LAND BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the Director of
Lands, respondent.

G.R. No. 150824 February 4, 2008

PONENTE: REYES, R.T., J.:

FACTS:
A lot was issued in favor of Angelito C. Bugayong and
was divided into four lots that were approved by the
Commissioner of Land Registration on April 23, 1971.
Thereafter, the lost was cancelled and was replaced with new
Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) in favor of the same
person.
The four lots were sold to different persons. The first
one was sold to spouses Lourders and Candido Du.
Accordingly, the said TCT was cancelled and was replaced
again in the name of the spouses.
 The spouses caused the subdivision of the land to
where it became two lots and were sold to spouses Felix and
Guadalupe Dayola. The other remaining lot was retained and
registered under their names. Again, the TCT was cancelled
and was replaced by another registered in the name of
Lourdes Farms, Inc. to where they mortraged the property to
petitioner on April 14, 1980.
Investigation and ocular inspection were conducted by
the Bureau of Lands to check the legitimacy of the lot and
found out that it was still within the forest zone when it was
issued to Bugayong and it was released as alienable and
disposable only on March 25, 1981, the land was marshy and
covered by sea water during high tide and that Bugayong was
never in actual possession of the land.
 In view of the foregoing findings, the Bureau of Lands
resolved that the sales patent in favor of Bugayong was
improperly and illegally issued and that the Director of Lands
had no jurisdiction to dispose of the subject land.

Upon recommendation of the Bureau of Lands, the

Republic of the Philippines represented by the Director of
Lands, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
instituted a complaint before the RTC in Davao, Branch 15, for
the cancellation of title/patent and reversion of the land into
the mass of public domain. The complaint was filed against
Bugayong and other present owners and mortgagees of the
land, such as Lourdes Farms, Inc. and the latter's mortgagee,
petitioner LBP.
 The RTC rendered its judgment on July 9, 1996
determining that:

It is clear that the mother Title in the name of defendant

Bugayong was issued at a time when the area was not yet
released by the Bureau of Forestry to the Bureau of Lands.

The RTC explained that titles issued to private parties

by the Bureau of Lands are void ab initio if the land covered by
it is a forest land. It went further by stating that if the mother
title is void, all titles arising from the mother title are also
void.
 In a Decision dated August 23, 2001, the CA ruled
against the appellants, disposing thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeals

are hereby DISMISSED and the Decision of the trial court
in Civil Case No. 17516 is hereby AFFIRMED.

The CA confirmed that the "evidence for the

plaintiff clearly established that the land pursuant to a
sales patent granted to defendant Angelito C. Bugayong
was still within the forestal zone at the time of the grant
of the said patent."
 Issue
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not
finding the petitioner’s mortgage right and interest
as an innocent purchaser for value and in good faith
over the subject land is valid and subsisting in
accordance with the law and existing
jurisprudence in our country. [NO]

Supreme Court Ruling: LBP has no valid and

subsisting mortgagee's interest over the land
covered by the TCT.
 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
WILSON B. QUE, accused-appellant

G.R. No. 120365 December 17, 1996

PONENTE: PUNO, J.

FACTS:

The accused-appellant appeals from his conviction, violating

Section 68 of P.D 705 on the ground that on the ground that since it is
only in EO No. 277 where for the first time mere possession of timber
was criminalized, there are no existing forest laws and regulations
which required certain legal documents for possession of timber and
other forest products. Two weeks before the violation took place, a
member of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging received an
information that a ten-wheeler truck that is loaded with illegally cut
lumber will pass through Ilocos Norte. The members of the Provincial
Task force immediately acted upon knowing the said information and
went on patrol near the said location and saw the truck.
 There were three persons on board the
truck namely the driver Cacao, Wilson Que, the
owner of said truck, and an unknown person.
The members of the Provincial Task Force who
were on patrol checked the truck, finding
coconut slabs as well as sewn lumber. Accused-
appellant Que was required to show a permit,
but he failed to do so. Thus, he was charged for
the violation of Sec. 68 of P.D 705.
 Sec. 68 of P.D No. 705
Section 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without
license. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest
products from any forest land, or timber from alienable and disposable public lands,
or from private lands, without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license
or permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309
and 310 of the Revised Penal Code; Provided, That in the case of partnership,
association or corporation, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering or
collecting shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the
penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation.
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of
the timber or forest products to cut, gathered, collected or removed, and the
machinery, equipment, implements and tools used therein, and the forfeiture of his
improvements in the area.
The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement, lease, license
or permit and perpetual disqualification from acquiring any such privilege shall be
imposed upon any licensee, lessee, or permittee who cuts timber from the licensed or
leased area of another, without prejudice to whatever civil action the latter may bring
against the offender.
 Issue
Whether or not the accused-appellant
violated Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by EO
277 for possessing timber or other forest products
without the legal documents as required under
existing forest laws and regulations. [YES]

Supreme Court Ruling: Accused-appellant's

possession of the subject lumber without any
documentation clearly constitutes an offense under
Section 68 of P.D. 705.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), petitioner,
vs.
PAGADIAN CITY TIMBER CO., INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 159308

September 16, 2008
PONENTE: NACHURA, J.

FACTS:
On October 14, 1994, petitioner, through the DENR, and
respondent Pagadian City Timber Co., Inc. executed Industrial Forest
Management Agreement (IFMA) whereby petitioner, authorized
respondent o develop, utilize, and manage a specified forest area
covering 1,999.14 hectares located in Barangays Langapod, Cogonan,
and Datagan, Municipality of Labangan, Zamboanga del Sur, for the
production of timber and other forest products subject to a
production-sharing scheme.
Respondent later submitted the required Comprehensive
Development and Management Plan (CDMP) which the DENR
approved on August 17, 1995.
 However, due to numerous complaints filed
by members of the Subanen tribe regarding
respondent’s alleged failure to implement the
CDMP, disrespect of their rights as an indigenous
people, and the constant threats and harassment
by armed men, a Regional Special Order No. 217
was issued, creating a regional team to evaluate
and assess IFMA No. R-9-040.
Thus, the DENR sent a letter, giving notice of
the evaluation and assessment to be conducted on
the area.
 The assessment revealed that PCT failed to
comply with the CDMP and it was
recommended that the IFMA should be
cancelled. This was done by the DENR, and
affirmed by the Office of the President, but the
CA ruled that the IFMA was a contract that could
not be unilaterally cancelled without infringing
on the rights of respondent to due process and
against impairment of contracts.
 Issue
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely
erred in ruling that IFMA No. R9-040 is a
contract and not a mere privilege granted by the
State to respondent. [YES]
 Supreme Court Ruling
In essence, petitioner argues that an IFMA is not an
ordinary contract which is protected by the
Constitution against impairment but a mere
privilege granted by the State to qualified persons
by means of a permit, license, franchise,
agreement, or other similar concessions, which in
this case is the exploration, development and
utilization of the forest lands belonging to the State
under its full control and supervision. Thus, the
cancellation of the IFMA does not amount to a
rescission of a contract but a mere withdrawal of
this privilege.
 RODOLFO TIGOY, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 144640
June 26, 2006
PONENTE: AZCUNA, J.

FACTS:
Nestor Ong, who had been engaged in the trucking business since
1986 was introduced by his friend to Lolong Bertodazo who signified his
intent to rent the trucks of Ong to transport construction materials to
different parts of the Philippines which led to a Contact to Transport. Ong
ordered his employees Nestor Sumagang and petitioner Rodolfo Tigoy to
bring the trucks to Bertodazo. Ong instructed the two drivers for the loading
of the construction materials and to go back before dawn to which both
employees complied.
The same morning, the Police of Ozamis city received a dispatch,
informing them of the two trucks who did not stop at the check point. Upon
receiving the report, selected police officers boarded their patrol vehicle and
went to the terminal in Ozamis City.
 The trucks were flagged down but the same only
sped away, making the police officers chase and block the
trucks to stop and interrogated the driver who did not
answer, causing the police officers to become suspicious
of the truck’s contents.
Upon inspection, the police officers discovered
piles of sawn lumber beneath the cement bags in both
trucks. The drivers were asked for permits but they could
not produce any. Thus, they were brought and turned
over for investigation while the other truck men,
Bertodazo, Arante and Lopez were not investigated. Ong
was then informed of the incident while his employees
remained detained.
 The information about the apprehended drivers reached DENR
and sent people to investigate. Ong was discovered to be the owner
and the investigation showed that there were 229 pieces of lumber
with a total volume of 6,232.46 board feet in the first Nissan truck;
and, in the Isuzu eight-wheeler truck, 333 pieces of lumber with a total
volume of 5,095.5 board feet. Consequently, the lumber and the
vehicles were seized upon the order of the DENR Regional Executive
Director.
Another information was filed against Nestor Ong, Sumagang,
Lolong Bertodazo and petitioner Tigoy for possession of forest
products without legal permit. Ong and petitioner Tigoy entered pleas
of not guilty during the arraignment. Sumagang died after the case
was filed while the other co-accused, Lolong Bertodazo, was not
arrested and has remained at large.
 Ruling of the Courts
RTC: Ong and Tigoy were found guilty beyond reasonable
dobut of possession of dipterocarp lumber without legal
documents and penalized as qualified theft.

CA: Ong was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. The

conviction of Tigoy is upheld and affirmed in all respects.

On March 24, 2000, petitioner filed with the Court

of Appeals a Motion for Reconsideration praying for his
acquittal but the same was denied on August 23, 2000.
 Issue
Whether or not petitioner Tigoy is guilty of
conspiracy in possessing or transporting lumber
without the necessary permit in violation of the
Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines. [YES].
 Supreme Court Ruling
There are two ways of violating Section 68 of the
Revised Forestry Code:
1) by cutting, gathering and/or collecting
timber or other forest products without a
license; and,
2) by possessing timber or other forest
products without the required legal documents.
 Petitioner’s actions adequately show that
he intentionally participated in the commission
of the offense for which he had been charged
and found guilty by both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals.
The petition is DENIED and the decision of
the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
AMADO TAOPA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

G.R. No. 184098

November 25, 2008
PONENTE: CORONA, J.

FACTS:
On April 2, 1996, the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office of Virac, Catanduanes seized a truck loaded with
illegally-cut lumber and arrested its driver, Placido Cuison. The lumber
was covered with bundles of abaca fiber to prevent detection. On
investigation, Cuison pointed to petitioner Amado Taopa and a certain
Rufino Ogalesco as the owners of the seized lumber.
Taopa, Ogalesco and Cuison were thereafter charged with
violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705. Taopa,
Ogalesco and Cuison pleaded not guilty on arraignment.
 Ruling of the Courts
RTC: Taopa, Ogalesco and Cuison were
thereafter charged with violating Section 68 of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705, as amended.

CA: Only Taopa and Cuison appealed the RTC

decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). Cuison
was acquitted but Taopa's conviction was
affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Taopa is guilty of
violating Sec. 68 of PD No. 705. [YES].

Supreme Court Ruling: Both the RTC and the CA

gave scant consideration to Taopa's alibi because
Cuison's testimony proved Taopa's active
participation in the transport of the seized lumber.
However, the Supreme Court does not agree with
the penalty imposed on Taopa.
 LOEONARDO A. PAAT, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Regional
Executive Director (RED), Region 2 and JOVITO LAYUGAN, JR., in his capacity as
Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO), both of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RICARDO A. BACULI in his capacity as Presiding Judge
of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court at Tuguegarao, Cagayan, and SPOUSES
BIENVENIDO and VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, respondents

G.R. No. 111107

January 10, 1997
PONENTE: TORRES, JR., J.

FACTS:
The controversy on hand had its incipiency
on May 19, 1989 when the truck of private
respondent Victoria de Guzman was seized by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR, for brevity) personnel in Aritao, Nueva
Vizcaya because the driver could not produce the
required documents for the forest products found
concealed in the truck.
 Petitioner Jovito Layugan, the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) in Aritao, Cagayan,
issued on May 23, 1989 an order of confiscation of the truck
and gave the owner thereof fifteen (15) days within which to
submit an explanation why the truck should not be forfeited.
Private respondents, however, failed to submit the required
explanation.

On June 22, 1989, Regional Executive Director Rogelio

Baggayan of DENR sustained petitioner Layugan's action of
confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of the truck invoking
Section 68-A of Presidential Decree No. 705 as amended by
Executive Order No. 277.
 Private respondents filed a letter of reconsideration dated
June 28, 1989 of the June 22, 1989 order of Executive Director
Baggayan, which was, however, denied in a subsequent order of July
12, 1989.2 Subsequently, the case was brought by the petitioners to
the Secretary of DENR pursuant to private respondents' statement in
their letter dated June 28, 1989 that in case their letter for
reconsideration would be denied then "this letter should be
considered as an appeal to the Secretary."
Pending resolution however of the appeal, a suit for replevin,
docketed as Civil Case 4031, was filed by the private respondents
against petitioner Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 2 of Cagayan, which issued a writ ordering
the return of the truck to private respondents.

Both the RTC and CA denied the motion.

 Issues
1. Whether or not an action for replevin prosper to recover a
movable property which is the subject matter of an
administrative forfeiture proceeding in the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources pursuant to Section
68-A of P. D. 705, as amended, entitled The Revised
Forestry Code of the Philippines without violating the
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. [NO.]

2. Whether or not the Secretary of DENR and his

representatives empowered to confiscate and forfeit
conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products in
favor of the government. [YES.]