G.R. No. L-3016 - JANUARY 1909 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-3016January 29, 1909 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church vs. Municipalities of Caloocan, et al. G.R. No. L-4832January 28, 1909 Muñoz & Co. vs. John S. Hord G.R. No. L-4725January 28, 1909 United States vs. Jacinto de los Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-4816January 27, 1909 Francisco Q. Gonzalez vs. Carlos Palanca Tan-Guinlay G.R. No. L-4706January 27, 1909 Ramon Papa vs. Francisco Martinez G.R. No. L-4474January 27, 1909 Bernabe Alcera vs. Saturnino Nery G.R. No. L-4715January 26, 1909 United States vs. El Chino Chia-Tua G.R. No. L-4710January 26, 1909 Leon Agcaoili vs. Benito Acasio G.R. No. L-4374January 26, 1909 Rufina Roces vs. Francisco Jalandoni, et al. G.R. No. L-4194January 26, 1909 Ko Bengco vs. Sheriff of the Province of Iloilo, et al. G.R. No. L-3783January 26, 1909 Damaso Santiago, et al. vs. Insular Government G.R. No. L-3714January 26, 1909 Isabelo M. Montano vs. Insular Government, et al. G.R. No. L-4813January 23, 1909 United States vs. Potenciano Siamsico G.R. No. L-4721January 23, 1909 Ricardo Nolan vs. Basilio Majinay G.R. No. L-5101January 21, 1909 Teodoro M. Beech vs. A. S. Crossfield, et al. G.R. No. L-4291January 21, 1909 Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Custodio Dauden G.R. No. L-4765January 20, 1909 Ang Seng Quen, et al. vs. Juan Te Chico, et al. G.R. No. L-5049January 19, 1909 Alfredo Chanco vs. Anacleta Madrilejos, et al. G.R. No. L-4915January 19, 1909 United States vs. Vy Can Siu G.R. No. L-4766January 19, 1909 Ang Quian Cieg, et al. vs. Juan Te Chico, et al. G.R. No. L-4750January 19, 1909 United States vs. Ricardo F. Gutierrez G.R. No. L-4720January 19, 1909 Carlos Gsell vs. Valeriano Veloso Yap-Jue G.R. No. L-4676January 19, 1909 United States vs. Pedro Togonon G.R. No. L-4563January 19, 1909 United States vs. Gabino Soriano, et al. G.R. No. L-3988January 19, 1909 Guillermo Yacapin vs. Julian Jibero G.R. No. L-3966January 19, 1909 Juan Laeno I, et al. vs. Agapito Laeno G.R. No. L-4461January 16, 1909 Macario Samson vs. Vicenta Salvilla, et al. G.R. No. L-5050January 14, 1909 United States vs. Go-Siaco G.R. No. L-4495January 14, 1909 Ty Sue, et al. vs. John S. Hord G.R. No. L-4810January 13, 1909 Victoria Garcia vs. B. Montague G.R. No. L-4596January 13, 1909 United States vs. Esteban Fortaleza G.R. No. L-4849January 12, 1909 Timoteo Castro, et al. vs. Adolph Wislizenus, et al. G.R. No. L-4604January 12, 1909 Guiterrez Hermanos vs. Antonio de la Riva G.R. No. L-4089January 12, 1909 Arturo Pelayo vs. Marcelo Lauron, et al. G.R. No. L-4634January 11, 1909 United States vs. Uy-Kue-Beng G.R. No. L-4627January 11, 1909 United States vs. El Chino Que-Quenco G.R. No. L-4350January 11, 1909 Monica Cason vs. F.W. Rickards, et al. G.R. No. L-3187January 10, 1909 Micaela Sandeliz vs. Paz Reyes G.R. No. L-4680January 9, 1909 Roberto Moreno vs. Ago Chi G.R. No. L-5120January 8, 1909 Timoteo Gonzalez vs. George N. Wolfe G.R. No. L-4841January 8, 1909 James F. Macleod vs. Philippine Publishing Company G.R. No. L-4762January 8, 1909 Alberto Lagahit vs. Simeon Nengasca, et al. G.R. No. L-4648January 8, 1909 Claus Spreckels, et al. vs. D. H. Ward, et al. G.R. No. L-4393January 8, 1909 La Compañia General de Tabacos vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-4001January 5, 1909 Silvestra Lubrico vs. Leona Arbado G.R. No. L-4000January 5, 1909 Andres Elumbarning vs. Hermogenes Elumbaring The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church vs. Municipalities of Caloocan, et al. Muñoz & Co. vs. John S. Hord United States vs. Jacinto de los Santos, et al. Francisco Q. Gonzalez vs. Carlos Palanca Tan-Guinlay Ramon Papa vs. Francisco Martinez Bernabe Alcera vs. Saturnino Nery United States vs. El Chino Chia-Tua Leon Agcaoili vs. Benito Acasio Rufina Roces vs. Francisco Jalandoni, et al. Ko Bengco vs. Sheriff of the Province of Iloilo, et al. Damaso Santiago, et al. vs. Insular Government Isabelo M. Montano vs. Insular Government, et al. United States vs. Potenciano Siamsico Ricardo Nolan vs. Basilio Majinay Teodoro M. Beech vs. A. S. Crossfield, et al. Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Custodio Dauden Ang Seng Quen, et al. vs. Juan Te Chico, et al. Alfredo Chanco vs. Anacleta Madrilejos, et al. United States vs. Vy Can Siu Ang Quian Cieg, et al. vs. Juan Te Chico, et al. United States vs. Ricardo F. Gutierrez Carlos Gsell vs. Valeriano Veloso Yap-Jue United States vs. Pedro Togonon United States vs. Gabino Soriano, et al. Guillermo Yacapin vs. Julian Jibero Juan Laeno I, et al. vs. Agapito Laeno Macario Samson vs. Vicenta Salvilla, et al. United States vs. Go-Siaco Ty Sue, et al. vs. John S. Hord Victoria Garcia vs. B. Montague United States vs. Esteban Fortaleza Timoteo Castro, et al. vs. Adolph Wislizenus, et al. Guiterrez Hermanos vs. Antonio de la Riva Arturo Pelayo vs. Marcelo Lauron, et al. United States vs. Uy-Kue-Beng United States vs. El Chino Que-Quenco Monica Cason vs. F.W. Rickards, et al. Micaela Sandeliz vs. Paz Reyes Roberto Moreno vs. Ago Chi Timoteo Gonzalez vs. George N. Wolfe James F. Macleod vs. Philippine Publishing Company Alberto Lagahit vs. Simeon Nengasca, et al. Claus Spreckels, et al. vs. D. H. Ward, et al. La Compañia General de Tabacos vs. City of Manila Silvestra Lubrico vs. Leona Arbado Andres Elumbarning vs. Hermogenes Elumbaring The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-3016             January 29, 1909

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH,plaintiff,
vs.
THE MUNICIPALITIES OF CALOOCAN, MORONG, AND MALABON, OF THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.,defendants.

Hartigan, Marple, Rohde and Gutierrez, for plaintiff.
A. Cruz Herrera, Teodoro Gonzalez, Deogracias Reyes, Pelipe Buencamino, and Ramon Diokno, for defendants.

JOHNSON,J.:

This was an action to recover the following property:

The petition of the plaintiff concluded with the following prayer:

On the 6th day of January, 1906, an answer was filed in said cause alleged to be the defendant, without indicating whether said answer was for all of the defendants or for one or for more of them. This answer, however, contained a general and special denial. Under the general denial all of the facts contained in the complaint were denied. Under the special denial several defenses were interposed: First, that the properties designated in the complaint were a part of the public domain and belonged to the State (Gobierno Insular); second, that theIglesia Filipina Independientetook possession of the said property by virtue of a circular of the Insular Government of the 10th of January, 1903, for the purpose of administering it for the benefit of the inhabitants of said municipalities; and third, that theIglesia Catolica Apostolica Romanadid not have civil personality to possess and acquire the ownership ofbienes parroquialesconstructed being the time of the Spanish Government; that the priests of said church, during the existence of the sovereignty of Spain in the Philippine Islands were paid by the Government, and therefore the ownership of the property was in the Spanish Government.

On the 19th day of January, 1906, the said defendant Lazaro Baens appeared and answered said complaint, denying the right ofLa Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Romana, as well as the right ofLa Iglesia Filipina Independiente, and as well as the right of Gregorio Aglipay to occupy or administer thevisita deJulong-Dujat.

On the 2nd day of January, 1906, the defendant Canuto Ureta answered the complaint stating that he had no interest whatever in thevisita deTinajeros.

On the 14th day of January, 1906, Potenciano Garcia field an answer denying that the plaintiff had any right or interest whatever in thevisitadeDampalit. Some of the other defendants appeared and answered, renouncing any right whatever in the properties in question. Finally, commencing with the 15th of May, 1907, testimony was presented by the plaintiff and some of the defendants, with reference to some of the properties mentioned in said complaint. With reference to the followingvisitas deNingan, Catmon, Tinajeros, Maysilo, Matahong, and Muson, and the cemeteries of Morong and Cardona, none of the defendants appeared nor presented any proof whatever.

With reference to each of the above-namedvisitasand the said cemeteries, the plaintiff presented three or more witnesses, each of which testifiedLa Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Romanahad been in the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of said properties, and that they had been used by it for time immemorial, for the purposes of said church, until said church had been molested in its quiet possession of the same by some of the defendants.

With reference to thevisitasof Dampalit and Julong- Dujat, the defendants Potenciano Garcia and Lazaro Baens appeared and attempted to show that they were each entitled to the possession of the sitios of Dampalit and Julong-Dujat, respectively. As against the proof of these defendants, the plaintiffs showed by a number of witnesses that saidvisitashad been dedicated byLa Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Romanafor the purposes of said church and that said church had been in the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of saidvisitasfor a time immemorial, using the same for the exclusive purposes of said church.

With reference to the properties mentioned in said complaint situated in the pueblo of Caloocan, no proof whatever was offered by the plaintiff nor by any of the defendants. There being no proof therefore in the record, relating to the right of the possession of these properties situated in the said pueblo of Caloocan, we make no finding as to the right of possession of the parties in this action.

No proof whatever was offered by any of the parties with reference to the church and cemetery situated in the barrio of Novaliches in the pueblo of Malabon. We, therefore, make no finding with reference to the right of the parties to this action to these properties.

The question presented by the pleadings and the proof is whether or not the prayer of the petition should be granted.

The evidence discloses, beyond peradventure of doubt, that the plaintiff had been in the quiet and peaceable possession of the different parcels of property, with reference to which evident was presented, for a period immemorial, until some time between the years 1896-1899, when they were molested in their possession and deprived of the same by some of the defendants. This court has repeatedly decided that where a person has been in the long possession of real property and has been derived of the possession thereof, he may recover it against one in possession, unless the latter can show a better right thereto. (Bishop of Cebuvs.Mangaron, 6 Phil. Rep., 286; Barlinvs.Ramirez, 7 Phil. Rep., 41; Romana Catholic Apostolic Churchvs.Santos et al., 7 Phil. Rep., 66; The City of Manilavs.The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, 8 Phil. Rep., 763; The Roman Catholic Apostolic Churchvs.The Municipality of Tarlac et al., 9 Phil. Rep., 450; The Roman Catholic Apostolic Churchvs.Certain Municipalities, etc., 10 Phil. Rep., 1; The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church,vs.The Municipality of Badoc et al., 10 Phil. Rep., 659; The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church,vs.The Municipality of Cuyapo et al., 9 Phil. Rep., 457; The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church,vs.Certain Municipalities, etc., 9 Phil. Rep., 691.)

Since the decisions of this court in the foregoing cases, the Supreme Court of the United States, in an appeal from a decision of the supreme court of Porto Rico, in the case of the Municipality of Poncevs.The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, in Porto Rico1(October term, 1907), (6 Off. Gaz., 1213) held, in a case in which the facts were very similar to the fact in the various above-cited cases, under laws analogous to the laws in force in the Philippine Islands, relating to the property of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, that saidchurch had not only a right to the possession of its church edifices, but was the lawful owner of the same.

In the case of The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al.vs.The Municipality of Placer (11 Phil. Rep., 315) the facts therein being very analogous to the facts in the present case, this court followed the said decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that, under the Spanish law heretofore existing in these Islands, and the provisions of the treaty of Paris, the The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, is the owner of the church buildings, convents, and cemeteries and the municipalities wherein the same are situated have no right of ownership therein by reason of funds or lands contributed for the foundation or erection thereof.

Our attention has not been called to any express grant or grants of land by the Crown of Spain for the purposes of the church upon which particular churches were erected, and it is believed that, during the early history of the sovereignty of Spain in the Indies, no such grants can be found, but no fact is better established in both secular and ecclesiastical history than the fact that the Crown of Spain and the Pope always cooperated from the very earliest history of the possession of the Indies in the extension of the great benefits offered by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church to theIndio, as well as to the peoples of Europe. If any difference whatever existed in the efforts thus made in the great interest which the church took in the different peoples, it was in favor of theIndio. Scarcely had the Indies been discovered until the Pope and the Crown of Spain began to manifest a deep interest in the religious and educational welfare of the people of the Indies. (Bula deAlejandro VI of the 4th of May, 1943: also theBulaof the 16th of December, 1501; Ordenanza 5 (a) por elConsejo de Las Indias, 1575; law 10, title 1, book 1 of the Laws of theIndias, of the 1st of June, 1574; law 14, title 2, book 1 of the Laws of theIndias, and many others, the collection of which may be found in vol. 7 ofLegislacion Ultramarina,p. 476.)

From the reading of these variousBulas and royal decrees andordenanzas, it will be seen that the Government and the church were constantly working together for the advancement of the religious and educational welfare of theIndios. The Government lent its most enthusiastic support of the efforts that were made by the church in this regard, even to the extent of paying out of the public exchequer, funds, together with funds contributed by theencomenderosand the people of the pueblos, for the purpose of erecting the magnificent Catholic churches existing everywhere throughout the Spanish island possessions. While the Crown of Spain always reserved a certain control over the operations of the Catholic Church, yet no one can doubt that, when theselandswere donated or designated and the church edifices were erected thereon, it was the intention of the Crown that such lands and such edifices should be devoted absolutely to the use of the church. It is a well-known fact that, when a church edifice of the Roman Catholic Church was one accepted and dedicated for religious purposes, it thereafter could never be used for any other purpose. The Catholic Church certainly had a right to believe at least that, during the three hundred years or more that it occupied its churches in the Philippine Islands, without protest or objection on the part of the Crown of Spain, the Crown had intended at least that they should become the absolute owners of such properties. And no protest has been called to our attention during a time immemorial and no protest or objection by different pueblos to the right of ownership which the church has exercised for from two to three hundred years over the properties upon which the edifices of the The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church were erected. Not only is it believed that the Crown of Spain intended that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church should exercise absolute dominion over such properties, but under the treaty of Paris the Government of the United States obligated itself to protect all such interests. The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church occupied the different properties in question in this case for a time so long that no one in the pueblos could remember when such properties were not occupied and used for the benefit of said church, until about the years 1896-1899. The occupancy of property for from two to three hundred years without protest of any kind whatever from the donors would seem at least to be sufficient time, in the absence of positive proof to the contrary, that such donation was made for the purpose of transferring to the donee all rights and interests in such property.

Therefore, adhering to and following the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of The Municipality of Poncevs.The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, in Porto Rico¹(6 Off. Gaz., 1213) and the decision of this court in the case of The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church,vs.The Municipality of Placer,²we do hereby find that the plaintiff herein entitled to the right of possession and ownership of the following properties:

each situated in barrios of the same names, in the pueblo of Malabon, Province of Rizal; and also to the right of possession and ownership of thecementerioof the pueblo of Morong and thecementerioof Cardona in the pueblo of Morong.

With reference to the legal questions presented by the answer of the defendant relating to the capacity of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church to maintain this action with reference to the constitutionality of Act No. 1376, by which this court was given original jurisdiction in the present case, we believe these questions have been decided by this court in several of its preceding decisions, which arguments we hereby make a part of this decision. The prayer of the petition of the plaintiff is, therefore, hereby granted. Therefore let a writ of possession be issued against Gregorio Aglipay and each of the other defendants above named, who may be found in the possession of any of the properties to which we have hereby granted to the plaintiff the right of possession and ownership. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Willard, and Tracey, JJ.,concur.
Carson, J.,reserved his vote.

Footnotes