Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30242 March 25, 1929 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ALVARA FAJARDO

053 Phil 82:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 30242. March 25, 1929.]

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, Plaintiff, v. ALVARA FAJARDO and ERIBERTO NAVARRO, Defendants.

Feria & La O for plaintiff.

Guevara, Francisco & Recto for defendants.

SYLLABUS


1. SUPREME COURT; ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT UNDER ACT NO. 1376; REPLEVIN. — Under Act No. 1376 of the Philippine Commission the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of an action of replevin instituted in behalf of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila to recover a sacred image alleged to be the property of the Church.

2. IMAGE; OFFICE OF "RECAMADERA." — A person exercising the office of recamadera to a sacred image has the duty of keeping it in proper repair and of supplying, from the alms of the pious, proper apparel for the image. The recamadera does not become owner of the image by virtue of the exercise of such office however long continued it may be.


D E C I S I O N


STREET, J.:


This is an original action of replevin instituted in this court pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 1376 by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, for the purpose of recovering from the defendants, Alvara Fajardo and Eriberto Navarro, an image of Christ lying in the sepulcher, and known popularly as Santo Entierro, Santo Sepulcro, Cristo Yacente, as well as by the name Apung Macalulu, together with the carriage, or litter, in which it is conveyed in procession. The defendants do not deny having possession of the image and carriage, but it appears that Eriberto Navarro is not the real person in interest, being merely the agent of his aunt Alvara Fajardo, who is asserting title to the image and carriage adverse to the plaintiff.

It appears in evidence that eighty or a hundred years ago Macario Paras, parish priest of Angeles, Pampanga, caused this venerated image, popularly known as Apung Macalulu, to be sculptured by a well- known sculptor of that day, named Buenaventura. It was at first installed in a little sanctuary built by Padre Paras on his own premises and there became an object of veneration among the pious inhabitants of the vicinage. The plaintiff has put in evidence an entry in the book of records of the Roman Catholic Church of Angeles from which it appears that the image in question, with the carriage and other appendages, was in 1854 treated as a gift to the church from Padre Paras (Exhibit B). The plaintiff also put in evidence a similar entry found in the church records under date of February 20, 1865, from which it appears that the image in question, with its adornment and carriage, was a gift from Padre Paras and was then in his care. There is further proof showing that about the year 1872 the image, with carriage, was transferred to the church. It there remained until about 1896 or 1897 when, owing to the disturbed conditions of the country, the image and carriage were removed and carried to another municipality for safekeeping. About 1904 it was taken back to the church where it remained, except when taken out on two occasions each year for the purpose of being carried in solemn procession. One of these occasions was the procession celebrated on Friday of Holy Week; and the other was upon the occasion of the proper fiesta of this particular saint held in October. When the image was carried out in procession on Holy Friday of the year 1928, the defendant Eriberto Navarro, acting for his aunt Alvara Fajardo, and with the assistance of numerous other persons acting in collusion with him, caused the image to be taken forcibly from the precincts of the church, when the procession was over, and from thence it was carried to a place that had been constructed for its deposit. It was this act which gave rise to the present action.

The claim put forth by Alvara Fajardo has its origin in the following facts: Padre Paras died about the year 1876, leaving a will in which he instituted his nephew, Mariano V. Henson, as his universal heir, and he is supposed to have inherited the image from Padre Paras. From Henson the image passed by transfer, so it is claimed, to Fernanda Sanchez, and from her to her son, Crispulo Bundoc, and his wife, the defendant Alvara Fajardo. Crispulo Bundoc is now dead, leaving Alvara Fajardo as the only claimant to the image by virtue of alleged title derived along the line indicated. But the entries in the inventory of properties of the church to which we have referred above show that before his death Padre Paras had given the image to the church or at least that the church was holding it under claim of such gift. It therefore did not pass with other property of Paras to Henson as a result of the will made by Paras in which Henson was instituted as universal heir. More than this, the transfer of the property from Henson to Fernanda Sanchez is not proved by satisfactory testimony. What is proved is that after the death of Padre Paras, Fernanda Sanchez exercised the office of recamadera of the image, and this office finally passed to Alvara Fajardo, one of the defendants in this case. The church authorities seem never to have questioned, prior to the institution of this action, the right of Alvara Fajardo to this office. It appears to be the duty of the recamadera to keep the image and its carriage in proper condition and to supply proper apparel for it, — all of which is done with money supplied by contributions of the pious. In addition to this, it is the duty of the person filling said office to collect alms with which to pay for the religious services incident to the celebrations devoted to the saint. As a result of these duties, the person filling such office apparently has a right of free access to the image.

We conclude from the evidence that the right pertaining to Alvara Fajardo as recamadera does not carry with it the ownership of the image or the carriage; and the church, having had possession of the image, under claim of ownership by gift, for a long period of time, the title of the Archbishop thereto is perfect.

Judgment will therefore be entered for the plaintiff to recover of the defendants the image and carriage which are the subject of this action; and a writ for the delivery of the same to the plaintiff will accordingly issue from this court in due course. So ordered, without costs.

Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




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-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

    052 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 30019 March 2, 1929 - KUI PAI & CO. v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE

    052 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. 30491 March 2, 1929 - DONATO CRUZ, ET AL. v. TEOFILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    052 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. 30981 March 2, 1929 - ESTEBAN MONTERAMOS, ET AL. v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

    052 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 30814 March 5, 1929 - ROSALIO GONZALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    052 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    052 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929 - IGNACIO DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    052 Phil 900

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-15 March 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. 30953 March 7, 1929 - NARCISA JAVIER v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 910

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-30015 March 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 30247 March 11, 1929 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE v. FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 29752 March 12, 1929 - SOTERO IGNACIO v. SANTOS CHUA HONG

    052 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. 30264 March 12, 1929 - MANILA RALROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    052 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. 30460 March 12, 1929 - C. H. STEINBERG v. GREGORIO VELASCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. 29292 March 13, 1929 - TOMASA C. VIUDA DE PAMINTUAN v. JUAN TIGLAO

    053 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 30393 March 14, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA

    053 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 29927 March 15, 1929 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO

    053 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 30291 March 15, 1929 - CATALINO SEVILLA v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    053 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 30035 March 18, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIA ABADILLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 30780 March 18, 1929 - AURELIANO ROSANES v. AMADO PEJI

    053 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

    053 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 30601 March 21, 1929 - ANTONIO CHUA CHIACO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 32329 March 23, 1929 - In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

    053 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 29503 March 23, 1929 - AGRIPINA GALLION v. NARCISO L. GAYARES ET AL.

    053 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 30020 March 23, 1929 - ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS v. MENZI & CO.

    053 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 30067 March 23, 1929 - PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. v. MARIANO TUASON

    053 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 30266 March 25, 1929 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. FRED J. ELSER

    054 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 29832 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO ASINAS ET AL.

    053 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 30074 March 25, 1929 - MARIANO CARAGAY v. FRANCISCO URQUIZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 30242 March 25, 1929 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ALVARA FAJARDO

    053 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 30280 March 25, 1929 - NICANOR CARAG v. WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL

    053 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

    053 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 30600 March 25, 1929 - RAMON DELES v. ARELLANO ALKONGA

    053 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 30705 March 25, 1929 - MACARIO E. CAESAR v. FILOMENO GARRIDO

    053 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 30289 March 26, 1929 - SERAPIA DE GALA v. APOLINARIO GONZALES

    053 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 30608 March 26, 1929 - RAFAEL CARANDANG v. GALICANO AFABLE

    053 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 28379 March 27, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIA CABANGIS ET AL.

    053 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 29448 March 27, 1929 - JOSE CASTILLO v. ESTEBAN VALDEZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 29721 March 27, 1929 - AMANDO MIRASOL v. ROBERT DOLLAR CO.

    053 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 29967 March 27, 1929 - JOSE GASTON ET AL. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30490 March 27, 1929 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALBALADEJO Y CIA.

    053 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 30514 March 27, 1929 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. CRISTOBAL ABAGAT ET AL.

    053 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

    053 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

    053 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 30541 March 30, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE BELLA BAUTISTA

    053 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 30610 March 30, 1929 - MANUEL SALAK v. LUIS ESPINOSA

    053 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 30648 March 30, 1929 - RUFINO FAUSTO v. JOSE VILLARTA

    053 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

    053 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 31348 March 30, 1929 - TAN C. TEE & CO. v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 172