Decision 21 G.R. No. 224469 In this framework, a relationship is formed- "the [s]tate is the trustee, which manages specific natural resources - the trust principal - for the trust principal - for the benefit of the current and future generations - the beneficiaries." "[T]he [S]tate has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible." But with the birth of privatization of many basic utilities, including the supply of water, this has pfoved to be quite challenging. The State is in a continuing battle against lurking evils that has afflicted even itself, such as the excessive pursuit of profit rather than purely the public's interest. These exigencies forced the public trust doctrine to evolve from a mere principle to a resource management term and tool flexible enough to adapt to changing social priorities and address the correlative and consequent dangers thereof. The public is regarded as the beneficial owner of trust resources, and courts can enforce the public trust doctrine even against the government itself. In the exercise of its police power regulation, "the State restricts the use of private property, but none of the property interests in the bundle of rights which constitute ownership is appropriated for use by or for the benefit of the public. Use of the property by the owner was limited, but no aspect of the property is used by or for the public. The deprivation of use can in fact be total and it will not constitute compensable taking if nobody else acquires use of the property or any interest therein." 64 To conclude, the dita tree, as a specie of timber, was cut and collected beyond reasonable doubt from a private land, as contemplated in Section 77 of PD 705, as amended, or at the very least, a forest land or an alienable or disposable public land converted from ancestral lands, is covered, too, by PD 705, as amended. This notwithstanding that the land is also petitioners' ancestral domain or land which they own sui generis. 3. Was the dita tree cut and collected without authority granted by the State? There is, however, reasonable doubt that the dita tree was cut and collected without any authority granted by the State. It is a general pi:_inciple in law that in ma/uni prohibitum case, good faith or motive is not a defense because the law punishes the prohibited act itself. The penal clause of Section 77 of PD 705, as amended punishes the 64 Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. v. Gozun, 520 Phil. 457, 4 78 (2006); Philippine Ports Authority v. Cipres Stevedoring and Arrastre Services, Inc., 501 Phil. 646, 663 (2005): "As 'police power is so far-reaching in scope, that it has become almost impossible to limit its sweep,' 48 whatever proprietary right that respondent may have acquired must necessarily give way to a valid exercise of police power, thus: 4. In the interplay between such a fundamental right and police power, especially so where the assailed governmental action deals with the use of one's property, the latter is accorded much leeway. That is settled law ... "