Alonso v. Villamor

On December 11, 1901, members of the municipal board of Placer wrote Padre Eladio Alonso, the priest in charge of the Roman Catholic church, citing an order of the provincial fiscal that cemeteries, convents and other buildings erected on town land at the town's expense belonged to the town, and demanding that all revenues be turned over to the municipal treasury and the key to the alms box of the image of St. Vicente. On December 13, 1901, they took possession of the church, its appurtenances and contents over the priest's protest. Alonso sued the board members to recover the value of the articles taken and the rental value of the premises from December 11, 1901 until April 1904. The trial court awarded P1,581 (P741 for the articles, P840 as rent) with interest. On appeal, the defendants argued that the municipality owned the property, that value was not proved by competent evidence, and that the action should have been brought by the bishop or the Church, the real party in interest, not by the priest.

1. 1Whether the church property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church and its seizure by the defendants was wrongful.
2. 2Whether the judgment must be reversed because the action was not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, or whether the Court may substitute the proper party on appeal.

The judgment was affirmed with the Church substituted as plaintiff. On the merits, following The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church v. Municipality of Placer and Barlin v. Ramirez, the property belonged to the Church and its seizure was "wrongful and illegal"; the valuation objection could not be raised for the first time on appeal because no objection was made at trial. The Court conceded that the bishop or the Church was the real party in interest and that Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires actions to be prosecuted in that party's name. But Section 110 allows amendment "at any stage of the action, in either the Court of First Instance or the Supreme Court, by adding or striking out the name of any party," and Section 503 bars reversal "on formal or technical grounds." The substitution changed form, not substance: the priest had always sued for the Church, and a retrial would involve the same pleadings, defense and evidence. The Court declared that pleadings are "a means to an end," that "Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust," and that "There should be no vested rights in technicalities." It ordered the process, pleadings, proceedings and decision amended by substituting the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church for Eladio Alonso, and affirmed the judgment as amended, without costs.