Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > March 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 11629 March 30, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOAQUIN v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

036 Phil 577:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 11629. March 30, 1917. ]

THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOAQUIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO, objector-appellee.

Francisco Enage for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MUNICIPALITIES; ALIENATION OF PROPERTY BY COMPROMISE. — Pursuant to article 1812 of the Civil Code, the municipal council of a pueblo of these Islands is authorized, as a juridic person, to enter into contracts of compromise in the manner and with the requisites necessary to alienate property belonging to the municipality as prescribed in section 40, subsection (c) of the Municipal Code, provided that such compromise be approved by the provincial governor.

2. ID.; VALIDITY OF CONDITIONS OF COMPROMISE. — Unless the contrary be proven, it is presumed that the conditions agreed upon in a compromise and the formalities established by law, in accordance with the provisions of section 334, Nos. 14, 18, and 31 of the Code of Procedure, have been complied with.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


This appeal by bill of exceptions was filed by counsel for the municipality of San Joaquin, Province of Iloilo, from the judgment of November 30, 1915, in which the judge for the Twenty-third Judicial District, in granting the application filed by said municipality for the registration of three parcels of land, decreed the adjudication and inscription of the property in the name and in behalf of the applicant, with the exception of the lot A of the first parcel, belonging to the objector corporation.

By a written application of November 24, 1914, the provincial fiscal of Iloilo, in the name and representation of the municipality of San Joaquin, applied for the registration in accordance with law of three parcels of land of which this municipality claimed to be the absolute owner. He alleged that the first parcel was situated in the town of San Joaquin, the second, in the barrio of Tarabunan, and the third, in that of Tiolas, all of the district of the said municipality and the description and boundaries of which are given in detail in the plans and technical descriptions Exhibits A, B, and C, made a part of the application; that the applicant corporation acquired the said parcels of land by possession since time immemorial; that the land was unencumbered; and that the first parcel was occupied by the municipal building, a schoolhouse and the public market.

On October 1, 1915, counsel for The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro, a legally organized unipersonal corporation, filed a written opposition to the aforesaid application and claimed as its exclusive property 15,576 square meters, designated as lot A, of the first parcel of land specified and described in the plan Exhibit A. He alleged that the objector-corporation had become the owner of this lot A by a compromise entered into by and between it and the municipality of Miagao, as shown by a resolution dated May 14, 1910 (which document, as Exhibit 1, was attached to the opposition, as was also the plan of the land to which the said compromise refers, Exhibit 2, and the letter Exhibit 3, written by the provincial governor of Iloilo approving the compromise). The objector’s counsel therefore requested that the said lot A of the first parcel of land be excluded from the decree of registration issued in favor of the applicant-corporation.

Counsel for the latter alleged in his reply that even though the documents presented by the objector were authentic, they were nevertheless illegal, invalid and utterly valueless, inasmuch as (a) the session of the municipal council of Miagao, in which the said compromise was authorized, was illegal, because it was not attended by a sufficient number of councilors to form a quorum; (b) that the said resolution of the municipal council of Miagao (then the principal town of the present municipality of San Joaquin; (c) that, for the same reason, the act of the municipal president of Miagao in executing the said document of compromise was illegal; (d) that the approval of the said compromise by the provincial governor was likewise illegal and beyond his powers; (e) that the acts of the officials and corporations that intervened in the said compromise constituted a violation of subsection (c) of section 40 of the Municipal Code, inasmuch as this section authorizes municipalities to encumber or alienate municipal property only when a benefit may accrue to them thereby, but never to the prejudice of municipal interests; and (f) that the land claimed by the objector is required for the development and advancement of the municipality of San Joaquin. Applicants counsel therefore prayed the court to declare null and void the documents 1, 2 and 3 presented by the objector, and to decree the registration of all the said properties in favor of the municipality of San Joaquin.

After the hearing of the case, wherein both parties adduced evidence, the court rendered the judgment aforementioned, to which counsel for the applicant municipality excepted and in writing moved for a reopening of the proceedings and a new trial. This motion was denied, exception was taken by the moving party, and, after the proper bill of exceptions was presented the same was approved and forwarded to the clerk of this court.

The issue to be decided in this case is whether or not the municipality of San Joaquin is entitled to enter in the property registry lot A of the first parcel of land, situated in the town of the said municipality and concerning the identity and location of which there is no disagreement between the parties. In regard to the other parcels of land and to the rest of the first parcel, also the subject-matter of the application and the registration of which has been decreed, no opposition was made and the judgment to the lower court became final in respect thereto.

Whatever be the result of the testimony introduced at trial by the municipality of San Joaquin, and, furthermore, even supposing that testimony was favorable to the claim made by this municipality, in deciding this case consideration must first be given to the compromise agreed upon, May 14, 1910, by and between the Catholic Church and the municipality of Miagao -- which municipal corporation represented the present pueblo of San Joaquin, then a barrio attached to and forming part of the municipality of Miagao. According to article 1816 of the Civil Code, a compromise has, with regard to the parties, the same force as a res adjudicata.

It is unquestionable that the municipality claimed to be the owner of the parcel of land in controversy; but, once the compromise was stipulated the parties thereto must abide by it (Civ. Code, arts. 1809, 1812, and 1815), unless there has been error, deceit, violence, or forgery in the compromise (art. 1817), and no such circumstances has even been alleged.

It is to be seen why the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church made no special effort to prove that it had performed acts of possession over the lot A, inasmuch as its opposition is founded on the recognition of its ownership in said land through the compromise of May 14, 1910, (resolution marked Exhibit 1) with the municipality of Miagao, which formerly represented the present town of San Joaquin. That compromise was duly approved by the provincial governor of Iloilo on June 4th of the same year, according to the document Exhibit 3. The document Exhibit 1, entitled "Resolution containing a compromise," is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A session of the municipal council of Miagao, Province of Iloilo, having been held on May 5, 1910, to pass upon the claim filed by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in reference to the boundaries between the properties of the said Church and those of the municipality in the suburb of San Joaquin, the council resolved: To compromise under the following conditions the claim presented against the municipality by the said Catholic Church.

"1. The plan of the municipal property of Miagao situated in the barrio of San Joaquin, prepared by J. M. Woodroof, a surveyor of the Bureau of Lands, in accordance with the survey made on May 24 and 26, 1909. and approved by the Director of Lands on August 10, 1909, or a correct copy of this plan, shall form an integral and essential part of the present compromise.

"2. On the said plan a straight line designated as ’Alphabeta’ is drawn south of the schoolhouse and the municipal building. All the southeastern part of the said line, to wit, that comprised by the lines Alpha, Beta, Delta, Mu, Nu, Pi, Rho, Tau, and Omega, and marked with the Roman numeral I, is recognized by the municipality to be of the lawful and exclusive ownership of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, as likewise all the trees, plants and sowings, and all else found on the aforesaid portion marked with the numeral I.

"3. The part marked with the numeral Ii and comprised between the lines Gamma, Eta, Lambda, and Kappa, is recognized and admitted by the municipality to be of the absolute and exclusive ownership of the said Catholic Church, but the Church shall bind itself not to fence in or enclose the line Gamma-Eta and the line Eta-Lambda.

"4. All the southeastern part of the property that is shown on the plan under the Roman numeral III is also of the absolute ownership of the Catholic Church, but as to this portion the municipality has never claimed any interest whatever.

"5. All the other remaining parts shown on the plan, with the exception of those already mentioned, are recognized by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church to be of the absolute and lawful ownership of the suburb of San Joaquin, municipality of Miagao, Province of Iloilo.

"6. The municipality of Miagao binds itself never under any circumstances to erect or construct a building of any kind in the public square shown on the plan as Lot Number One.

"7. Likewise the municipality binds itself to keep open to traffic, now and always, the streets named Calle Domingo and Calle Santo Niño, shown on the plan.

"8. Special, ample and sufficient power is conferred upon the municipal president and he is hereby authorized to sign this compromise jointly with the representative of the Roma Catholic Apostolic Church, and this compromise shall be valid, final, and effective on the date of its approval by the provincial governor; and both the municipality and the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church agree, by themselves and their successors, to rigorously observe all the conditions contained in this compromise, and the municipality hereby delivers to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church the parts or portions (of the property) recognized by the municipality to be of the lawful and exclusive ownership of the said Church.

"Miagao, May 14, 1910.

(Sgd.) "GREGORIO ROSALES,

"Representative of the R. C. A. Church.

(Sgd.) "TOMAS NONATO, municipal president.

" [OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MIAGAO. ]"

The portion ceded to the church by the said compromise and described in the plan Exhibit 2, made a part of the said document, concords exactly with the lot A shown on the applicant’s plan Exhibit A. Moreover, the witnesses Sanglap and Subillo admitted that the lot A and the lad recognized with the said "resolution containing a compromise," are identical.

As a juridic person, the municipality of Miagao was authorize to execute a contract of compromise in the manner and with the requisites necessary to alienate its property (Civ. Code, art. 1812), and such requisite and formalities were fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of section 40, subsection (c) of the Municipal Code. The provincial governor was of that opinion when he gave his approval to the contract of compromise, which was deemed to benefit the contracting municipality for the reason that it thereby avoided a lawsuit and got the Church to renounce other claims and to recognize the municipality’s right in the other real properties sought to be registered. Furthermore, the record does not show that the Church, on its part, failed to comply with the condition imposed in the compromise, and it is presumed that the latter was executed in accordance with law and that the formalities established by law have been complied with (Code of Civ. Proc., sec. 334, Nos. 14, 18 and 31). There is no proof contrary to these presumptions.

For the foregoing reasons whereby the errors assigned are deemed to have been refuted, and as the judgment appealed from is in accordance with law and the merits of the case, it should be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Moreland, J., concurs in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11257 March 1, 1917 - MARTIN QUILOP v. MARIA U. COTTONG

    044 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. 11409 March 12, 1917 - RAMON ONGPIN v. VICENTA RIVERA

    044 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11374 March 14, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN SANTIAGO

    041 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10152 March 29, 1917 - FELIX ROBLES v. LIZARRAGA HERMANOS

    041 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. 9802 March 31, 1917 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, AUSTRALIA & CHINA

    041 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. 10551 March 3, 1917 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. ALFRED BERWIN

    036 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 11067 March 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    036 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11602 March 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. WALTER E. OLSEN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 12581 March 13, 1917 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ

    036 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 11179 March 14, 1917 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. AGUSTIN BELZUNCE

    036 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 11471 March 14, 1917 - CO PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 11550 March 14, 1917 - LUPO MERCADO v. ANANIAS VICENCIO

    036 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 11994 March 14, 1917 - STAPLES-HOWE PRINTING COMPANY v. MANILA BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    036 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 12117 March 14, 1917 - LIM YIONG v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 12180 March 14, 1917 - MARIANO CAÑETE v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 12379 March 14, 1917 - LAO HU NIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 11476 March 15, 1917 - MAGDALENO AGATEP v. JUAN TAGUINOD

    036 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 11686 March 15, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO CARDONA

    036 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 11696 March 15, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA GUILLERMA PALISOC, ET AL.

    036 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 10559 March 16, 1917 - AGUSTIN ASENCIO v. ROMAN BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 11759 March 16, 1917 - CAYETANO LIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 11681 March 17, 1917 - JOSE VILLAREAL v. RAFAEL CORPUS

    036 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 12354 March 17, 1917 - GREGORIO REMATA v. JUAN JAVIER

    036 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 12508 March 17, 1917 - JOSE DEOGRACIAS v. JOSE C. ABREU, ET AL.

    036 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 11441 March 19, 1917 - MARIA ELOISA ROCHA v. EMILIA P. TUASON

    036 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 10598 March 20, 1917 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ANASTACIO ALANO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 11198 March 20, 1917 - THOS B. AITKEN v. JULIAN LA O

    036 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 11548 March 24, 1917 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    036 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 11730 March 24, 1917 - FELIX NATE v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    036 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 12391 March 26, 1917 - UNITES STATES v. TEOPISTA VERAY

    036 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 12454 March 26, 1917 - ANGEL PALMA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 12706 March 26, 1917 - RUPERTO VENTURANZA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 27, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF CARDONA v. MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11767 March 27, 1917 - LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI v. MANUELA SARTE

    036 Phil 550

  • G.R. No. 12286 March 27, 1917 - C. E. SALMON, ET AL. v. CHINO TAN CUECO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 12551 March 27, 1917 - BENITO POBLETE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 12623 March 27, 1917 - CHAN LIN, ET AL. v. M. VIVENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. 11189 March 29, 1917 - EUSEBIO LOPEZ v. FRANCISCO ABELARDE

    036 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 11474 March 29, 1917 - PASIG STEAMER AND LIGHTER COMPANY v. VICENTE MADRIGAL

    036 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 11030 March 30, 1917 - DOMINGO ENRILE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 11629 March 30, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOAQUIN v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    036 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 12122 March 30, 1917 - FRANCISCO VILLAESTAR v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    036 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 12590 March 30, 1917 - TAN PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 10986 March 31, 1917 - COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE v. HAMBURG AMERIKA

    036 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 11169 March 31, 1917 - COMPAGNIE FRANCO-INDOCHINOISE v. DEUTSCH AUSTRALISCHE DAMPSCHIFFS GESELLSCHAFT

    036 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 11386 March 31, 1917 - EMILIO NATIVIDAD v. BASILIA GABINO

    036 Phil 663

  • G.R. Nos. 11447, 11448 & 11449 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN INFANTE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 668

  • G.R. Nos. 11457 & 11458 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO LAXA

    036 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 11841 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO LIM

    036 Phil 682