Case digest: PAAT vs CA

Paat v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 111107

10 January 1997

Facts:

      On May 19, 1989, the truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman was seized by DENR because the driver could not produce the required documents for the forest products found concealed in the truck. Four days later, Petitioner Jovito Layugan, CENRO, issued an order of confiscation and asked the owners to submit an explanation why the truck should not be forfeited within fifteen days. Private respondent, however, failed to do so. R.E.D. Rogelio Baggayan of DENR sustained Layugan's action of confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of the truck. de Guzman filed a letter of reconsideration but was subsequently denied. The letter was forwarded to the Secretary of DENR pursuant to the respondent’s wishes. During the pendency of the resolution, however, the respondent filed a suit for replevin. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss but was later denied by the RTC. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied and the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

       Whether or not the confiscation of the truck was valid.

Held:

     Yes. The suit for replevin is never intended as a procedural tool to question the orders of confiscation and forfeiture issued by the DENR in pursuance to the authority given under P.D. 705, as amended. The provision of Section 68 of P.D. 705 before its amendment by E.O. 277 and the provision of Section 1 of E.O. No. 277 amending the aforementioned Section 68 could never be clearer.