FACTS:

1. This is a petition for review of the decision of the CA setting aside two orders of the RTC of Butuan City and the CA resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

2. Two orders of the RTC of Butuan are 1) order granting petitioner's application for a replevin writ 2) order denying private respondent's motion to dismiss.

3. On May 31, 1993, the Mayor of Butuan City created a Task Force Kalikasan to combat illegal logging, log smuggling or possession of and or tansport of illegally cut or produced logs, lumber, flitches and other forest products in the city and is composed of personnel of the Philippine Army, PNP, DENR and office of the City Mayor of Butuan.

4. On July 1, 1993, they caught two vehicles loaded with lumber on a compound and so the Forester Resurrection Maxilom of the DENR issued a temporary seizure order but the caretaker of the coumpound refused to accept the seizure receipt. The seized lumber and vehicles were then tken to the City motorpol and placed in the custody of respondent Lausa.

5. On the next day, the Maxilom submitted a report to the CENRO and on July 6, CENRO issued a notice of confiscaiton which was duly posted for 3 days.

6. On July 29, 1993, DENR Regional Techncal Director recommended to the Secretary the forfeiture of the lumber nd the two vehicles because of lack of claimants which was approved and so CENRO issued on August 15, 1993 the requisite forfeiture orders.

7. More than two months after the lumber had been forfeited, petitioner who claims to be the owner of the lumber, filed a suit for replevin in the RTC. The next day, the trial court issued a preliminary writ of replevin.

8. October 29, 1993, respondent Lausa filed a motion for the approval of a counterbond. Before the court could act on his motion, he moved to dismiss and/or quash the writ of replevin on the ground that the lumber in question was under the custody of the DENR therefore, resort should first be made to the DENR.

9. On November 29, 1993, the trial court denied respondent's application for the approval of the counterbond as well as his motion to dismiss and/or quash the suit for replevin. For this reason, respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the CA where he sough the approval of his counterbond and the nullification of two orders of the RTC where his petition was granted.

10. The decision of the CA was affirmed by the Supreme Court with the modification that the compaint for recovery of personal property is Dismissed.

SUBJECT: Environmental LawCASE: Soledad Dy, petitioner vs CA & Odel Bernado Lausa, respondent