ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10778  March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO<br /><br />034 Phil 541

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10778. March 29, 1916. ]

    THE MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS, ILOILO, applicant-appellee, v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO, objector-appellant.

    J. M. Arroyo for Appellant.

    The provincial fiscal of Iloilo, F. Enaje for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    EASEMENTS; RIGHT OF WAY; MUNICIPAL PLAZA. — As the record shows neither the date when the Spanish Government ceded to the Catholic Church the plot where later the church of Dumangas was built, nor the date when there was opened to the public the square adjacent thereto, now claimed by the municipal council of said pueblo, there are good grounds for presuming that, in the apportionment of lands made when said pueblo was organized and when the land adjacent to the church was designated as the town square, according to the provision of article 567 of the Civil Code there was imposed upon said plaza the burden of easement of right of way to the public to allow entrance to or exit by the church door which was opened for the purpose on the aforementioned plaza. For this reason the municipality of Dumangas has never erected on this square any permanent building nor made any constructions whatever which have obstructed the public’s passage and access to the side door of said church, and the public has been enjoying the right of passage over the land in litigation for an almost immemorial length of time. Therefore an easement of right of way over the disputed land has been acquired by prescription, not only by the Church, but also by the public which, without objection or protest whatever, has availed itself of said easement.


    D E C I S I O N


    TORRES, J. :


    This appeal by bill of exceptions was raised by counsel for the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro from the judgment of December 22, 1914, wherein the judge of the Court of First Instance ordered the inscription in the registry of property in the name of the applicant municipal corporation, of lot 3 of parcel, of lot 2 of parcel 5, and of lot 1 of parcel 4, and therefore disallowed the objector’s adverse claim with respect to said lot 1 of parcel 4.

    By a written application of November 1, 1913, counsel for the municipality of Dumangas, Province of Iloilo, petitioned the Court of First Instance of said province, in conformity with the law, for the registration of six parcels of land of which said municipality claimed to be the absolute owner. These lands are situated in the barrio of Balabag of the pueblo of Dumanga, Iloilo; their description and boundaries are given in detail in the plans and technical descriptions which were made a part of the application, and they contain a total area of 41,815 square meters. The applicant alleged that it had acquired said lands by possession dating from time immemorial; that it was occupying one of said parcels as a public market, the rest of them being unoccupied, etc., etc.

    The application for registration was opposed by the Director of Lands, several private parties, and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro who, in a writing of December 8, 1914, set forth that he objected to the registration of lot 2, described in the technical plan Exhibit A, and to that of lot 1 of parcel 4, specified in detail in the plan Exhibit B. He stated that his objections were based on the ground that said lots absolutely and exclusively belonged to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, which had been in quiet and peaceable possession of some since time immemorial, and therefore prayed that the petition for registration be denied.

    During the hearing of this case, the applicant municipality requested that there should be stricken out of its application for registration certain parcels of land mentioned in its verbal petition, found on page 152 of the record. For this reason all the oppositions that had been filed with respect to those portions were considered withdrawn, save that of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro with regard to lot 1 of parcel 4. After the close of the trial the court rendered the judgment aforementioned, to which counsel for the objector excepted and from which after taking the proper legal steps , he duly appealed.

    In this case the only issue raised and submitted for our decision is whether the applicant municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo, is or is not entitled to have inscribed in its name in the registry of property lot 1 of parcel 4, which lot, according to the application and technical plan Exhibit B, contains a total of 2,183 square meters and is adjoined on the northeast by lands of the Roman Catholic Church, on the southeast, by lands of the same Church and by those of Crisostomo Divinagracia, and on the southwest and northwest by street without names.

    The record shows it to have been duly proven that the disputed lot 1 of parcel 4, is adjacent to the same wall that forms the side of the church of poueblo of Duamangas; that in said wall or partition there is a side door through which the faithful pass in order to enter the church, and that in order to do so they compelled to cross the land in question. The applicant municipality claims to be the exclusive owner of the said lot 1, while the objector, the Church, also alleged itself to be the owner, inasmuch as it has been exercising acts of ownership over the said property; that the applicant’s contention is unfounded, in that it maintains that said church of Dumangas was constructed on the very edge of the land belonging to the church, without leaving a reasonable space for the use of the faithful, who are accustomed to enter the building by means of said door; and that, inasmuch as its own lands lie on the other side of the church, the most logical thing would have been for it to have built the church in the middle of its own land.

    However reasonable may be the contention of the objecting corporation, the evidence does not justify its claim, inasmuch as the record shows it to have been conclusively proven that the municipal government of the pueblo of Dumangas has been in possession of the lot in question for more than thirty years, and during this period of time has performed thereon acts of indisputable ownership, such as that of erecting a flag-staff for the use of the municipality and that of using said land as a corral for branding cattle; as a public square, it served as a place for posting the lists of persons called up as military conscripts and also as a place for the recognition or identification of malefactors killed by the guardia civil, and it was here where on holidays small mortars were placed for firing salutes. After the revolution, the applicant municipality constructed on said land a building that served first as a theater, then as a school, and finally as a cockpit. On none of these occasions did the Church object to or oppose such acts of the applicant municipality during the former Spanish or the present American sovereignty. The record also shows that the disputed land is now occupied by a billiard hall and by several houses belonging to private parties who pay a rental to the municipality of Dumangas; that the billiard hall was erected by a concessionary who obtained the necessary permit from said municipality of Dumangas itself, in 1912, without opposition on the part of the objector to these acts of ownership. These facts are proven by the testimony of Quintin Salas, 44 years of age, who says that since he was 7 years old, he has known that the land in litigation belonged to the municipality of Dumangas, and by that of Celestino Dominado, 52 years of age, who stated that from the time of his earliest recollection he has known that the applicant corporation was the owner of the disputed property. The weight of this testimony was not over-balanced by that of the witnesses presented by the adverse claimant.

    The circumstance that the priests in charge of the parish church of Dumangas consented to the performance by the municipal council of said pueblo of acts of possession and ownership over the lot of land in dispute, without their having protested against and objected to the same, clearly shows that the parish church did not then consider that it had a right to the portion of land it now claims, and for this reason we accept the conclusions of fact contained in the judgment appealed from. Besides; it must be remembered that the trial judge had an opportunity to see the witnesses, to observe their manner of testifying and to determine their relative credibility; and the weight of evidence does not always lie on the side of the party who presents the most witnesses.

    The record shows that the church of the pueblo of Dumangas was constructed in or about the year 1887; that its wall on the southeast side adjoins the building lot in question; and that since the construction of the church there has been a side door in this wall through which the worshippers attending divine service enter and leave, they having to pass over and cross the land in question. It is therefore to be presumed that the use of said side door also carries with it the use by faithful Catholics of the municipal land over which they have had to pass in order to gain access to said place of worship, and, as this use of the land has been continuous, it is evident that the Church has acquired a right to such use by prescription, in view of the time that has elapsed since the church was built and dedicated to religious worship, during which period the municipality has not prohibited the passage over the land by the persons who attend services customarily held in said church.

    The record does not disclose the date when the Government ceded to the Church the land on which the church building was afterwards erected, nor the date of the laying out of the adjacent square that is claimed by the municipality and on which the side door of the church, which is used as an entrance by the people who frequent this building, gives. There are good grounds for presuming that in apportioning lands at the time of the establishment of the pueblo of Dumangas and in designating the land adjacent to the church as a public square, this latter was impliedly encumbered with the easement of a right of way to allow the public to enter and leave the church — a case provided for by article 567 of the Civil Code — for the municipality has never erected any building or executed any work which would have obstructed the passage and access to the side door of the church, and the public has been enjoying the right of way over the land in question for an almost immemorable length of time. Therefore an easement of right of way over said land has been acquired by prescription, not only by the church, but also by the public which, without objection or protest, has continually availed itself of the easement in question.

    For the foregoing reasons, by which the errors assigned to the judgment appealed from have been refuted, said judgment should be, as it is hereby, affirmed. The land in litigation shall, however, be understood to be burdened with an easement of right of way to allow passage to and from the side door of the church of Dumangas, to such extent as may be necessary for the transit of persons and four-wheeled vehicles. No special finding is made as to costs. So ordered.

    Johnson, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10778  March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO<br /><br />034 Phil 541




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED