Calub vs. Court of Appeals

Property lawfully seized by the DENR pursuant to the Revised Forestry Code is deemed in custodia legis and cannot be the subject of a replevin suit. The Court held that warrantless seizure of conveyances used to transport illegally sourced forest products is authorized under Sections 78, 78-A, and 89 of P.D. No. 705, and such property, once lawfully taken by virtue of legal process, is in the custody of the law. Additionally, a suit against public officers who acted within the scope of their authority and without malice in seizing property is a suit against the State, which cannot be maintained without the State's consent.

DENR forest protection officers in Catbalogan, Samar, apprehended two motor vehicles loaded with illegally sourced lumber. The drivers failed to present proper documents or licenses, prompting the officers to seize and impound the vehicles and their cargo. Criminal complaints were filed against the drivers for violating the Revised Forestry Code. The drivers subsequently forcibly took the impounded vehicles from DENR custody; one vehicle was later apprehended a second time while again transporting illegal forest products. The private respondents then filed a complaint for recovery of possession with an application for replevin in the trial court, which granted the writ.

• Initial Seizure: On January 28, 1992, the DENR CENRO in Catbalogan, Samar, apprehended two motor vehicles (Plate Nos. HAK-733 and FCN-143) loaded with illegally sourced lumber. The drivers, Pio Gabon and Constancio Abuganda, failed to present proper documents or licenses. The vehicles and their cargo were seized and impounded at the DENR-PENR Office; seizure receipts were issued but the drivers refused to accept them.
• Criminal Complaints Filed: DENR Officer Felipe Calub filed a criminal complaint against Abuganda for violation of Section 68 [78] of P.D. No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code).
• Forcible Taking: On January 31, 1992, Gabon and Abuganda forcibly took the impounded vehicles from DENR custody. Calub filed a grave coercion complaint against them, but the Public Prosecutor dismissed it.
• Second Apprehension: On February 11, 1992, the vehicle with plate number FCN-143 was apprehended a second time by a composite team of DENR and Philippine Army personnel, again loaded with illegal forest products. Another criminal complaint was filed against Abuganda and others.
• Acquittal: In both criminal cases, Abuganda and a co-accused were acquitted based on reasonable doubt, though the trial court noted that a certain Noe Pagarao appeared responsible for chartering the vehicle and ordering the loading of timber.
• Replevin Suit: Private respondents Manuela Babalcon (vehicle owner) and Constancio Abuganda (driver) filed a complaint for recovery of possession with an application for replevin against the DENR officers before the RTC. The trial court granted the writ of replevin on April 24, 1992, and denied the officers' motion to dismiss on May 27, 1992.

• Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the mere seizure of a conveyance pursuant to Section 68-A [78-A] of P.D. No. 705 does not place it in custodia legis.
• Petitioners maintained that the operative act placing the conveyance in custodia legis is its lawful seizure by the DENR pursuant to the Revised Forestry Code.
• Petitioners contended that the complaint for replevin against them is a suit against the State, which cannot prosper without state consent.

• Respondents argued, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, that mere seizure does not automatically place the conveyance in custodia legis because the DENR's authority to confiscate is subject to pertinent laws and regulations, specifically DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990.
• Respondents contended that the DENR officers failed to observe the procedural requirements of DENR AO No. 59, such as submitting a seizure report to the DENR Secretary, giving written notice to the vehicle owner, and rendering a findings report, and that no confiscation order had been issued prior to the seizure.
• Respondents asserted that the replevin suit is not a suit against the State because the property had not yet been lawfully adjudged forfeited in favor of the government, and public officers may be sued for illegally seizing or withholding the possession of property.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the complaint for the recovery of possession of impounded vehicles, with an application for replevin, is a suit against the State.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the DENR-seized motor vehicle is in custodia legis.

• Procedural: The Court ruled that the complaint for replevin is a suit against the State. A suit against a public officer for official acts is a suit against the State if its purpose is to hold the State ultimately liable. The doctrine of state immunity protects public officers for activities within the scope of their authority performed in good faith and without malice. Because the DENR officers were implementing and enforcing the Forestry Code within the limits of their authority and without malice, the suit against them is a suit against the State that cannot prosper without its consent.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that the DENR-seized motor vehicle is in custodia legis. The warrantless seizure was authorized under Sections 78, 78-A, and 89 of the Revised Forestry Code because the vehicles were transporting forest products without the required documents, constituting a prima facie violation. The petitioners' failure to comply with DENR Administrative Order No. 59 was justifiably explained: the drivers forcibly took the vehicles initially, and when one was apprehended a second time, the private respondents immediately filed the replevin suit, making it absurd to require a confiscation order or notice and hearing before seizure. Property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process is in the custody of the law and cannot be subject to an action for replevin.

• Custodia Legis — Property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law cannot be subject to an action for replevin. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that vehicles seized by the DENR for transporting illegally sourced forest products under the Revised Forestry Code are in custodia legis, thereby precluding their recovery via a writ of replevin.
• State Immunity from Suit — The State may not be sued without its consent. A suit against a public officer for official acts is, in effect, a suit against the State if its purpose is to hold the State ultimately liable. This protection applies to activities within the scope of the officer's authority performed in good faith and without willfulness, malice, or corruption. The Court applied this doctrine to dismiss the replevin suit against DENR officers who lawfully seized the vehicles in the discharge of their official duties without malice.

• "Since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the seizure was in accordance with law, in our view the subject vehicles were validly deemed in custodia legis. It could not be subject to an action for replevin. For it is property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law, and not otherwise."
• "the writ of replevin has been repeatedly used by unscrupulous plaintiffs to retrieve their chattels earlier taken for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code, tax assessment, attachment or execution. Officers of the court, from the presiding judge to the sheriff, are implored to be vigilant in their execution of the law otherwise, as in this case, valid seizure and forfeiture proceedings could easily be undermined by the simple devise of a writ of replevin."

• Mamanteo v. Deputy Sheriff Magumun — Cited as controlling precedent on the principle that property already impounded by the DENR and subject to forfeiture proceedings is in custodia legis and cannot be seized by a sheriff via a writ of replevin.
• Bagalihog v. Fernandez — Cited in support of the proposition that property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process is in the custody of the law.
• Sanders v. Veridiano II — Cited for the principle that the protection afforded to public officers by the doctrine of state immunity applies to activities within the scope of their authority in good faith and without malice.
• Philippine Racing Club, Inc. v. Bonifacio — Cited for the doctrine that a suit against a public officer for his official acts is a suit against the State if its purpose is to hold the State ultimately liable.

• Section 68 [78], Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code) — Penalizes cutting, gathering, collecting, or possessing timber or forest products without authority or legal documents, and orders the confiscation of such products and the machinery, equipment, implements, and tools illegally used. The Court applied this to find a prima facie violation justifying the seizure of the vehicles and their load.
• Section 68-A [78-A], Presidential Decree No. 705 — Grants the Department Head or duly authorized representative the administrative authority to order the confiscation of illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed forest products and all conveyances used in the commission of the offense. The Court relied on this provision to validate the DENR officers' seizure of the vehicles.
• Section 89, Presidential Decree No. 705 — Authorizes forest officers to arrest without warrant and seize and confiscate tools and equipment used in committing the offense in favor of the Government. The Court cited this to affirm the warrantless seizure of the conveyances.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990 — Prescribes guidelines for the confiscation, forfeiture, and disposition of conveyances used in violating the Forestry Code. The Court acknowledged this order but excused the petitioners' non-compliance due to the private respondents' actions.
• Article XVI, Section 3, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the State may not be sued without its consent. The Court applied this provision to hold that the replevin suit against the DENR officers acting in their official capacity is a suit against the State.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.