Factoran vs.
CA and Dayaw
G.R. No. 93450 13 December 1999
Issue
WON the confiscated lumber can be subject to replevin.
WON the lumbers were in custody of Law.
Rules
Bureau of Forestry and Development Circular No. 10 and
P.D. No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry
Code.
Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705, as amended by Executive
Order (E.O.) No. 277
Analysis of Facts
A six-wheeler truck was apprehended by police officers
carrying 4,000 board feet of narra lumber. The truck driver,
Jesus Sy, was brought to the Personnel Investigation
Committee/Special Actions and Investigation Division
(PIC/SAID) of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR).
The PIC/SAID found after an investigation that there were
discrepancies on the documentation of the narra lumber and
that is a violation of Bureau of Forestry and Development
Circular No. 10 and P.D. No. 705, otherwise known as the
Revised Forestry Code.
Fulgencio S. Factoran, then Secretary of the DENR, issued an
order for the confiscation of the narra lumber and the truck.
Analysis of Facts
Consequently, the confiscated narra lumber and six-
wheeler truck were forfeited in favor of the government.
They were subsequently advertised to be sold at public
auction.
Sy filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City with prayer for the issuance of writs of
replevin and preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining order for the recovery of the confiscated
lumber and truck and to enjoin the planned auctioned
sale of the subject narra lumber, respectively.
The trial court issued an order directing Factoran to
desist from proceeding with the planned auction sale.
Analysis of Facts
On the scheduled date of the auction sale, Sy filed a Motion for
Release and Return of Goods and Documents (Replevin). The trial
court (Through Judge Dayaw) granted the writ of replevin.
Thereafter, the trial court issued a writ of seizure. However,
Factoran refused to comply therewith.
Sy filed a motion to declare Factoran in contempt for disobeying the
writ of seizure.
Factoran filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus to annul the Orders of the trial court.
The appellate court lifted the writ of preliminary injunction and
dismissed the petition. It declared that the complaint for replevin
filed by Sy complied with the requirements under the Revised Rules
of Court. Factoran filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was
denied. Hence, the present petition.
Analysis of Arguments
Factoran Sy
The writ of Replevin was invalid. The Writ was issued in accordance with
Section 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court
Confiscated lumber cannot be subject of and is therefore valid.
Replevin because the properties were in
custody of law. There was no proof that Sy violated the
Revised Forestry Code. DENR has no
authority to keep the properties for an
indefinite period and to dispose the same
without due process.
The properties were not in custody of the
law and may be replevied.
The writ of Replevin was issued in The Order of Factoran was not valid for
violation of the Revised Forestry Code there was no formal investigation
conducted. So the issuance of the writ of
replevin was legal.
Conclusion
No the subject properties may not be subject to replevin.
Yes the properties were in Custody of Law.
Not Subject to writ of replevin:
In a writ of replevin, wrongful detention by the defendant of the properties
sought in an action for replevin must be satisfactorily established. In the
case at bar, the subject narra lumber and six-wheeler truck were
confiscated by Secretary Factoran pursuant to Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705,
as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 277:
SEC. 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department Head or His Duly
Authorized Representative to Order Confiscation. — In all cases of violations of
this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, the Department Head or
his duly authorized representative, may order the confiscation of any forest
products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all
conveyances used either by land, water, or air in the commission of the offense
and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations or
policies on the matter.
Conclusion
As the Factoran’s administrative authority to confiscate is clearly provided
by law, the taking of the subject properties is not wrongful and does not
warrant the issuance of a writ of replevin prayed for by Sy.
The properties are in “Custody of Law”
The issuance of the confiscation order by Secretary Factoran was a valid
exercise of his power under Sec. 68-A of P.D. No. 705. By virtue of said
order, the narra lumber and six-wheeler truck of private respondents were
held in custodia legis and hence, beyond the reach of replevin.
Property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process is deemed to be in
custodia legis. When a thing is in official custody of a judicial or executive
officer in pursuance of his execution of a legal writ, replevin will not lie to
recover it. Otherwise, there would be interference with the possession
before the function of law had been performed as to the process under
which the property was taken.
Conclusion
Right to Due Process Not violated
Nothing in the records supports Sy' allegation that their
right to due process was violated as no investigation was
conducted prior to the confiscation of their properties.
On the contrary, Sy who drove the six-wheeler truck
was properly investigated by petitioner Atty. Robles at the
PIC/SAID Office of the DENR. Thereafter, Sy and his
witnesses were given full opportunity to explain the
defficiencies in the documents.
