SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-3354 October 8, 1908
ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. vs. MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU, ET AL. -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-3354 October 8, 1908

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL., plaintiffs, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU, ET AL., defendants.

Hartigan and Rohde for plaintiffs.
Attorney-General Araneta, Rafael Palma, Carlos, Ledesma, Perfecto Salas, Deogracias Reyes, Teodoro Gonzalez, Felipe Buencamino and Ramon Diokno for defendants.

WILLARD, J.:

This is an original action in this court, brought by virtue of the provisions of Act No. 1376. It is similar to the case of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church vs. The Municipalities of Tarlac and Victoria, (9 Phil. Rep., 450). A commissioner was appointed to take evidence and such evidence was taken and reported to the court. After the appointment of the commissioner, the plaintiffs and the Attorney-General, acting by direction of the Governor-General, as representatives of the defendant municipalities, made an agreement as follows:

That the plaintiffs' complaint herein, so far as it alleges ownership and the right of occupation of all public highways and plazas and especially the plazas in the municipalities of Compostela, now Liloan, Ginatilan, Toledo, and Daan-Bantayan in the Province of Cebu, shall be dismissed, without prejudice, and all claim on the part of the plaintiffs thereto shall be eliminated from said action.

The only property which the plaintiffs claimed in the four municipalities mentioned by name in the foregoing stipulation was the square or plaza in each of them. Consequently the action must be dismissed as to those municipalities.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The only property which the plaintiffs claim in the municipality of Cebu is a building formerly used as a convent in connection with the Parian Church. The evidence of the plaintiffs themselves shows that this building has not been used as convent since 1862 or 1863; that no services were held in the church next to convent after 1868 or 1869, and that the church itself was taken down in 1878. From 1862 or 1863 to 1867, the building was used a tribunal for the Chinese guild ( gremio de chinos.) In 1887 a part of the building was, by order of the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Cebu, converted into a hospital, and it was used as such until 1898, when it was taken possession of by the municipal of Cebu, which has since occupied it.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The facts above stated show that, by disposition of the church itself, the property has not been used as a convent for more than twenty years. Act No. 1376 gives this court original jurisdiction to hear and determine actions of this class relating to churches, convents, or cemeteries. This building is not a covenant and has not been one for twenty years. It is now a hospital, and we have already held that we have no original jurisdiction to determine controversies of this class. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church against certain of the municipalities of the Province of Iloilo (10 Phil. Rep., 8), the plaintiffs, in an action brought under Act No. 1376, attempted to recover possession of a building known as the Hospital of Jaro, and it was there held that in such action could not be maintained. (See also The Roman Catholic Church vs. Certain Municipalities in Original Negros, 9 Phil. Rep., 691.)chanrobles virtual law library

The action must, therefore, be dismissed to the municipality of Cebu.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The only municipality remaining as a defendant is the municipality of Medellin. As to that municipality, the complaint refers to the following property:

1. The church building known as the church of Medellin and the church-lot.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

2. The chapels known as the chapels of Cauit and Tindog, and their corresponding lots, situated in the barrios of Cauit and Tindog.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

3. The plaza of a church, known as the plaza of the church of Paypay. The above-described property is at present in the possession and under the administration of the defendants, Gregorio Aglipay, Buenaventura Valladolid, Dionisio Orbeso, Santiago Pari, Nicolas Ibañez, and the municipality of Medellin.

While this municipality is not mentioned by name in the agreement hereinbefore quoted, made between the Attorney-General and the plaintiffs, yet, as that agreement expressly extends to all plazas, we think that it must be construed to conclude the plaza of Medellin and that the complaint must be dismissed so far as the plaza is concerned.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As to the other property situated in this municipality, the evidence is the same as the evidence presented in other cases decided in this court, involving similar questions, and in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Municipality of Ponce vs. The Roman Catholic Church of Porto Rico, decided in June 1, 1908, ¹ and followed by this court in the case of the Roman Catholic Church vs. The Municipality of Placer, No. 3490, decided September 23, 1908, ² it must be held that the plaintiff church is the owner of the churches in the municipality of Medellin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is, therefore, by the court adjudged and decreed that this action be dismissed without costs as to the defendants Gregorio Corro and Buenaventura Valladolid and the municipalities of Cebu, Liloan Ginatilan, Toledo, and Daan-Bantayan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is further adjudged and decreed that all of the property described in the complaint be eliminated therefrom except the following -

(1) The church building, known as the church of Medellin, and the church lot;chanrobles virtual law library

(2) The chapels known as the chapels of Cauit and Tindog, and their corresponding lots, situated in the barrios of Cauit and Tindog -

and as to the property thus eliminated, this court makes no determination in regard to the rights of the parties to this action in relation thereto.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is further adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, is the owner of, and is entitled to the possession of the following described property, situated in the municipality of Medellin, in the Province of Cebu, to wit -

(1) The church building known as the church of Medellin and the church-lot;chanrobles virtual law library

(2) The chapels known as the chapels of Cauit and Tindog, and their corresponding lots, situated in the barrios of Cauit and Tindog -

and neither the municipality of Medellin nor the defendants Gregorio Aglipay, Dionisio Orbeso, Santiago Pari, or Nicolas Ibañez have a right, title, or interest therein.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is further adjudged and decreed that the property last hereinbefore mentioned and returned to the plaintiffs and that the said defendants, the municipality of Medellin, Aglipay, Orbeso, Pari, and Ibañez be ousted from the possession thereof and that such possession be awarded to the plaintiffs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is further adjudged and decreed that writ of possession issue out of this court against the defendants last named in the manner and from prescribed by Act No. 190. No costs will be allowed to either party. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Tracey JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

¹ 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 737; 6 Off. Gaz., 1213.

² Page 315, supra.