G.R. No. 111107 - Paat vs. Court of Appeals

On May 19, 1989, DENR personnel seized respondent Victoria de Guzman’s truck in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya for transporting forest products without permits.
On May 23, 1989, CENRO Layugan issued an order of confiscation, giving the owner 15 days to explain why the truck should not be forfeited.
Respondents failed to submit an explanation; on June 22, 1989, RED Baggayan sustained the confiscation and ordered forfeiture under Sec. 68-A, PD 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended by EO 277.
A letter for reconsideration dated June 28, 1989 was denied by RED Baggayan on July 12, 1989; respondents thereafter took the matter as an appeal to the DENR Secretary.

While the administrative appeal was pending, respondents filed Civil Case No. 4031 (replevin) in RTC, Branch 2, Tuguegarao, seeking return of the truck.
The RTC issued a writ of replevin ordering the truck’s return; petitioners moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
On December 28, 1989, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss; its denial of reconsideration was likewise upheld.
Petitioners secured a petition for certiorari in the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s exercise of jurisdiction, deeming the issue purely legal.

Petitioners filed before the Supreme Court on September 9, 1993, praying for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction.
On September 27, 1993, the Court granted a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the writ of replevin.
The petition raised two fundamental questions:

Whether replevin may proceed amid pending administrative forfeiture under Sec. 68-A;
Whether the DENR Secretary and his representatives are empowered to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products.

Can a replevin action be maintained to recover a movable subject to ongoing administrative forfeiture proceedings under Section 68-A of PD 705, as amended?
Do the Secretary of DENR and his duly authorized representatives possess authority to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in the unlawful transport of forest products under Section 68-A?