanddispositionof
conveyancesusedinthecommissionofoffensespenalizedunderSection68[78]ofP.D.No.
705asamendedbyE.O.No.277..[14]
Additionally,respondentCourtofAppealsnotedthatthepetitionersfailedtoobservethe

procedureoutlinedinDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.59,seriesof1990.Theywereunableto
submitareportoftheseizuretotheDENRSecretary,togiveawrittennoticetotheownerof
thevehicle,andtorenderareportoftheirfindingsandrecommendationstotheSecretary.
Moreover,petitionersfailuretocomplywiththeprocedurelaiddownbyDENRAdministrative
OrderNo.59,seriesof1990,wasconfirmedbytheadmissionofpetitionerscounselthatno
confiscationorderhasbeenissuedpriortotheseizureofthevehicleandthefilingofthe
replevinsuit.Therefore,infailingtofollowsuchprocedure,accordingtotheappellatecourt,the
subjectvehiclescouldnotbeconsideredincustodialegis..[15]
RespondentCourtofAppealsalsofoundnomeritinpetitionersclaimthatprivaterespondents
complaintforreplevinisasuitagainsttheState.Accordingly,petitionerscouldnotshield
themselvesundertheprincipleofstateimmunityasthepropertysoughttoberecoveredinthe
instantsuithadnotyetbeenlawfullyadjudgedforfeitedinfavorofthegovernment.Moreover,
accordingtorespondentappellatecourt,therecouldbenopecuniaryliabilitynorlossof
propertythatcouldensueagainstthegovernment.Itreasonedthatasuitagainstapublic
officerwhoactedillegallyorbeyondthescopeofhisauthoritycouldnotbeconsideredasuit
againsttheStateandthatapublicofficermightbesuedforillegallyseizingorwithholdingthe
possessionofthepropertyofanother..[16]
Respondentcourtbrushedasideothergroundsraisedbypetitionersbasedontheclaimthat
thesubjectvehicleswerevalidlyseizedandheldincustodybecausetheywerecontradictedby
itsownfindings..[17]Theirpetitionwasfoundwithoutmerit.[18]Rtcspped
Now,beforeus,thepetitionersassignthefollowingerrors:.[19]
(1)THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATMERESEIZUREOF
ACONVEYANCEPURSUANTTOSECTION68A[78A]OFP.D.NO.705AS
AMENDEDBYEXECUTIVEORDER277DOESNOTPLACESAID
CONVEYANCEINCUSTODIALEGIS
(2)THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOTHOLDINGTHATTHE
OPERATIVEACTGIVINGRISEFORTHESUBJECTCONVEYANCETOBEIN
CUSTODIALEGISISITSLAWFULSEIZUREBYTHEDENRPURSUANTTO
SECTION68A[78A]OFP.D.NO.705,ASAMENDEDBYE.O.NO.277AND
(3)THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATTHECOMPLAINT
FORREPLEVINAGAINSTTHEPETITIONERSISNOTASUITAGAINSTTHE
STATE.
Inbrief,thepertinentissuesforourconsiderationare:
(1)WhetherornottheDENRseizedmotorvehicle,withplatenumberFCN143,isincustodia
legis.
(2)Whetherornotthecomplaintfortherecoveryofpossessionofimpoundedvehicles,withan
applicationforreplevin,isasuitagainsttheState.
Wewillnowresolvebothissues.
TheRevisedForestryCodeauthorizestheDENRtoseizeallconveyancesusedinthe
commissionofanoffenseinviolationofSection78.Section78states:

Sec.78.Cutting,Gathering,andorCollectingTimber,orOtherForestProducts
withoutLicense.Anypersonwhoshallcut,gather,collect,removetimberorother
forestproductsfromanyforestland,ortimberfromalienableordisposablepublic
land,orfromprivateland,withoutanyauthority,orpossesstimberorotherforest
productswithoutthelegaldocumentsasrequiredunderexistingforestlawsand
regulations,shallbepunishedwiththepenaltiesimposedunderArticles309and
310oftheRevisedPenalCodeslxmis
TheCourtshallfurtherordertheconfiscationinfavorofthegovernmentofthe
timberoranyforestproductscut,gathered,collected,removed,orpossessed,as
wellasthemachinery,equipment,implementsandtoolsillegallyusedinthearea
wherethetimberorforestproductsarefound.
Thisprovisionmakesmerepossessionoftimberorotherforestproductswithoutthe
accompanyinglegaldocumentsunlawfulandpunishablewiththepenaltiesimposedforthe
crimeoftheft,asprescribedinArticles309310oftheRevisedPenalCode.Inthepresent
case,thesubjectvehicleswereloadedwithforestproductsatthetimeoftheseizure.But
admittedlynopermitevidencingauthoritytopossessandtransportsaidloadofforestproducts
wasdulypresented.Theseproducts,inturn,weredeemedillegallysourced.Thustherewasa
primafacieviolationofSection68[78]oftheRevisedForestryCode,althoughasfoundbythe
trialcourt,thepersonsresponsibleforsaidviolationwerenottheoneschargedbythepublic
prosecutor.
ThecorrespondingauthorityoftheDENRtoseizeallconveyancesusedinthecommissionof
anoffenseinviolationofSection78oftheRevisedForestryCodeispursuanttoSections78A
and89ofthesameCode.Theyreadasfollows:Sc
Sec.78A.AdministrativeAuthorityoftheDepartmentHeadorHisDuly
AuthorizedRepresentativetoOrderConfiscation.Inallcasesofviolationofthis
Codeorotherforestlaws,rulesandregulations,theDepartmentHeadorhisduly
authorizedrepresentative,mayordertheconfiscationofanyforestproducts
illegallycut,gathered,removed,orpossessedorabandoned,andall
conveyancesusedeitherbyland,waterorairinthecommissionoftheoffense
andtodisposeofthesameinaccordancewithpertinentlaws,regulationsor
policiesonthematter.
Sec.89.ArrestInstitutionofcriminalactions.Aforestofficeroremployeeofthe
Bureau[Department]oranypersonnelofthePhilippineConstabulary/Philippine
NationalPoliceshallarrestevenwithoutwarrantanypersonwhohascommitted
oriscommittinginhispresenceanyoftheoffensesdefinedinthisChapter.He
shallalsoseizeandconfiscate,infavoroftheGovernment,thetoolsand
equipmentusedincommittingtheoffense...[Emphasissupplied.]
NotethatDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.59,seriesof1990,implementsSections78Aand89
oftheForestryCode,asfollows:
Sec.2.ConveyancesSubjecttoConfiscationandForfeiture.Allconveyances
usedinthetransportofanyforestproductobtainedorgatheredillegallywhether
ornotcoveredwithtransportdocuments,foundspuriousorirregularin
accordancewithSec.68A[78A]ofP.D.No.705,shallbeconfiscatedinfavorof
thegovernmentordisposedofinaccordancewithpertinentlaws,regulationsor

policiesonthematter.
Sec.4.WhoareAuthorizedtoSeizeConveyance.TheSecretaryorhisduly
authorizedrepresentativesuchastheforestofficersand/ornaturalresources
officers,ordeputizedofficersoftheDENRareauthorizedtoseizesaid
conveyancessubjecttopoliciesandguidelinespertinentthereto.Deputized
militarypersonnelandofficialsofotheragenciesapprehendingillegallogsand
otherforestproductsandtheirconveyancesshallnotifythenearestDENRfield
offices,andturnoversaidforestproductsandconveyancesforproperactionand
disposition.IncasewheretheapprehensionismadebyDENRfieldofficer,the
conveyanceshallbedepositedwiththenearestCENRO/PENRO/REDOfficeas
thecasemaybe,forsafekeepingwhereveritismostconvenientandsecured.
[Emphasissupplied.]
Uponapprehensionoftheillegallycuttimberwhilebeingtransportedwithoutpertinent
documentsthatcouldevidencetitletoorrighttopossessionofsaidtimber,awarrantless
seizureoftheinvolvedvehiclesandtheirloadwasallowedunderSection78and89ofthe
RevisedForestryCode.Slxsc
NotefurtherthatpetitionersfailuretoobservetheprocedureoutlinedinDENRAdministrative
OrderNo.59,seriesof1990wasjustifiablyexplained.Petitionersdidnotsubmitareportofthe
seizuretotheSecretarynorgiveawrittennoticetotheownerofthevehiclebecauseonthe3rd
dayfollowingtheseizure,GabonandAbuganda,driversoftheseizedvehicles,forciblytookthe
impoundedvehiclesfromthecustodyoftheDENR.Thenagain,whenoneofthemotor
vehicleswasapprehendedandimpoundedforthesecondtime,thepetitioners,againwerenot
abletoreporttheseizuretotheDENRSecretarynorgiveawrittennoticetotheownerofthe
vehiclebecauseprivaterespondentsimmediatelywenttocourtandappliedforawritof
replevin.Theseizureofthevehiclesandtheirloadwasdoneupontheirapprehensionfora
violationoftheRevisedForestryCode.Itwouldbeabsurdtorequireaconfiscationorderor
noticeandhearingbeforesaidseizurecouldbeeffectedunderthecircumstances.
SincetherewasaviolationoftheRevisedForestryCodeandtheseizurewasinaccordance
withlaw,inourviewthesubjectvehicleswerevalidlydeemedincustodialegis.Itcouldnotbe
subjecttoanactionforreplevin.Foritispropertylawfullytakenbyvirtueoflegalprocessand
consideredinthecustodyofthelaw,andnototherwise..[20]
InMamanteo,et.al.v.DeputySheriffMagumun,A.M.No.P981264,promulgatedonJuly28,
1999,thecaseinvolvespropertytobeseizedbyaDeputySheriffinareplevinsuit.Butsaid
propertywerealreadyimpoundedbytheDENRduetoviolationofforestrylawsand,infact,
alreadyforfeitedinfavorofthegovernmentbyorderoftheDENR.Wesaidthatsuchproperty
wasdeemedincustodialegis.Thesheriffcouldnotinsistonseizingthepropertyalready
subjectofapriorwarrantofseizure.Theappropriateactionshouldbeforthesherifftoinform
thetrialcourtofthesituationbywayofpartialSheriffsReturn,andwaitforthejudges
instructionsontheproperproceduretobeobserved.
Notethatpropertythatisvalidlydepositedincustodialegiscannotbethesubjectofareplevin
suit.InMamanteov.DeputySheriffMagumun,weelucidatedfurther:
"...thewritofreplevinhasbeenrepeatedlyusedbyunscrupulousplaintiffsto
retrievetheirchattelearliertakenforviolationoftheTariffandCustomsCode,tax
assessment,attachmentorexecution.Officersofthecourt,fromthepresiding

judgetothesheriff,areimploredtobevigilantintheirexecutionofthelaw
otherwise,asinthiscase,validseizureandforfeitureproceedingscouldeasilybe
underminedbythesimpledeviseofawritofreplevin...".[21]Scslx
Onthesecondissue,isthecomplaintfortherecoveryofpossessionofthetwoimpounded
vehicles,withanapplicationforreplevin,asuitagainsttheState?
WellestablishedisthedoctrinethattheStatemaynotbesuedwithoutitsconsent..[22]Anda
suitagainstapublicofficerforhisofficialactsis,ineffect,asuitagainsttheStateifitspurpose
istoholdtheStateultimatelyliable..[23]However,theprotectionaffordedtopublicofficersby
thisdoctrinegenerallyappliesonlytoactivitieswithinthescopeoftheirauthorityingoodfaith
andwithoutwillfulness,maliceorcorruption.[24]Inthepresentcase,theactsforwhichthe
petitionersarebeingcalledtoaccountwereperformedbytheminthedischargeoftheirofficial
duties.Theactsinquestionareclearlyofficialinnature.[25]Inimplementingandenforcing
Sections78Aand89oftheForestryCodethroughtheseizurecarriedout,petitionerswere
performingtheirdutiesandfunctionsasofficersoftheDENR,anddidsowithinthelimitsof
theirauthority.Therewasnomalicenorbadfaithontheirpart.Hence,asuitagainstthe
petitionerswhorepresenttheDENRisasuitagainsttheState.Itcannotprosperwithoutthe
Statesconsent.
Giventhecircumstancesinthiscase,weneednotpursuetheOfficeoftheSolicitorGenerals
lineforthedefenseofpetitionersconcerningexhaustionofadministrativeremedies.Weought
onlytorecallthatexhaustionmustberaisedattheearliesttimepossible,evenbeforefilingthe
answertothecomplaintorpleadingassertingaclaim,byamotiontodismiss..[26]Ifnotinvoked
atthepropertime,thisgroundfordismissalcouldbedeemedwaivedandthecourtcouldtake
cognizanceofthecaseandtryit.[27]Mesm
ACCORDINGLY,thePetitionisGRANTED,andtheassailedDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
inCAG.R.SPNo.29191isSETASIDE.Consequently,theOrderissuedbytheRegionalTrial
CourtofCatbalogan,datedMay27,1992,andtheWritofreplevinissuedintheOrderdated
April24,1992,areANNULLED.TheSheriffoftheRegionalTrialCourtofCatbalogan,Branch
29,isdirectedtotakepossessionofthesubjectmotorvehicle,withplatenumberFCN143,for
deliverytothecustodyofandappropriatedispositionbypetitioners.Letacopyofthisdecision
beprovidedtheHonorableSecretaryofJusticeforhisappropriateaction,againstanyandall
personsresponsiblefortheabovecitedviolationoftheRevisedForestryCode.
Costsagainstprivaterespondents.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,(Chairman),Mendoza,Buena,andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.Calrky

[1]Rollo,pp.2227.
[2]CARecords,p.43.
[3]Rollo,p.23.
[4]Id.at23.
[5]Id.at74.
[6]

Sec.78.Cutting,Gathering,and/orCollectingTimber,orOtherForestProductswithoutLicense.Anypersonwhoshall

cut,gather,collect,removetimberorotherforestproductsfromanyforestland,ortimberfromalienableordisposablepublic
land,orfromprivateland,withoutanyauthority,orpossesstimberorotherforestproductswithoutthelegaldocumentsas
requiredunderexistingforestlawsandregulations,shallbepunishedwiththepenaltiesimposedunderArticles309and310
oftheRevisedPenalCode...
TheCourtshallfurtherordertheconfiscationinfavorofthegovernmentofthetimberoranyforestproductscut,gathered,
collected,removed,orpossessed,aswellasthemachinery,equipment,implementsandtoolsillegallyusedintheareawhere
thetimberorforestproductsarefound.(Emphasissupplied.)
[7]Rollo,p.70.
[8]Id.at23,78.
[9]Id.at75,85.
[10]CARecords,p.43.
[11]Supra,note4.
[12]Id.at1819.
[13]Id.at21.
[14]Id.at26A.
[15]Id.at2527.
[16]Id.at27.
[17]Ibid.
[18]Ibid.
[19]Id.at6.
[20]Bagalihogv.Fernandez,198SCRA614,621(1991)
[21]Mamanteo,et.al.v.DeputySheriffMagumun,A.M.No.P981264,July28,1999,citingPacisv.Hon.Averia,18SCRA
907(1966)
[22]CONST.,Art.XVI,sec.3.
[23]DeLeon,TheLawonPublicOfficersandElectionLaw,2nded.,1994,pp.228229.
[24]PhilippineRacingClub,Inc.,etal.v.Bonifacio,etal.,109Phil.233,241(1960)
[25]Sandersv.VeridianoII,162SCRA88,96(1988)
[26]

Section1,Rule16,1997RulesofCourt.

SECTION1.Grounds.Withinthetimeforbutbeforefilingtheanswertothecomplaintorpleadingassertingaclaim,a
motiontodismissmaybemadeonanyofthefollowinggrounds:
(a)Thatthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthepersonofthedefendingparty
(b)Thatthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatteroftheclaim
(c)Thatvenueisimproperlylaid
(d)Thattheplaintiffhasnolegalcapacitytosue
(e)Thatthereisanotheractionpendingbetweenthesamepartiesforthesamecause
(f)Thatthecauseofactionisbarredbyapriorjudgmentorbythestatuteoflimitations
(g)Thatthepleadingassertingtheclaimstatesnocauseofaction
(h)Thattheclaimordemandsetforthintheplaintiffspleadinghasbeenpaid,waived,abandoned,orotherwiseextinguished
(i)Thattheclaimonwhichtheactionisfoundedisunenforceableundertheprovisionsofthestatuteoffraudsand
(j)Thataconditionprecedentforfilingtheclaimhasnotbeencompliedwith.
[27]Sotov.Jareno,144SCRA116,119[1986).SeealsoSection1[j),Rule16,1997RulesofCourt.