Corpo Religious

7/18/2019 Corpo Religious

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corpo-religious 1/28

51

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 91889 August 27, 1993

MANUEL R. DULAY ENTERPRISES, INC., VIRGILIO E. DULAY AND NEPOMUCENOREDOVAN, petitioners,vs.TE ONORA!LE COURT O" APPEALS, EDGARDO D. PA!ALAN, MANUEL A. TORRES,#R., MARIA TERESA V. VELOSO AND CASTRENSE C. VELOSO, respondents.

Virgilio E. Dulay for petitioners.

Torres, Tobias, Azura & Jocson for private respondents.

NOCON, J.:

his is a petition for revie! on certiorari to annul and set aside the decision 1 of the Court of "ppeals affir#in$ the decision 2 of the Re$ional rial Court of Pasa%, &ranch ''( Civil CasesNos. )'*)+P, and ))-+P, the dispositive portion of !hich reads, as follo!s

/herefore, in vie! of all the fore$oin$ considerations, in this Court hereb%renders 0ud$#ent, as follo!s

In Civil Case No. ))-+P, the petition filed b% Manuel R. Dula% Enterprises,Inc. and Vir$ilio E. Dula% for annul#ent or declaration of nullit% of the

decision of the Metropolitan rial Court, &ranch (1, Pasa% Cit%, in its CivilCase No. 2)+)' entitled 3Ed$ardo D. Pabalan, et al., vs. Spouses 4lorentinoManalastas, et al.,3 is dis#issed for lac5 of #erits6

In Civil Case No. )7)+P, the co#plaint filed b% Manuel R. Dula%Enterprises, Inc. for cancella tion of title of Manuel ". orres, 8r. 9C No.(7** of the Re$ister of Deeds of Pasa% Cit%: and reconve%ance, isdis#issed for lac5 or #erit, and,

In Civil Case No. )'*)+P, defendants Manuel R. Dula% Enterprises, Inc. andVir$ilio E. Dula% are ordered to surrender and deliver possession of theparcel of land, to$ether !ith all the i#prove#ents thereon, described inransfer Certificate of itle No. (7** of the Re$ister of Deeds of Pasa%Cit%, in favor of therein plaintiffs Manuel ". orres, 8r. as o!ner and Ed$ardo

D. Pabalan as real estate ad#inistrator of said Manuel ". orres, 8r.6 toaccount for and return to said plaintiffs the rentals fro# d!ellin$ unit No. )+"

of the apart#ent buildin$ 9Dula% "part#ent: fro# 8une '*)- up to thepresent, to inde#nif% plaintiffs, 0ointl% and severall%, e;penses of liti$ation inthe a#ount of P(,---.-- and attorne%<s fees in the su# of P1,---.--, for allthe three 92: cases. Co+defendant Nepo#uceno Redovan is ordered to pa%the current and subse=uent rentals on the pre#ises leased b% hi# toplaintiffs.

he counterclai# of defendants Vir$ilio E. Dula% and Manuel R. Dula%

Enterprises, Inc. and N. Redovan, dis#issed for lac5 of #erit. /ith costsa$ainst the three 92: aforena#ed defendants. 3

he facts as found b% the trial court are as follo!s

Petitioner Manuel R. Dula% Enterprises, Inc, a do#estic corporation !ith the follo!in$ as#e#bers of its &oard of Directors Manuel R. Dula% !ith '*,*1- shares and desi$nated aspresident, treasurer and $eneral #ana$er, "tt%. Vir$ilio E. Dula% !ith '- shares and desi$natedas vice+president6 >inda E. Dula% !ith '- shares6 Celia Dula%+Mendo?a !ith '- shares6 and "tt%.Plaridel C. 8ose !ith '- shares and desi$nated as secretar%, o!ned a propert% covered b% CNo. '7))- $ and 5no!n as Dula% "part#ent consistin$ of si;teen 9'1: apart#ent units on a si;hundred ei$ht%+nine 91)*: s=uare #eters lot, #ore or less, located at Seventh Street 9no!&uendia E;tension: and 4.&. @arrison Street, Pasa% Cit%.

Petitioner corporation throu$h its president, Manuel Dula%, obtained various loans for theconstruction of its hotel pro0ect, Dula% Continental @otel 9no! 4rederic5 @otel:. It even had toborro! #one% fro# petitioner Vir$ilio Dula% to be able to continue the hotel pro0ect. "s a result of said loan, petitioner Vir$ilio Dula% occupied one of the unit apart#ents of the sub0ect propert%since propert% since '*72 !hile at the sa#e ti#e #ana$in$ the Dula% "part#ent at hisshareholdin$s in the corporation !as subse=uentl% increased b% his father. %

On Dece#ber 2, '*71, Manuel Dula% b% virtue of &oard ResolutionNo ') & of petitioner corporation sold the sub0ect propert% to private respondents spouses Mariaheresa and Castrense Veloso in the a#ount of P2--,---.-- as evidenced b% the Deed of

"bsolute Sale. 7 hereafter, C No. '7))- !as cancelled and C No. 2A !as issued toprivate respondent Maria heresa Veloso. 8 Subse=uentl%, Manuel Dula% and privaterespondents spouses Veloso e;ecuted a Me#orandu# to the Deed of "bsolute Sale ofDece#ber 2, '*71 9 dated Dece#ber *, '*77 $ivin$ Manuel Dula% !ithin 9: %ears or until

Dece#ber *, '*7* to repurchase the sub0ect propert% for P--,---.-- !hich !as, ho!ever, notannotated either in C No. '7))- or C No. 2A.

On Dece#ber (, '*71, private respondent Maria Veloso, !ithout the 5no!led$e of ManuelDula%, #ort$a$ed the sub0ect propert% to private respondent Manuel ". orres for a loan ofPA-,---.-- !hich !as dul% annotated as Entr% No. 1)'2* in C No. 2A. 1'

Bpon the failure of private respondent Maria Veloso to pa% private respondent orres, thesub0ect propert% !as sold on "pril A, '*7) to private respondent orres as the hi$hest bidder inan e;tra0udicial foreclosure sale as evidenced b% the Certificate of Sheriff<s Sale 11 issued on

"pril -, '*7).

On 8ul% -, '*7), private respondent Maria Veloso e;ecuted a Deed of "bsolute "ssi$n#ent ofthe Ri$ht to Redee# 12 in favor of Manuel Dula% assi$nin$ her ri$ht to repurchase the sub0ectpropert% fro# private respondent orres as a result of the e;tra sale held on "pril A, '*7).



52

"s neither private respondent Maria Veloso nor her assi$nee Manuel Dula% !as able to redee#the sub0ect propert% !ithin the one %ear statutor% period for rede#ption, private respondentorres filed an "ffidavit of Consolidation of O!nership 13 !ith the Re$istr% of Deeds of Pasa% Cit%and C No. (7** 1$ !as subse=uentl% issued to private respondent Manuel orres on "pril 2,'*7*.

On October ', '*7*, private respondent orres filed a petition for the issuance of a !rit ofpossession a$ainst private respondents spouses Veloso and Manuel Dula% in >RC Case No.

'7(+P. @o!ever, !hen petitioner Vir$ilio Dula% !as never authori?ed b% the petitionercorporation to sell or #ort$a$e the sub0ect propert%, the trial court ordered private respondentorres to i#plead petitioner corporation as an indispensable part% but the latter #oved for thedis#issal of his petition !hich !as $ranted in an Order dated "pril ), '*)-.

On 8une -, '*)-, private respondent orres and Ed$ardo Pabalan, real estate ad#inistrator oforres, filed an action a$ainst petitioner corporation, Vir$ilio Dula% and Nepo#uceno Redovan, atenant of Dula% "part#ent Bnit No. )+" for the recover% of possession, su# of #one% andda#a$es !ith preli#inar% in0unction in Civil Case, No. )'*)+P !ith the then Court of 4irstInstance of Ri?al.

On 8ul% ', '*)-, petitioner corporation filed an action a$ainst private respondents spousesVeloso and orres for the cancellation of the Certificate of Sheriff<s Sale and C No. (7** inCivil Case No. )7)+P !ith the then Court of 4irst Instance of Ri?al.

On 8anuar% *, '*)', private respondents Pabalan and orres filed an action a$ainst spouses4lorentino and Elvira Manalastas, a tenant of Dula% "part#ent Bnit No. 7+&, !ith petitionercorporation as intervenor for e0ect#ent in Civil Case No. 2)+)' !ith the Metropolitan rial Courtof Pasa% Cit% !hich rendered a decision on "pril A, '*)A, dispositive portion of !hich reads, asfollo!s

/herefore, 0ud$#ent is hereb% rendered in favor of the plaintiff 9hereinprivate respondents: and a$ainst the defendants

'. Orderin$ the defendants and all persons clai#in$ possession under the#to vacate the pre#ises.

. Orderin$ the defendants to pa% the rents in the su# of PA--.--- a #onthfro# Ma%, '*7* until the% shall have vacated the pre#ises !ith interest atthe le$al rate6

2. Orderin$ the defendants to pa% attorne%<s fees in the su# of P,---.--and P',---.-- as other e;penses of liti$ation and for the# to pa% the costsof the suit. 1%

hereafter or on Ma% '7, '*)A, petitioner corporation and Vir$ilio Dula% filed an action a$ainstthe presidin$ 0ud$e of the Metropolitan rial Court of Pasa% Cit%, private respondents Pabalanand orres for the annul#ent of said decision !ith the Re$ional rial Court of Pasa% in CivilCase No. ))-+P.

hereafter, the three 92: cases !ere 0ointl% tried and the trial court rendered a decision in favor of private respondents.

Not satisfied !ith said decision, petitioners appealed to the Court of "ppeals !hich rendered adecision on October 2, '*)*, the dispositive portion of !hich reads, as follo!s

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision bein$ appealed should be as it ishereb% "44IRMED in full.1&

On Nove#ber ), '*)*, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration !hich !as denied on

8anuar% 1, '**-.

@ence, this petition.

Durin$ the pendenc% of this petition, private respondent orres died on "pril 2, '**' as sho!n inhis death certificate 17 and na#ed orres+Pabalan Realt% Develop#ent Corporation as his heirin his holo$raphic !ill 18 dated October 2', '*)1.

Petitioners contend that the respondent court had acted !ith $rave abuse of discretion !hen itapplied the doctrine of piercin$ the veil of corporate entit% in the instant case considerin$ that thesale of the sub0ect propert% bet!een private respondents spouses Veloso and Manuel Dula% hasno bindin$ effect on petitioner corporation as &oard Resolution No. ') !hich authori?ed the saleof the sub0ect propert% !as resolved !ithout the approval of all the #e#bers of the board ofdirectors and said &oard Resolution !as prepared b% a person not desi$nated b% the

corporation to be its secretar%.

/e do not a$ree.

Section '-' of the Corporation Code of the Philippines provides

Sec. '-'. /hen board #eetin$ is unnecessar% or i#properl% held. Bnlessthe b%+la!s provide other!ise, an% action b% the directors of a closecorporation !ithout a #eetin$ shall nevertheless be dee#ed valid if

'. &efore or after such action is ta5en, !ritten consent thereto is si$ned b%all the directors, or

. "ll the stoc5holders have actual or i#plied 5no!led$e of the action and#a5e no pro#pt ob0ection thereto in !ritin$6 or

2. he directors are accusto#ed to ta5e infor#al action !ith the e;press ori#plied ac=uiese of all the stoc5holders, or

(. "ll the directors have e;press or i#plied 5no!led$e of the action in=uestion and none of the# #a5es pro#pt ob0ection thereto in !ritin$.

If a directors< #eetin$ is held !ithout call or notice, an action ta5en therein!ithin the corporate po!ers is dee#ed ratified b% a director !ho failed toattend, unless he pro#ptl% files his !ritten ob0ection !ith the secretar% of thecorporation after havin$ 5no!led$e thereof.



53

In the instant case, petitioner corporation is classified as a close corporation and conse=uentl% aboard resolution authori?in$ the sale or #ort$a$e of the sub0ect propert% is not necessar% tobind the corporation for the action of its president. "t an% rate, corporate action ta5en at a board#eetin$ !ithout proper call or notice in a close corporation is dee#ed ratified b% the absentdirector unless the latter pro#ptl% files his !ritten ob0ection !ith the secretar% of the corporationafter havin$ 5no!led$e of the #eetin$ !hich, in his case, petitioner Vir$ilio Dula% failed to do.

It is relevant to note that althou$h a corporation is an entit% !hich has a personalit% distinct and

separate fro# its individual stoc5holders or #e#bers, 19 the veil of corporate fiction #a% bepierced !hen it is used to defeat public convenience 0ustif% !ron$, protect fraud or defendcri#e. 2' he privile$e of bein$ treated as an entit% distinct and separate fro# its stoc5holder or#e#bers is therefore confined to its le$iti#ate uses and is sub0ect to certain li#itations toprevent the co##ission of fraud or other ille$al or unfair act. /hen the corporation is used#erel% as an alter e$o or business conduit of a person, the la! !ill re$ard the corporation as theact of that person. 21 he Supre#e Court had repeatedl% disre$arded the separate personalit% of the corporation !here the corporate entit% !as used to annul a valid contract e;ecuted b% one of its #e#bers.

Petitioners< clai# that the sale of the sub0ect propert% b% its president, Manuel Dula%, to privaterespondents spouses Veloso is null and void as the alle$ed &oard Resolution No. ') !aspassed !ithout the 5no!led$e and consent of the other #e#bers of the board of directorscannot be sustained. "s correctl% pointed out b% the respondent Court of "ppeals

"ppellant Vir$ilio E. Dula%<s protestations of co#plete innocence to theeffect that he never participated nor !as even a!are of an% #eetin$ orresolution authori?in$ the #ort$a$e or sale of the sub0ect pre#ises 9see par.), affidavit of Vir$ilio E. Dula%, dated Ma% 2', '*)(, p. '(, E;h. 3'3: isdifficult to believe. On the contrar%, he is ver% #uch priv% to the transactionsinvolved. o be$in !ith, he is a incorporator and one of the board ofdirectors desi$nated at the ti#e of the or$ani?ation of Manuel R. Dula%Enterprise, Inc. In ordinar% parlance, the said entit% is loosel% referred to asa 3fa#il% corporation3. he no#enclature, if i#precise, ho!ever, fairl%reflects the cohesiveness of a $roup and the parochial instincts of theindividual #e#bers of such an a$$rupation of !hich Manuel R. Dula%Enterprises, Inc. is t%pical four+fifths of its incorporators bein$ closerelatives na#el%, three 92: children and their father !hose na#e identifiestheir corporation 9"rticles of Incorporation of Manuel R. Dula% Enterprises,

Inc. E;h. 32'+"3:.22

&esides, the fact that petitioner Vir$ilio Dula% on 8une (, '*7A e;ecuted an affidavit 23 that he!as a si$nator% !itness to the e;ecution of the post+dated Deed of "bsolute Sale of the sub0ectpropert% in favor of private respondent orres indicates that he !as a!are of the transactione;ecuted bet!een his father and private respondents and had, therefore, ade=uate 5no!led$eabout the sale of the sub0ect propert% to private respondents.

Conse=uentl%, petitioner corporation is liable for the act of Manuel Dula% and the sale of thesub0ect propert% to private respondents b% Manuel Dula% is valid and bindin$. "s stated b% thetrial court

. . . the sale bet!een Manuel R. Dula% Enterprises, Inc. and the spousesMaria heresa V. Veloso and Castrense C. Veloso, !as a corporate act ofthe for#er and not a personal transaction of Manuel R. Dula%. his is sobecause Manuel R. Dula% !as not onl% president and treasurer but also the

$eneral #ana$er of the corporation. he corporation !as a closed fa#il%corporation and the onl% non+relative in the board of directors !as "tt%.Plaridel C. 8ose !ho appeared on paper as the secretar%. here is noden%in$ the fact, ho!ever, that Maria Socorro R. Dula% at ti#es acted assecretar%. . . ., the Court can not lose si$ht of the fact that the Manuel R.Dula% Enterprises, Inc. is a closed fa#il% corporation !here theincorporators and directors belon$ to one sin$le fa#il%. It cannot beconcealed that Manuel R. Dula% as president, treasurer and $eneral

#ana$er al#ost had absolute control over the business and affairs of thecorporation. 2$

Moreover, the appellate courts !ill not disturb the findin$s of the trial 0ud$e unless he has plainl%overloo5ed certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, #i$ht affect the result of thecase, 2% !hich is not present in the instant case.

Petitioners< contention that private respondent orres never ac=uired o!nership over the sub0ectpropert% since the latter !as never in actual possession of the sub0ect propert% nor !as thepropert% ever delivered to hi# is also !ithout #erit.

Para$raph ', "rticle '(*) of the Ne! Civil Code provides

/hen the sale is #ade throu$h a public instru#ent, the e;ecution thereofshall be e=uivalent to the deliver% of the thin$ !hich is the ob0ect of thecontract, if fro# the deed the contrar% do not appear or cannot clearl% beinferred.

Bnder the afore#entioned article, the #ere e;ecution of the deed of sale in a public docu#ent ise=uivalent to the deliver% of the propert%. >i5e!ise, this Court had held that

It is settled that the bu%er in a foreclosure sale beco#es the absolute o!ner of the propert% purchased if it is not redee#ed durin$ the period of one %ear after the re$istration of the sale. "s such, he is entitled to the possession ofthe said propert% and can de#and it at an% ti#e follo!in$ the consolidationof o!nership in his na#e and the issuance to hi# of a ne! transfercertificate of title. he bu%er can in fact de#and possession of the land evendurin$ the rede#ption period e;cept that he has to post a bond inaccordance !ith Section 7 of "ct No. 2'22 as a#ended. No such bond isre=uired after the rede#ption period if the propert% is not redee#ed.Possession of the land then beco#es an absolute ri$ht of the purchaser asconfir#ed o!ner. 2&

herefore, prior ph%sical deliver% or possession is not le$all% re=uired since the e;ecution of theDeed of Sale in dee#ed e=uivalent to deliver%.

4inall%, !e hold that the respondent appellate court did not err in den%in$ petitioner<s #otion forreconsideration despite the fact that private respondents failed to sub#it their co##ent to said#otion as re=uired b% the respondent appellate court fro# resolvin$ petitioners< #otion forreconsideration !ithout the co##ent of the private respondent !hich !as re=uired #erel% to aidthe court in the disposition of the #otion. he courts are as #uch interested as the parties in theearl% disposition of cases before the#. o re=uire other!ise !ould unnecessaril% clo$ the courts<doc5ets.



54

/@ERE4ORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision appealed fro# is hereb% "44IRMED.

SO ORDERED.

EN &"NC

G.R. No. L(2832 No)*+*- 2$, 19'&

REV. #ORGE !ARLIN, / 0s t4 s osto5 6+/st-to- o t0s )/t s0o-/6 5*g5 -*-*s*/tt)* o t0* g*/*-5 /t*-*sts o t0* Ro+/ Ct0o5 Aosto5 C0u-0/ t0* 6o*s* o Nu*) C*-*s,Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. P. VICENTE RAMIRE, *(-*to- o

t0* Ro+/ Ct0o5 Aosto5 P-o05 C0u-0 o Lgo/o4, AND TE MUNICIPALITY O"LAGONOY,Defendants-Appellants.

anly & !allup for appellants."eoncio #$perial and %icote, iranda & 'ierra for appellee.

:ILLARD, J.;

here had been priests of the Ro#an Catholic Church in the pueblo of >a$ono%, in the Province

of "#bos Ca#arines, since ')2*. On the '2th of 8anuar%, ')1*, the church and convent !ereburned. he% !ere rebuilt bet!een ')7- and ')72. here !as evidence that this !as done b%the order of the provincial $overnor. he labor necessar% for this reconstruction !as perfor#edb% the people of the pueblo the direction of the cabe?a de barangay . Bnder the la! then in force,each #an in the pueblo !as re=uired to !or5 for the $overn#ent, !ithout co#pensation, forfort% da%s ever% %ear. he ti#e spent in the reconstruction of these buildin$s !as counted as apart of the fort% da%s. he #aterial necessar% !as brou$ht and paid for in part b% the parishpriest fro# the funds of the church and in part !as donated b% certain individuals of the pueblo.

"fter the co#pletion of the church it !as al!a%s ad#inistered, until Nove#ber '(, '*-, b% apriest of a Ro#an Catholic Co##union and all the people of the pueblo professed that faith andbelon$ed to that church.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

he defendant, Ra#ire?, havin$ been appointed b% the plaintiff parish priest, too5 possession ofthe church on the Ath of 8ul%, '*-'. he ad#inistered it as such under the orders of his superiorsuntil the '(th da% of Nove#ber, '*-. @is successor havin$ been then appointed, the latter#ade a de#and on this defendant for the deliver% to hi# of the church, convent, and ce#eter%,and the sacred orna#ents, boo5s, 0e!els, #one%, and other propert% of the church. hedefendant, b% a !ritten docu#ent of that date, refused to #a5e such deliver%. hat docu#ent isas follo!s

"t 7 o<cloc5 last ni$ht I received throu$h 4ather "$ripino Pisino %our respected order of the 'thinstant, !herein I a# advised of the appoint#ent of 4ather Pisino as actin$ parish priest of thisto!n, and directed to turn over to hi# this parish and to report to %ou at the vicara$e. In repl%thereto, I have the honor to infor# %ou that the to!n of >a$ono%, in con0unction !ith the parishpriest thereof, has seen fit to sever connection !ith the Pope at Ro#e and his representatives inthese Islands, and 0oin the 4ilipino Church, the head of !hich is at Manila. his resolution of thepeople !as reduced to !ritin$ and triplicate copies #ade, of !hich I be$ to inclose a cop%here!ith.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

4or this reason I re$ret to infor# %ou that I a# unable to obe% %our said order b% deliverin$ to4ather "$ripino Pisino the parish propert% of >a$ono% !hich, as I understand, is no! outside of

the control of the Pope and his representatives in these Islands. Ma% od $uard %ou #an%%ears.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

>a$ono%, Nove#ber '(, '*-.9Si$ned: VICENE R"MIRE.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

R. REV. VIC"R O4 @IS DISRIC.

he docu#ent, a cop% of !hich is referred to in this letter, is as follo!s

>"ONOF, (ove$ber, ), *)+. chanrobles virtual la! librar%

he #unicipalit% of this to!n and so#e of its #ost pro#inent citi?ens havin$ learned throu$h thepapers fro# the capital of these Islands of the constitution of the 4ilipino National Church,separate fro# the control of the Pope at Ro#e b% reason of the fact that the latter has refused toeither reco$ni?e or $rant the ri$hts to the 4ilipino cler$% !hich have #an% ti#es been ur$ed, andit appearin$ to us that the reasons advanced !h% such offices should be $iven to the 4ilipinocler$% are evidentl% !ell+founded, !e have dee#ed it advisable to consult !ith the parish priestof this to!n as to !hether it !ould be advanta$eous to 0oin the said 4ilipino Church and toseparate fro# the control of the Pope as lon$ as he continues to i$nore the ri$hts of the said4ilipino cler$%, under the conditions that there !ill be no chan$e in the articles of faith, and that

the sacra#ents and other do$#as !ill be reco$ni?ed and particularl% that of the i##aculateconception of the #other of our >ord. &ut the #o#ent the Pope at Ro#e reco$ni?es and $rantsthe ri$hts heretofore denied to the 4ilipino cler$% !e !ill return to his control. In vie! of this, andsub0ect to this condition, the reverend parish priest, to$ether !ith the people of the to!n,unani#ousl% 0oin in declarin$ that fro# this date the% separate the#selves fro# the obedienceand control of the Pope and 0oin the 4ilipino National Church. his asse#bl% and the reverendparish priest have accordin$l% adopted this resolution !ritten in triplicate, and resolved to send acop% thereof to the civil $overn#ent of this province for its infor#ation, and do si$n the sa#ebelo!. Vicente Ra#ire?, 4rancisco Israel, "#brosio &ocon, 4lorentino Relloso, Macario P.>edes#a, Cecilio Obias, &albino I#perial, 8uan PreseGada, 4ernando Deudor, Mauricio orres,

"driano Sabater.

"t the #eetin$ at !hich the resolution spo5en of in this docu#ent !as adopted, there !erepresent about '-- persons of the pueblo. here is testi#on% in the case that the population ofthe pueblo !as at that ti#e *,--- and that all but - of the inhabitants !ere satisfied !ith theaction there ta5en. "lthou$h it is of no i#por tance in the case, !e are inclined to thin5 that thetesti#on% to this effect #erel% #eans that about '-- of the principal #en of the to!n !ere infavor of the resolution and about - of such principal #en !ere opposed to it. "fter the '(th ofNove#ber, the defendant, Ra#ire?, continued in the possession of the church and otherpropert% and ad#inistered the sa#e under the directions of his superior, thebispo ai$o ofthe Independent 4ilipino Church. he rites and cere#onies and the #anner of !orship !ere thesa#e after the '(th da% of Nove#ber as the% !ere before, but the relations bet!een the Ro#anCatholic Church and the defendant had been entirel%severed.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

In 8anuar%, '*-(, the plaintiff brou$ht this action a$ainst the defendant, Ra#ire?, alle$in$ in hisa#ended co#plaint that the Ro#an Catholic Church !as the o!ner of the church buildin$, theconvent, ce#eter%, the boo5s, #one%, and other propert% belon$in$ thereto, and as5in$ that it berestored to the possession thereof and that the defendant render an account of the propert%

!hich he had received and !hich !as retained b% hi#, and for otherrelief.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%



55

he ans!er of the defendant, Ra#ire?, in addition to a $eneral denial of the alle$ation of theco#plaint, ad#itted that he !as in the possession and ad#inistration of the propert% describedtherein !ith the authorit% of the #unicipalit% of >a$ono% and of the inhabitants of the sa#e, !ho!ere the la!ful o!ners of the said propert%. "fter this ans!er had been presented, and on the'st da% of Nove#ber, '*-(, the #unicipalit% of >a$ono% filed a petition as5in$ that it be allo!edto intervene in the case and 0oin !ith the defendant, Ra#ire?, as a defendant therein. hispetition been $ranted, the #unicipalit% of the 'st da% of Dece#ber filed an ans!er in !hich italle$ed that the defendant, Ra#ire?, !as in possession of the propert% described in the

co#plaint under the authorit% and !ith the consent of the #unicipalit% of >a$ono% and that such#unicipalit% !as the o!ner thereof.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

Plaintiff ans!ered this co#plaint, or ans!er in intervention, and the case !as tried and final 0ud$#ent in entered therein in favor of the plaintiff and a$ainst the defendants. he defendantsthen brou$ht the case here b% a bill of e;ceptions.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtualla! librar%

hat the person in the actual possession of the church and other propert% described in theco#plaint is the defendant, Ra#ire?, is plainl% established b% the evidence. It does not appearthat the #unicipalit%, as a corporate bod%, ever too5 an% action in reference to this #atter untilthe% presented their petition for intervention in this case. In fact, the !itnesses for the defense,!hen the% spea5 of the o!nership of the buildin$s, sa% that the% are o!ned b% the people of thepueblo, and one !itness, the president, said that the #unicipalit% as a corporation had nothin$!hatever to do !ith the #atter. hat the resolution adopted on the '(th of Nove#ber, and !hichhas been =uoted above, !as not the action of the #unicipalit%, as such, is apparent fro# aninspection thereof.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

he !itnesses for the defenses spea5 of a deliver% of the church b% the people of the pueblo tothe defendant, Ra#ire?, but there is no evidence in the case of an% such deliver%. heirtesti#on% in re$ard to the deliver% al!a%s refers to the action ta5en on the '(th of Nove#ber, arecord of !hich appears that in the docu#ent above =uoted. It is apparent that the action ta5enconsisted si#pl% in separatin$ the#selves fro# the Ro#an Catholic Church, and nothin$ is saidtherein in reference to the #aterial propert% then in possession of the defendant,Ra#ire?.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

here are several $rounds upon !hich this 0ud$#ent #ust beaffir#ed.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

9': "s to the defendant, Ra#ire?, it appears that he too5 possession of the propert% as theservant or a$ent of the plaintiff. he onl% ri$ht !hich he had to the possession at the ti#e hetoo5 it, !as the ri$ht !hich !as $iven to hi# b% the plaintiff, and he too5 possession under thea$ree#ent to return that possession !henever it should be de#anded of hi#. Bnder suchcircu#stances he !ill not be allo!ed, !hen the return of such possession is de#anded b% hi#the plaintiff, to sa% that the plaintiff is not the o!ner of the propert% and is not entitled to have itdelivered bac5 to hi#. he principle of la! that a tenant can not den% his landlord<s title, !hich isfound in section 222, para$raph , of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also in the Spanish la!,is applicable to a case of this 5ind. "n ans!er of the defendant, Ra#ire?, in !hich he alle$edthat he hi#self !as the o!ner of the propert% at the ti#e he received it fro# the plaintiff, or in!hich he alle$ed that the pueblo !as the o!ner of the propert% at that ti#e, !ould constitute nodefense. here is no clai# #ade b% hi# that since the deliver% of the possession of the propert%to hi# b% the plaintiff he has ac=uired the title thereto b% other #eans, nor does he is o!n behalf #a5e an% clai# !hatever either to the propert% or to the possession

thereof.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

9: he #unicipalit% of >a$ono%, in its ans!er, clai#s as such, to be the o!ner of the propert%. "s !e have said before, the evidence sho!s that it never !as in the ph%sical possession of thepropert%. &ut !aivin$ this point and assu#in$ that the possession of Ra#ire?, !hich he alle$esin his ans!er is the possession of the #unicipalit%, $ives the #unicipalit% the ri$hts of apossessor, the =uestion still arises, /ho has the better ri$ht to the present possession of thepropert%H he plaintiff, in '*-, had been in the la!ful possession thereof for #ore than thirt%%ears and durin$ all that ti#e its possession had never been =uestioned or disturbed. hatpossession has been ta5en a!a% fro# it and it has the ri$ht no! to recover the possession fro#

the persons !ho have so deprived it of such possession, unless the latter can sho! that the%have a better ri$ht thereto. his !as the preposition !hich !as discussed and settled in the caseof &ishop of %ebu vs. angaron, 1 No. '7(), decided 8une ', '*-1. hat decision holds that asa$ainst one !ho has been in possession for the len$th of the plaintiff has been in possession,and !ho had been deprived of his possession, and !ho can not produce an% !ritten evidence of title, the #ere fact that the defendant is in possession does not entitle the defendant to retainthat possession. In order that he #a% continue in possession, he #ust sho! a better ri$htthereto.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

he evidence in this case does not sho! that the #unicipalit% has, as such, an% ri$ht of!hatever in the propert% in =uestion. It has produced no evidence of o!nership. Its clai# ofo!nership is rested in its brief in this court upon the follo!in$ propositions hat the propert% in=uestion belon$ed prior to the treat% of Paris to the Spanish overn#ent6 that b% the treat% ofParis the o!nership thereof passed to the overn#ent of the Bnited States6 that b% section 'of the act of Con$ress of 8ul% ', '*-, such propert% !as transferred to the overn#ent of the

Philippine Islands, and that b% the circular of that overn#ent, dated Nove#ber '', '*-, theo!nership and the ri$ht to the possession of this propert% passed to the #unicipalit% of >a$ono%.If, for the purposes of the ar$u#ent, !e should ad#it that the other propositions are true, thereis no evidence !hatever to support the last proposition, na#el% that the overn#ent of thePhilippine Islands has transferred the o!nership of this church to the #unicipalit% of >a$ono%./e have found no circular of the date above referred to. he one of 4ebruar% '-, '*-2, !hich isprobabl% the one intended, contains nothin$ that indicates an% such transfer. "s to the#unicipalit% of >a$ono%, therefore, it is ver% clear that it has neither title, o!nership, nor ri$ht ofpossession.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

92: /e have said that it !ould have no such title or o!nership ever ad#ittin$ that the Spanishovern#ent !as the o!ner of the propert% and it has passed b% the treat% of Paris to the

"#erican overn#ent. &ut this assu#ption is not true. "s a #atter of la!, the Spanishovern#ent at the ti#e the treat% of peace !as si$ned, !as not the o!ner of this propert%, norof an% other propert% li5e it, situated in the PhilippineIslands.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

It does not ad#it of doubt that fro# the earliest ti#es the parish churches in the PhilippineIslands !ere built b% the Spanish overn#ent. >a! , title , boo5 ', of the Co#pilation of the>a!s of the Indies is, in part, as follo!s

@avin$ erected all the churches, cathedrals, and parish houses of the Spaniards and natives ofour Indian possessions fro# their discover% at the cost and e;pense of our ro%al treasur%, andapplied for their service and #aintenance the part of the tithes belon$in$ to us b% apostolicconcession accordin$ to the division !e have #ade.

>a! 2 of the sa#e title to the construction of parochial churches such as the one in =uestion.hat la! is as follo!s



56

he parish churches !hich !as erected in Spanish to!ns shall be of durable and decentconstruction. heir costs shall be divided and paid in three parts One b% our ro%al treasur%,another b% the residents and Indianenco$enderos of the place !here such churches areconstructed, and the other part b% the Indians !ho abide there6 and if !ithin the li#its of a cit%,villa$e, or place there should be an% Indians incorporated to our ro%al cro!n, !e co##and thatfor our part there be contributed the sa#e a#ount as the residents and enco$enderos,respectivel%, contribute6 and the residents !ho have no Indians shall also contribute for thispurpose in accordance !ith their stations and !ealth, and that !hich is so $iven shall be

deducted fro# the share of the Indians should pa%.

>a! '' of the sa#e title is as follo!s

/e co##and that the part of the tithes !hich belon$s to the fund for the erection of churchesshall be $iven to their superintendents to be e;pended for those thin$s necessar% for thesechurches !ith the advice of the prelates and officials, and b% their !arrants, and not other!ise.

"nd !e re=uest and char$e the archbishops and bishops not to interfere in the collection anddisburse#ent thereof, but to $uard these structures.

>a! (, title 2, boo5 1, is as follo!s

In all settle#ents, even thou$h the Indians are fe!, there shall be erected a church !here #asscan be decentl% held, and it shall have a donor !ith a 5e%, not!ithstandin$ the fact that it be thesub0ect to or separate fro# a parish.

Not onl% !ere all the parish churches in the Philippines erected b% the in$ and under hisdirection, but it !as #ade unla!ful to erect a church !ithout the license of the in$. hisprovision is contained in >a! , title 1, boo5 ', !hich is as follo!s

/hereas it is our intention to erect, institute, found, and #aintain all cathedrals, parish churches,#onasteries, votive hospitals, churches, and reli$ious and pious establish#ents !here the% arenecessar% for the teachin$, propa$ation, and preachin$ of the doctrine of our sacred Ro#anCatholic faith, and to aid to this effect !ith out ro%al treasur% !henever possible, and to receiveinfor#ation of such places !here the% should be founded and are necessar%, and theecclesiastical patrona$e of all our Indies belon$in$ to us chanrobles virtual la! librar%

/e co##and that there shall not be erected, instituted, founded, or #aintained an% cathedral,parish church, #onaster%, hospital, or votive churches, or other pious or reli$ious establish#ent!ithout our e;press per#ission as is provided in >a! ', title , and >a! ', title 2, of this boo5,not!ithstandin$ an% per#ission heretofore $iven b% our vicero% or other #inisters, !hich in thisrespect !e revo5e and #a5e null, void, and of no effect.

&% a$ree#ent at an earl% date bet!een the Pope and the Cro!n of Spain, all tithes in the Indies!ere $iven b% the for#er to the latter and the disposition #ade the in$ of the fund thus createdis indicated b% >a! ', title '1, boo5 ', !hich is as follo!s

/hereas the ecclesiastical tithes fro# the Indies belon$ to us b% the apostolic concessions ofthe supre#e pontiffs, !e co##and the officials of our ro%al treasur% of those provinces to collectand cause to be collected all tithes due and to beco#e due fro# the crops and floc5s of theresidents in the #anner in !hich it has been the custo# to pa% the sa#e, and fro# these tithes

the churches shall be provided !ith co#petent persons of $ood character to serve the# and!ith all orna#ents and thin$s !hich #a% be necessar% for divine !orship, to the end that these

churches #a% be !ell served and e=uipped, and !e shall be infor#ed of od, our >ord6 thisorder shall be observed !here the contrar% has not alread% been directed b% us in connection!ith the erection of churches.

hat the condition of thin$s e;istin$ b% virtue of the >a!s of the Indies !as continued to thepresent ti#e is indicated b% the ro%al order of the 2'st of 8anuar%, ')A1, and b% the ro%al orderof the '2th of "u$ust, ')71, both relatin$ to the construction and repair of churches, there bein$authorit% for sa%in$ that the latter order !as in force in the

Philippines.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

his church, and other churches si#ilarl% situated in the Philippines, havin$ been erected b% theSpanish overn#ent, and under its direction, the ne;t =uestion to be considered is, o !ho#did these churches belon$H chanrobles virtual la! librar%

itle ) of the third partida is devoted to the o!nership of thin$s and, after discussin$ !hat canbe called public propert% and !hat can be called private propert%, spea5s, in >a! ', of thosethin$s !hich are sacred, reli$ious, or hol%. hat la! is as follo!s

>a! JII. + @O/ S"CRED OR RE>IIOBS @INS C"N NO &E O/NED &F "NFPERSON.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

No sacred, reli$ious, or hol% thin$, devoted to the service of od, can be the sub0ect ofo!nership b% an% #an, nor can it be considered as included in his propert% holdin$s. "lthou$hthe priests #a% have such thin$s in their possession, %et the% are not the o!ners thereof. he%,hold the# thus as $uardians or servants, or because the% have the care of the sa#e and serveod in or !ithout the#. @ence the% !ere allo!ed to ta5e fro# the revenues of the church andlands !hat !as reasonabl% necessar% for their support6 the balance, belon$in$ to od, !as tobe devoted to pious purposes, such as the feedin$ and clothin$ of the poor, the support oforphans, the #arr%in$ of poor vir$ins to prevent their beco#in$ evil !o#en because of theirpovert%, and for the rede#ption of captives and the repairin$ of the churches, and the bu%in$ ofchalices, clothin$, boo5s, and others thin$s !hich the% #i$ht be in need of, and other si#ilarcharitable purposes.

"nd then ta5in$ up for consideration the first of the classes in to !hich this la! has divided thesethin$s, it defines in >a! '2, title ), third partida, consecrated thin$s. hat la! is as follo!s

Sacred thin$s, !e sa%, are those !hich are consecrated b% the bishops, such as churches, thealtars therein, crosses, chalices, censers, vest#ents, boo5s, and all other thin$s !hich are intended for the service of the church, and the title to these thin$s can not be alienated e;cept incertain specific cases as !e have alread% sho!n in the first partidaof this boo5 b% the la!sdealin$ !ith this sub0ect. /e sa% further that even !here a consecrated church is ra?ed, the$round upon !hich it for#erl% stood shall al!a%s be consecrated $round. &ut if an% consecratedchurch should fall into the hands of the ene#ies of our faith it shall there and then cease to besacred as lon$ as the ene#% has it under control, althou$h once recovered b% the Christians, it!ill a$ain beco#e sacred, revertin$ to its condition before the ene#% sei?ed it and shall have allthe ri$ht and privile$es for#erl% belon$in$ to it.

hat the principles of the partida in reference to churches still e;ist is indicated b% Sanche?Ro#an, !hose !or5 on the Civil >a! contains the follo!in$ state#ent



57

4irst roup. 'piritual and corporeal or ecclesiastical . ".'piritual . + 4ro# earl% ti#es distinctionhas been #ade b% authors and b% la! bet!een thin$s $overned b% divine la!, called divine, andthose $overned b% hu#an la!, called hu#an, and althou$h the for#er can not be the sub0ect ofcivil 0uridical relations, their nature and species should be ascertained either to identif% the# ande;clude the# fro# such relations or because the% furnish a co#plete e;planation of thefore$oin$ tabulated state#ent, or finall% because the la!s of the partida deal !ith the#.

Divine tings are tose /ic are eiter directly or indirectly establised by !od for is service

and sanctification of $en and /ic are governed by divine or canonical la/s. Tis $a0es itnecessary to divide te$ into spiritual tings, /ic are tose /ic ave a direct influence onte religious rede$ption of $an suc as te sacra$ent, prayers, fasts, indulgences, etc., andcorporeal or ecclesiastical, /ic are tose $eans $ore or less direct for te proper religioussalvation of $an.

7. 4irst roup. Divine thin$s. &. %orporeal or ecclesiastical tings 9sacred, reli$ious, hol%, andte#poral belon$in$ to the church:. + Corporeal or ecclesiastical thin$s are sodivided.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

9 a: 'acred tings are tose devoted to !od, religion, and /orsip in general , such as te#ples,altars, orna#ents, etc. hese thin$s can not be alienated e;cept for so#e pious purpose and insuch cases as are provided for in the la!s, accordin$ to !hich their control pertains to theecclesiastical authorities, and in so far as their use is concerned, to the believers and the cler$%.

9 Derecho Civil EspaGol, Sanche? Ro#an, p. ()-6 ) Manresa, Co##entaries on the SpanishCivil Code, p. 1216 2 "lcubilla, Diccionario de la "d#inistracion EspaGola, p. ()1.:

he partidas defined #inutel% !hat thin$s belon$ed to the public in $eneral and !hat belon$edto private persons. In the first $roup churches are not na#ed. he present Civil Code declares inarticle 22) that propert% is of public or private o!nership. "rticle 22*, !hich defines publicpropert%, is as follo!s

Propert% of public o!nership is + chanrobles virtual la! librar%

'. hat destined to the public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports, and brid$esconstructed b% the State, and ban5s, shores, roadsteads, and that of si#ilarcharacter.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

. hat belon$in$ e;clusivel% to the state !ithout bein$ for public use and !hich is destined toso#e public service, or to the develop#ent of the national !ealth, such as !alls, fortresses, andother !or5s for the defense of the territor%, and #ines, until their concession has been $ranted.

he code also defines the propert% of provinces and of pueblos, and in definin$ !hat propert% isof public use, article 2(( declares as follo!s

Propert% for public use in provinces and in to!ns co#prises the provincial and to!n roads, thes=uares, streets, fountains, and public !aters, the pro#enades, and public !or5s of $eneralservice supported b% the said to!ns or provinces.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtualla! librar%

"ll other propert% possessed b% either is patri#onial, and shall be $overned b% the provisions ofthis code, unless other!ise prescribe in special la!s.

It !ill be noticed that in either one of these articles is an% #ention #ade of churches. /hen theCivil Code undertoo5 to define those thin$s in a pueblo !hich !ere for the co##on use of theinhabitants of the pueblo, or !hich belon$ed to the State, !hile it #entioned a $reat #an% otherthin$s, it did not #ention churches.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

It has been said that article A of the Re$ulations for the E;ecution of the Mort$a$e >a!indicates that churches belon$ to the State and are public propert%. hat article is as follo!s

here shall be e;cepted fro# the record re=uired b% article of the la! chanrobles virtual la!librar%

4irst. Propert% !hich belon$s e;clusivel% to the e#inent do#ain of the State, and !hich is forthe use of all, such as the shores of the sea, islands, rivers and their borders, !a$on roads, andthe roads of all 5inds, !ith the e;ception of railroads6 streets, par5s, public pro#enades, andco##ons of to!ns, provided the% are not lands of co##on profit to the inhabitants6 !alls ofcities and par5s, ports, and roadsteads, and an% other analo$ous propert% durin$ the ti#e the%are in co##on and $eneral use, al!a%s reservin$ the servitudes established b% la! on theshores of the sea and borders of navi$able rivers.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtualla! librar%

Second. Public te#ples dedicated to the Catholic faith.

" readin$ of this article sho!s that far fro# provin$ that churches belon$ to the State and to thee#inent do#ain thereof, it proves the contrar%, for, if the% had belon$ed to the State, the% !ouldhave been included in the first para$raph instead of bein$ placed in a para$raph b%the#selves.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

he truth is that, fro# the earliest ti#es do!n to the cession of the Philippines to the BnitedStates, churches and other consecrated ob0ects !ere considered outside of the co##erce of#an. he% !ere not public propert%, nor could the% be sub0ects of private propert% in the sensethat an% private person could the o!ner thereof. he% constituted a 5ind of propert% distinctivecharacteristic of !hich !as that it !as devoted to the !orship ofod.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

&ut, bein$ #aterial thin$s !as necessar% that so#e one should have the care and custod% of

the# and the ad#inistration thereof, and the =uestion occurs, o !ho#, under the Spanish la!,!as intrusted that possession and ad#inistrationH 4or the purposes of the Spanish la! there!as onl% one reli$ion. hat !as the reli$ion professed b% the Ro#an Catholic Church. It !as forthe purposes of that reli$ion and for the observance of its rites that this church and all otherchurches in the Philippines !ere erected. he possession of the churches, their care andcustod%, and the #aintenance of reli$ious !orship therein !ere necessaril%, therefore, intrustedto that bod%. It !as, b% virtue of the la!s of Spain, the onl% bod% !hich could under an%circu#stances have possession of, or an% control over, an% church dedicated to the !orship ofod. &% virtue of those la!s this possession and ri$ht of control !ere necessaril% e;clusive. It isnot necessar% or i#portant to $ive an% na#e to this ri$ht of possession and control e;ercised b%the Ro#an Catholic Church in the church buildin$s of the Philippines prior to ')*). It is notnecessar% to sho! that the church as a 0uridical person !as the o!ner of the buildin$s. It issufficient to sa% that this ri$ht to the e;clusive possession and control of the sa#e, for thepurposes of its creation, e;isted.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%



58

he ri$ht of patrona$e, e;istin$ in the in$ of Spain !ith reference to the churches in thePhilippines, did not $ive hi# an% ri$ht to interfere !ith the #aterial possession of thesebuildin$s.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

itle 1 of boo5 ' of the Co#pilation of the la!s of the Indies treats Del Patronazgo 1eal de las#ndias. here is nothin$ in an% one of the fift%+one la!s !hich co#pose this title !hich in an%!a% indicates that the in$ of Spain !as the o!ner of the churches in the Indies because hehad constructed the#. hese la!s relate to the ri$ht of presentation to ecclesiastical char$es

and offices. 4or e;a#ple, >a! (* of the title co##ences as follo!s

&ecause the patrona$e and ri$ht of presentation of all archbishops, bishops, di$nitaries,prevents, curates, and doctrines and all other beneficiaries and ecclesiastical offices !hatsoever belon$ to us, no other person can obtain or possess the sa#e !ithout our presentation asprovided in >a! ' and other la!s of this title.

itle 'A of the first partida treats of the ri$ht of patrona$e vestin$ in private persons, but there isnothin$ in an% one of its fifteen la!s !hich in an% !a% indicates that the private patron is theo!ner of the church.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

/hen it is said that this church never belon$ed to the Cro!n of Spain, it is not intended to sa%that the overn#ent and had no po!er over it. It #a% be that b% virtue of that po!er of e#inentdo#ain !hich is necessaril% resides in ever% $overn#ent, it #i$ht have appropriated this churchand other churches, and private propert% of individuals. &ut nothin$ of this 5ind !as everatte#pted in the Philippines.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

It, therefore, follo!s that in ')*), and prior to the treat% of Paris, the Ro#an Catholic Churchhad b% la! the e;clusive ri$ht to the possession of this church and it had the le$al ri$ht toad#inister the sa#e for the purposes for !hich the buildin$ !as consecrated. It !as then in thefull and peaceful possession of the church !ith the ri$hts aforesaid. hat these ri$hts !ere full%protected b% the treat% of Paris is ver% clear. hat treat%, in article ), provides, a#on$ otherthin$s, as follo!s

"nd it is hereb% declared that the relin=uish#ent or cession, as the case #a% be, to !hich theprecedin$ para$raph refers, can not in an% respect i#pair the propert% or ri$hts !hich b% la!belon$ to the peaceful possession of propert% of all 5inds, or provinces, #unicipalities, public orprivate establish#ents, ecclesiastical or civic bodies, or an% other associations havin$ le$alcapacit% to ac=uire and possess propert% in the aforesaid territories renounced or ceded, or ofprivate individuals, or !hatsoever nationalit% such individuals #a% be.

It is not necessar%, ho!ever, to invo5e the provisions of that treat%. Neither the overn#ent ofthe Bnited States, nor the overn#ent of these Islands, has ever atte#pted in an% !a% tointerfere !ith the ri$hts !hich the Ro#an Catholic Church had in this buildin$ !hen Spanishsoverei$nt% ceased in the Philippines. "n% interference that has resulted has been caused b%private individuals, actin$ !ithout an% authorit% fro# theovern#ent.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

No point is #ade in the brief of the appellant that an% distinction should be #ade bet!een thechurch and the convent. he convent undoubtedl% !as anne;ed to the church and, as to it, theprovisions of >a! '*, title , boo5 ', of the Co#pilation of the >a!s of the Indies !ould appl%.hat la! is as follo!s

/e co##and that the Indians of each to!n or barrio shall construct such houses as #a% bedee#ed sufficient in !hich the priests of such to!ns or barrios #a% live co#fortabl% ad0oinin$the parish church of the place !here that #a% be built for the benefit of the priests in char$e ofsuch churches and en$a$ed in the education and conversion of their Indian parishioners, andthe% shall not be alienated or devoted to an% other purpose.

he evidence in this case #a5es no sho!in$ in re$ard to the ce#eter%. It is al!a%s #entioned inconnection !ith the church and convent and no point is #ade b% the possession of the church

and convent, he is not also entitled to recover possession of the ce#eter%. So, !ithoutdiscussin$ the =uestion as to !hether the rules applicable to churches are all respectsapplicable to ce#eteries, !e hold for the purpose of this case that the plaintiff has the sa#e ri$htto the ce#eter% that he has to the church.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la!librar%

9(: It is su$$ested b% the appellant that the Ro#an Catholic Church has no le$al personalit% inthe Philippine Islands. his su$$estion, #ade !ith reference to an institution !hich antedates b%al#ost a thousand %ears an% other personalit% in Europe, and !hich e;isted 3!hen recianelo=uence still flourished in "ntioch, and !hen idols !ere still !orshiped in the te#ple ofMecca,3 does not re=uire serious consideration. In the prea#ble to the bud$et relatin$ toecclesiastical obli$ations, presented b% Montero Rios to the Cortes on the 'st of October ')7',spea5in$ of the Ro#an Catholic Church, he sa%s

Persecuted as an unla!ful association since the earl% da%s of its e;istence up to the ti#e ofalieno, !ho !as the first of the Ro#an e#perors to ad#it it a#on$ the 0uridicial entitiesprotected b% the la!s of the E#pire , it e;isted until then b% the #erc% and !ill of the faithful anddepended for such e;istence upon pious $ifts and offerin$s. Since the latter half of the thirdcentur%, and #ore particularl% since the %ear 2'2, !hen Constantine, b% the edict of Milan,inau$urated an era of protection for the church, the latter $raduall% entered upon the e;ercise ofsuch ri$hts as !ere re=uired for the ac=uisition, preservation, and trans#ission of propert% thesa#e as an% other 0uridical entit% under the la!s of the E#pire. 92 Dictionar% of Spanish

"d#inistration, "lcubilla, p. ''. See also the ro%al order of the (th of Dece#ber, ')*-, 2 "lcubilla, ')*.:

he 0ud$#ent of the court belo! is affir#ed, !ith the costs of this instance a$ainst the appellant. "fter the e;piration of t!ent% da%s fro# the date hereof let 0ud$#ent be entered in accordancehere!ith, and ten da%s thereafter the record be re#anded to the court belo! for e;ecution. Soordered.chanroblesvirtuala!librar% chanrobles virtual la! librar%

SECOND DIVISION

IGLESIA EVANGELICA METODISTA G.R. No. 18$'88EN LAS ISLAS "ILIPINAS <IEMELI"=<Co-o-to/ So5*=, INC., REV. NESTORPINEDA, REV. RO!ERTO !ACANI,!EN#AMIN !ORLONGAN, #R.,DANILO SAUR, RICARD PONTI,AL"REDO MATA!ANG /6 55 t0*ot0*- +*+*-s o t0* IEMELI"TONDO CONGREGATION o t0*IEMELI" CORPORATION SOLE,

Petitioners, Present



59

C"RPIO, J ., Chairperson, + versus + N"C@BR",

PER">", "&"D, and MENDO", JJ.

!ISOP NATANAEL LAARO,REVERENDS ONORIO RIVERA,DANIEL MADUCDOC, "ERDINANDMERCADO, ARCADIO CA!ILDO,DOMINGO GONALES, ARTUROLAPU, ADORA!LE MANGALINDAN,DANIEL VICTORIA /6 DA>ILACRU, /6 LAY LEADER LING>ODMADUCDOC /6 CESAR DOMINGO,t/g /6)6u554 /6 s +*+*-s o t0* Su-*+* Co/ssto-4 o E56*-s/6 t0os* 5+/g u/6*- t0* Pro#ul$atedCo-o-to/ Agg-*gt*,

Respondents. 8ul% 1, -'- ; +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ;



60

DECISION

A!AD, J .

he present dispute resolves the issue of !hether or not a corporation #a% chan$e its

character as a corporation sole into a corporation a$$re$ate b% #ere a#end#ent of its articles

of incorporation !ithout first $oin$ throu$h the process of dissolution.

T0* "ts /6 t0* Cs*

In '*-*, &ishop Nicolas a#ora established the petitioner I$lesia Evan$elica

Metodista En >as Islas 4ilipinas, Inc. 9IEME>I4: as a corporation sole !ith &ishop a#ora actin$

as its Keneral Superintendent.L hirt%+nine %ears later in '*(), the IEME>I4 enacted and

re$istered a b%+la!s that established a Supre#e Consistor% of Elders 9the Consistor%:, #ade up

of church #inisters, !ho !ere to serve for four %ears. he b%+la!s e#po!ered the Consistor%

to elect a eneral Superintendent, a eneral Secretar%, a eneral Evan$elist, and a reasurer

eneral !ho !ould #ana$e the affairs of the or$ani?ation. 4or all intents and purposes, the

Consistor% served as the IEME>I4s board of directors.

"pparentl%, althou$h the IEME>I4 re#ained a corporation sole on paper 9!ith all

corporate po!ers theoreticall% lod$ed in the hands of one #e#ber, the eneral

Superintendent:, it had al!a%s acted li5e a corporation a$$re$ate. he Consistor% e;ercised

IEME>I4s decision+#a5in$ po!ers !ithout ever bein$ challen$ed. Subse=uentl%, durin$ its

'*72 eneral Conference, the $eneral #e#bership voted to put thin$s ri$ht b% chan$in$

IEME>I4s or$ani?ational structure fro# a corporation sole to a corporation a$$re$ate. On Ma%

7, '*72 the Securities and E;chan$e Co##ission 9SEC: approved the vote. 4or so#e reasons,

ho!ever, the corporate papers of the IEME>I4 re#ained unaltered as a corporation sole.

Onl% in --', about ) %ears later, did the issue ree#er$e. In ans!er to a =uer% fro#

the IEME>I4, the SEC replied on "pril 2, --' that, althou$h the SEC Co##issioner did not in

'*() ob0ect to the conversion of the IEME>I4 into a corporation a$$re$ate, that conversion !as

not properl% carried out and docu#ented. he SEC said that the IEME>I4 needed to a#end its

articles of incorporation for that purpose.'

"ctin$ on this advice, the Consistor% resolved to convert the IEME>I4 to a corporation

a$$re$ate. Respondent &ishop Nathanael >a?aro, its eneral Superintendent, instructed all

their con$re$ations to ta5e up the #atter !ith their respect ive #e#bers for

resolution. Subse=uentl%, the $eneral #e#bership approved the conversion, pro#ptin$ the

IEME>I4 to file a#ended articles of incorporation !ith the SEC. &ishop >a?aro filed an affidavit+

certification in support of the conversion.

Petitioners Reverend Nestor Pineda, et al ., !hich belon$ed to a faction that did not

support the conversion, filed a civil case for KEnforce$ent of Property 1igts of %orporation

'ole, Declaration of (ullity of A$ended Articles of #ncorporation fro$ %orporation 'ole to

%orporation Aggregate /it Application for Preli$inary #n2unction and3or Te$porary 1estraining

rder L in IEME>I4s na#e a$ainst respondent #e#bers of its Consistor% before the Re$ional

rial Court 9RC: of Manila.2 Petitioners clai# that a co#plete shift fro# IEME>I4s status as a

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/184088.htm#_ftn1












61

corporation sole to a corporation a$$re$ate re=uired, not 0ust an a#end#ent of the IEME>I4s

articles of incorporation, but a co#plete dissolution of the e;istin$ corporation sole follo!ed b% a

re+incorporation.

Bni#pressed, the RC dis#issed the action in its October '*, --A decision. ( It held

that, !hile the Corporation Code on Reli$ious Corporations 9Chapter II, itle JIII: has no

provision $overnin$ the a#end#ent of the articles of incorporation of a corporation sole, its

Section '-* provides that reli$ious corporations shall be $overned additionall% Kb% the provisions

on non+stoc5 corporations insofar as the% #a% be applicable.L he RC thus held that Section

'1 of the CodeA

that $overned a#end#ents of the articles of incorporation of non+stoc5

corporations applied to corporations sole as !ell. /hat IEME>I4 needed to authori?e the

a#end#ent !as #erel% the vote or !ritten assent of at least t!o+thirds of the IEME>I4

#e#bership.

Petitioners Pineda, et al . appealed the RC decision to the Court of "ppeals 9C":.

1 On October 2', --7 the C" rendered a decision,7 affir#in$ that of the RC. Petitioners

#oved for reconsideration, but the C" denied it b% its resolution of "u$ust ', --), ) hence, the

present petition for revie! before this Court.

T0* Issu* P-*s*/t*6

he onl% issue presented in this case is !hether or not the C" erred in affir#in$ the

RC rulin$ that a corporation sole #a% be converted into a corporation a$$re$ate b% #ere

a#end#ent of its articles of incorporation.

T0* Cou-t?s Ru5/g

Petitioners Pineda, et al . insist that, since the Corporation Code does not have an%

provision that allo!s a corporation sole to convert into a corporation a$$re$ate b% #ere

a#end#ent of its articles of incorporation, the conversion can ta5e place onl% b% first dissolvin$

IEME>I4, the corporation sole, and after!ards b% creatin$ a ne! corporation in its place.

Reli$ious corporations are $overned b% Sections '-* throu$h ''1 of the Corporation

Code. In a --* case involvin$ IEME>I4, the Court distin$uished a corporation sole fro# a

corporation a$$re$ate.* Citin$ Section ''- of the Corporation Code, the Court said that a

corporation sole is Kone for#ed b% the chief archbishop, bishop, priest, #inister, rabbi or other

presidin$ elder of a reli$ious deno#ination, sect, or church, for the purpose of ad#inisterin$ or

#ana$in$, s t-ust**, the affairs, properties and te#poralities of such reli$ious deno#ination,

sect or church.L " corporation a$$re$ate for#ed for the sa#e purpose, on the other

hand, consists of t!o or #ore persons.





















62

rue, the Corporation Code provides no specific #echanis# for a#endin$ the articles

of incorporation of a corporation sole. &ut, as the RC correctl% held, Section '-* of the

Corporation Code allo!s the application to reli$ious corporations of the $eneral provisions

$overnin$ non+stoc5 corporations.

4or non+stoc5 corporations, the po!er to a#end its articles of incorporation lies in its

#e#bers. he code re=uires t!o+thirds of their votes for the approval of such an

a#end#ent. So ho! !ill this re=uire#ent appl% to a corporation sole that has technicall% but

one #e#ber 9the head of the reli$ious or$ani?ation: !ho holds in his hands its broad corporate

po!ers over the properties, ri$hts, and interests of his reli$ious or$ani?ationH

"lthou$h a non+stoc5 corporation has a personalit% that is distinct fro# those of its

#e#bers !ho established it, its articles of incorporation cannot be a#ended solel% throu$h the

action of its board of trustees. he a#end#ent needs the concurrence of at least t!o+thirds of

its #e#bership. If such approval #echanis# is #ade to operate in a corporation sole, its one

#e#ber in !ho# all the po!ers of the corporation technicall% belon$s, needs to $et the

concurrence of t!o+thirds of its #e#bership. he one #e#ber, here the eneral

Superintendent, is but a trustee, accordin$ to Section ''- of the Corporation Code, of its

#e#bership.

here is no point to dissolvin$ the corporation sole of one #e#ber to enable the

corporation a$$re$ate to e#er$e fro# it. /hether it is a non+stoc5 corporation or a corporation

sole, the corporate bein$ re#ains distinct fro# its #e#bers, !hatever be their nu#ber. he

increase in the nu#ber of its corporate #e#bership does not chan$e the co#ple;ion of its

corporate responsibilit% to third parties. he one #e#ber, !ith the concurrence of t!o+thirds of

the #e#bership of the or$ani?ation for !ho# he acts as trustee, can self+!ill the

a#end#ent. @e can, !ith #e#bership concurrence, increase the technical nu#ber of the

#e#bers of the corporation fro# KsoleL or one to the $reater nu#ber authori?ed b% its a#ended

articles.

@ere, the evidence sho!s that the IEME>I4s eneral Superintendent, respondent

&ishop >a?aro, !ho e#bodied the corporation sole, had obtained, not onl% the approval of the

Consistor% that dre! up corporate policies, but also that of the re=uired t!o+thirds vote of its

#e#bership.

he a#end#ent of the articles of incorporation, as correctl% put b% the C", re=uires

#erel% that a: the a#end#ent is not contrar% to an% provision or re=uire#ent under the

Corporation Code, and that b: it is for a le$iti#ate purpose. Section '7 of the Corporation

Code'- provides that a#end#ent shall be disapproved if, a#on$ others, the prescribed for# of

the articles of incorporation or a#end#ent to it is not observed, or if the purpose or purposes of

the corporation are patentl% unconstitutional, ille$al, i##oral, or contrar% to $overn#ent rules

and re$ulations, or if the re=uired percenta$e of o!nership is not co#plied !ith. hese

i#pedi#ents do not appear in the case of IEME>I4.

&esides, as the C" noted, the IEME>I4 !or5ed out the a#end#ent of its articles of

incorporation upon the initiative and advice of the SEC. he latters interpretation and





63

application of the Corporation Code is entitled to respect and reco$nition, barrin$ an%

diver$ence fro# applicable la!s. Considerin$ its e;perience and speciali?ed capabilities in the

area of corporation la!, the SECs prior action on the IEME>I4 issue should be accorded $reat

!ei$ht.

:ERE"ORE, the Court DENIES the petition and A""IRMS the October 2', --7

decision and "u$ust ', --) resolution of the Court of "ppeals in C"+.R. SP *1(-.

SO ORDERED.


Manila

EN &"NC

G.R. No. L(8$%1 D**+*- 2', 19%7

TE ROMAN CATOLIC APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR O" DAVAO, INC., petitioner,vs.TE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION /6 TE REGISTER O" DEEDS O" DAVAOCITY, respondents.

Teodoro Padilla, for petitioner.ffice of te 'olicitor !eneral A$brosio Padilla, Assistant 'olicitor !eneral Jose !. 4autista and Troadio T. 5uianzon, Jr., for respondents.

"ELI@, J.:

his is a petition for $anda$us filed b% the Ro#an Catholic "postolic "d#inistrator of Davaosee5in$ the reversal of a resolution b% the >and Re$istration Co##issioner in >.R.C. ConsultaNo. '(. he facts of the case are as follo!s

On October (, '*A(, Mateo >. Rodis, a 4ilipino citi?en and resident of the Cit% of Davao,e;ecuted a deed of sale of a parcel of land located in the sa#e cit% covered b% ransferCertificate No. 12, in favor of the Ro#an Catholic "postolic "d#inistrator of Davao Inc., scorporation sole or$ani?ed and e;istin$ in accordance !ith Philippine >a!s, !ith Ms$r. Clovishibault, a Canadian citi?en, as actual incu#bent. /hen the deed of sale !as presented toRe$ister of Deeds of Davao for re$istration, the latter.

havin$ in #ind a previous resolution of the 4ourth &ranch of the Court of 4irst

Instance of Manila !herein the Car#elite Nuns of Davao !ere #ade to prepare anaffidavit to the effect that 1- per cent of the #e#bers of their corporation !ere 4ilipinociti?ens !hen the% sou$ht to re$ister in favor of their con$re$ation of deed of donationof a parcel of land

re=uired said corporation sole to sub#it a si#ilar affidavit declarin$ that 1- per cent of the#e#bers thereof !ere 4ilipino citi?ens.

he vendee in the letter dated 8une ), '*A(, e;pressed !illin$ness to sub#it an affidavit, bothnot in the sa#e tenor as that #ade the Pro$ress of the Car#elite Nuns because the t!o cases!ere not si#ilar, for !hereas the con$re$ation of the Car#elite Nuns had five incorporators, thecorporation sole has onl% one6 that accordin$ to their articles of incorporation, the or$ani?ation of the Car#elite Nuns beca#e the o!ner of properties donated to it, !hereas the case at bar, thetotalit% of the Catholic population of Davao !ould beco#e the o!ner of the propert% bou$ht to be

re$istered.

"s the Re$ister of Deeds entertained so#e doubts as to the re$isterabilit% if the docu#ent, the#atter !as referred to the >and Re$istration Co##issioner en consulta for resolution inaccordance !ith section ( of Republic "ct No. ''A'. Proper hearin$ on the #atter !asconducted b% the Co##issioner and after the petitioner corporation had filed its #e#orandu#,a resolution !as rendered on Septe#ber ', '*A(, holdin$ that in vie! of the provisions ofSection ' and A of "rticle JIII of the Philippine Constitution, the vendee !as not =ualified toac=uire private lands in the Philippines in the absence of proof that at least 1- per centu# of thecapital, propert%, or assets of the Ro#an Catholic "postolic "d#inistrator of Davao, Inc., !asactuall% o!ned or controlled b% 4ilipino citi?ens, there bein$ no =uestion that the presentincu#bent of the corporation sole !as a Canadian citi?en. It !as also the opinion of the >andRe$istration Co##issioner that section 'A* of the corporation >a! relied upon b% the vendee!as rendered operative b% the afore#entioned provisions of the Constitution !ith respect to realestate, unless the precise condition set therein that at least 1- per cent of its capital is o!ned

b% 4ilipino citi?ens be present, and, therefore, ordered the Re$istered Deeds of Davao toden% re$istration of the deed of sale in the absence of proof of co#pliance !ith such condition.

"fter the #otion to reconsider said resolution !as denied, an action for $anda$us !asinstituted !ith this Court b% said corporation sole, alle$in$ that under the Corporation >a! as!ell as the settled 0urisprudence on the #atter, the deed of sale e;ecuted b% Mateo >. Rodis infavor of petitioner is actuall% a deed of sale in favor of the Catholic Church !hich is =ualified toac=uire private a$ricultural lands for the establish#ent and #aintenance of places of !orship,and pra%ed that 0ud$#ent be rendered reservin$ and settin$ aside the resolution of the >andRe$istration Co##issioner in =uestion. In its resolution of Nove#ber 'A, '*A(, this Court $avedue course to this petition providin$ that the procedure prescribed for appeals fro# the PublicService Co##ission of the Securities and E;chan$e Co##issions 9Rule (2:, be follo!ed.

Section A of "rticle JIII of the Philippine Constitution reads as follo!s



64

SEC. A. Save in cases of hereditar% succession, no private agricultural land shall betransferred or assi$ned e;cept to individuals, corporations, or associations 6ualified toac6uire or old lands of te public do$ain in te Pilippines .

Section ' of the sa#e "rticle also provides the follo!in$

SECION '. All agricultural, ti$ber, and $ineral lands of te public do$ain, !ater, #inerals,coal, petroleu#, and other #ineral oils, all forces of potential ener$%, and other natural resourcesof the Philippines belon$ to the State, and their disposition, e;ploitation, develop#ent, orutili?ation shall be li#ited to citit?ens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations atleast sity per centu$ of te capital of /ic is o/ned by suc citizens , SB&8EC O "NFEJISIN RI@, $rant, lease, or concession " @E IME O4 @E IN"BBR"ION O4 @EOVERNMEN ES"&>IS@ED BNDER CONSIBION. Natural resources, !ith thee;ception of public a$ricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, orleases for the e;ploitation, develop#ent, or utili?ation of an% of the natural resources shall be$ranted for a period e;ceedin$ t!ent%+five %ears, rene!able for another t!ent%+five %ears,e;cept as to !ater ri$hts for irri$ation, !ater suppl%, fisheries, or industrial uses other than thedevelop#ent of !ater po!er, in !hich cases other than the develop#ent and li#it of the $rant.

In virtue of the fore$oin$ #andates of the Constitution, !ho are considered 3=ualified3 to ac=uireand hold a$ricultural lands in the PhilippinesH /hat is the effect of these constitutionalprohibition of the ri$ht of a reli$ious corporation reco$ni?ed b% our Corporation >a! and

re$istered as a corporation sole, to possess, ac=uire and re$ister real estates in its na#e !henthe @ead, Mana$er, "d#inistrator or actual incu#bent is an alienH

Petitioner consistentl% #aintained that a corporation sole, irrespective of the citi?enship of itsincu#bent, is not prohibited or dis=ualified to ac=uire and hold real properties. he Corporation>a! and the Canon >a! are e;plicit in their provisions that a corporation sole or 3ordinar%3 is notthe o!ner of the of the properties that he #a% ac=uire but #erel% the ad#inistrator thereof. heCanon >a! also specified that church te#poralities are o!ned b% the Catholic Church as a3#oral person3 or b% the diocess as #inor 3#oral persons3 !ith the ordinar% or bishop asad#inistrator.

"nd elaboratin$ on the co#position of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, petitionere;plained that as a reli$ious societ% or or$ani?ation, it is #ade up of ele#ents or divisions the cler$% or reli$ious #e#bers and the faithful or la% #e#bers. he '*() fi$ures of the &ureau

of Census sho!ed that there !ere 77,AA' Catholics in Davao and aliens residin$ thereinnu#bered 2,(1A. Ever $rantin$ that all these forei$ners are Catholics, petitioner contends that4ilipino citi?ens for# #ore than )- per cent of the entire Catholics population of that area. "s toits cler$% and reli$ious co#position, counsel for petitioner presented the Catholic Director% of thePhilippines for '*A( 9"nne; ": !hich revealed that as of that %ear, 4ilipino cler$% and !o#ennovices co#prise alread% 1-.A per cent of the $roup. It !as, therefore, allo!ed that theconstitutional re=uire#ent !as full% #et and satisfied.

Respondents, on the other hand, averred that althou$h it #i$ht be true that petitioner is not theo!ner of the land purchased, %et he has control over the sa#e, !ith full po!er to ad#inister,ta5e possession of, alienate, transfer, encu#ber, sell or dispose of an% or all lands and theiri#prove#ents re$istered in the na#e of the corporation sole and can collect, receive, de#andor sue for all #one% or values of an% 5ind that #a% be 5ind that #a% beco#e due or o!in$ tosaid corporation, and vested !ith authorit% to enter into a$ree#ents !ith an% persons, concernsor entities in connection !ith said real properties, or in other !ords, actuall% e;ercisin$ all ri$hts

of o!nership over the properties. It !as their stand that the theor% that properties re$istered inthe na#e of the corporation sole are held in true for the benefit of the Catholic population of a

place, as of Davao in the case at bar should be sustained because a con$lo#eration of personscannot 0ust be pointed out as the cestui =ue trust or recipient of the benefits fro# the propert%alle$edl% ad#inistered in their behalf. Neither can it be said that the #ass of people referred toas such beneficiar% e;ercise ant ri$ht of o!nership over the sa#e. his set+up, respondentsar$ued, falls short of a trust. he respondents instead tried to p rove that in realit%, the beneficiar%of ecclesiastical properties are not #e#bers or faithful of the church but so#eone else, b%=uotin$ a portion a portion of the ou$ht of fidelit% subscribed b% a bishop upon his elevation tothe episcopac% !herein he pro#ises to render to the Pontificial 4ather or his successors anaccount of his pastoral office and of all thin$s appertainin$ to the state of this church.

Respondents li5e!ise advanced the opinion that in construin$ the constitutional provision callin$for 1- per cent of 4ilipino citi?enship, the criterion of the properties or assets thereof.

In solvin$ the proble# thus sub#itted to our consideration, /e can sa% the follo!in$ "corporation sole is a special for# of corporation usuall% associated !ith the cler$%. Conceivedand introduced into the co##on la! b% sheer necessit%, this le$al creation !hich !as referred toas 3that unhapp% frea5 of En$lish la!3 !as desi$ned to facilitate the e;ercise of the functions ofo!nership carried on b% the clerics for and on behalf of the church !hich !as re$arded as thepropert% o!ner 9See I Couvier<s >a! Dictionar%, p. 1)+1)2:.

" corporation sole consists of one person onl%, and his successors 9!ho !ill al!a%s be one at ati#e:, in so#e particular station, !ho are incorporated b% la! in order to $ive the# so#e le$al

capacities and advanta$es, particularl% that of perpetuit%, !hich in their natural persons the%could not have had. In this sense, the 5in$ is a sole corporation6 so is a bishop, or dens, distinctfro# their several chapters 9Reid vs. &arr%, *2 4la. )(*, '' So. )(1:.

he provisions of our Corporation la! on reli$ious corporations are illu#inatin$ and sustain thestand of petitioner. Section 'A( thereof provides

SEC. 'A(. 4or the ad#inistration of the te#poralities of an% reli$ious deno#ination,societ% or church and the #ana$e#ent of the estates and the properties thereof, itshall be la!ful for the bishop, chief priest, or presidin$ either of an% such reli$iousdeno#ination, societ% or church to beco#e a corporation sole, unless inconsistent !itthe rules, re$ulations or discipline of his reli$ious deno#ination, societ% or church orforbidden b% co#petent authorit% thereof.

See also the pertinent provisions of the succeedin$ sections of the sa#e Corporation >a!copied hereunder

SEC. 'AA. In order to beco#e a corporation sole the bishop, chief priest, or presidin$elder of an% reli$ious deno#ination, societ% or church #ust file !ith the Securities andE;chan$e Co##issioner articles of incorporation settin$ forth the follo!in$ facts

;;; ;;; ;;;.

92: hat as such bishop, chief priest, or presidin$ elder he is carged /it tead$inistration of the te#poralities and the #ana$e#ent of the estates and propertiesof his reli$ious deno#ination, societ%, or church !ithin its territorial 0urisdiction,describin$ it6

;;; ;;; ;;;.



65

9"s a#ended b% Co##on!ealth "ct No. )7:.

SEC. 'A7. 4ro# and after the filin$ !ith the Securities and E;chan$e Co##issioner of the said articles of incorporation, !hich verified b% affidavit or affir#ation as aforesaidand acco#panied b% the cop% of the co##ission, certificate of election, or letters ofappoint#ent of the bishop, chief priest, or presidin$ elder, dul% certified as prescribedin the section i##ediatel% precedin$ such the bishop, chief priest, or presidin$ elder,as the case #a% be, shall beco#e a corporation sole and all te$poralities, estates,

and properties te religious deno$ination, society, or curc terefore ad$inistered or $anaged by i$ as suc bisop, cief priest, or presiding elder, sall be eld in trustby i$ as a corporation sole, for te use, purpose, bealf, and sole benefit of isreligious deno$ination, society, or curc, includin$ hospitals, schools, colle$es,orphan, as%lu#s, parsona$es, and ce#eteries thereof. 4or the filin$ of such articles of incorporation, the Securities and E;chan$e Co##issioner shall collect t!ent%+fivepesos. 9"s a#ended b% Co##on!ealth "ct. No. )7:6 and.

SEC. '12. he ri$ht to ad#inister all te#poralities and all propert% held or o!ned b% areli$ious order or societ%, or b% the diocese, s%nod, or district or$ani?ation of an%reli$ious deno#ination or church shall, on its incorporation, pass to the corporationand shall be held in trust for the use, purpose behalf, and benefit of the reli$ioussociet%, or order so incorporated or of the church of !hich the diocese, or districtor$ani?ation is an or$ani?ed and constituent part.

he Cannon >a! contains si#ilar provisions re$ardin$ the duties of the corporation sole orordinar% as ad#inistrator of the church properties, as follo!s

"l Ordinario local pertenence vi$ilar dili$ente#ente sobre la ad$inistracion de todoslos bienes eclesiasticos =ue se hallan en su territorio % no estuvieren sustraidos de su

0urisdiccion, salvs las prescriciones le$iti#as =ue le concedan #as aa#pliosderechos.

eniendo en cuenta los derechos % las le$iti#as costu#bres % circunstancias,procuraran los Ordinarios re$ular todo lo concerniente a la ad$inistracion de losbienes eclesciasticos, dando las oportunas instucciones particularles dentro del narcodel derecho co#un. 9itle JJVIII, Codi$o de Derecho Canonico, >ib. III, Canon'A'*:.1

hat leaves no roo# for doubt that the bishops or archbishops, as the case #a% be, ascorporation<s sole are #erel% ad$inistrators of the church properties that co#e to theirpossession, in !hich the% hold in trust for the church. It can al so be said that !hile it is true thatchurch properties could be ad#inistered b% a natural persons, proble#s re$ardin$ succession tosaid properties can not be avoided to rise upon his death. hrou$h this le$al fiction, ho!ever,church properties ac=uired b% the incu#bent of a corporation sole pass, b% operation of la!,upon his death not his personal heirs but to his successor in office. It could be seen, therefore,that a corporation sole is created not onl% to ad#inister the te#poralities of the church orreli$ious societ% !here he belon$s but also to hold and trans#it the sa#e to his successor insaid office. If the o!nership or title to the properties do not pass to the ad#inistrators, !ho arethe o!ners of church propertiesH.

&ouscaren and Elis, S.8., authorities on cannon la!, on their treatise co##ent

In #atters re$ardin$ propert% belon$in$ to the Bniversal Church and to the "postolicSee, the Supre#e Pontiff e;ercises his office of supre#e ad#inistrator throu$h theRo#an Curia6 in $atters regarding oter curc property , throu$h the ad#inistratorsof the individual #oral persons in the Church accordin$ to that nor#s, laid do!n in theCode of Cannon >a!. Tis does not $ean, o/ever, tat te 1o$an Pontiff is teo/ner of all te curc property7 but $erely tat e is te supre$eguardian 9&ouscaren and Ellis, Cannon >a!, " e;t and Co##entar%, p. 71(:.

and this Court, citin$ Ca#pes % Pulido, >e$islacion % 8urisprudencia Canonica, ruled in the caseof rinidad vs. Ro#an Catholic "rchbishop of Manila, 12 Phil. ))', that

he second =uestion to be decided is in !ho# the o!nership of the propertiesconstitutin$ the endo!#ent of the ecclesiastical or collative chaplaincies is vested.

Canonists entertain different opinions as to the persons in !ho# the o!nership of theecclesiastical properties is vested, !ith respect to !hich !e shall, for our purpose,confine ourselves to statin$ !ith Donoso that, !hile #an% doctors cited b% 4a$nanobelieve that it resides in the Ro#an Pontiff as @ead of the Bniversal Church, it is #oreprobable that o!nership, strictl% spea5in$, does not reside in the latter, and,conse=uentl%, ecclesiastical properties are o!ned b% the churches, institutions andcanonicall% established private corporations to !hich said properties have beendonated.

Considerin$ that no!here can /e find an% provision conferrin$ o!nership of church propertieson the Pope althou$h he appears to be the supre#e ad#inistrator or $uardian of his floc5, noron the corporation sole or heads of dioceses as the% are ad#ittedl% #ere ad$inistrators of saidproperties, o!nership of these te#poralities lo$icall% fall and develop upon the church, dioceseor con$re$ation ac=uirin$ the sa#e. "lthou$h this =uestion of o!nership of ecclesiasticalproperties has off and on been #entioned in several decisions of the Court %et in no instance!as the sub0ect of citi?enship of this reli$ious societ% been passed upon.

/e are not una!are of the opinion e;pressed b% the late 8ustice Perfecto in his dissent in thecase of "$ustines vs. Court of 4irst Instance of &ulacan, )- Phil. A1A, to the effect that 3theRo#an Catholic "rchbishop of Manila is onl% a branch of a universal church b% the Pope, !ithper#anent residence in Ro#e, Ital%3. here is no =uestion that the Ro#an Catholic Churche;istin$ in the Philippines is a tributar% and part of the international reli$ious or$ani?ation, for the

!ord 3Ro#an3 clearl% e;presses its unit% !ith and reco$ni?es the authorit% of the Pope in Ro#e.@o!ever, lest /e beco#e hast% in dra!in$ conclusions, /e have to anal%?e and ta5e no te ofthe nature of the $overn#ent established in the Vatican Cit%, of !hich it !as said

OVERNMEN. In the Ro#an Catholic Church supre#e authorit% and 0urisdictionover cler$% and lait% ali5e as held b% the pope !ho 9since the Middle "$es: is electedb% the cardinals asse#bled in conclave, and holds office until his death or le$iti#ateabdication. . . /hile the pope is obviousl% independent of the la!s #ade, and theofficials appointed, b% hi#self or his predecessors, he usuall% e;ercises hisad#inistrative authorit% accordin$ to the code of canon la! and throu$h thecon$re$ations, tribunals and offices of the Curia Ro#ana. In their respective territories9called $enerall% dioceses: and over their respective sub0ects, the patriarchs,#etropolitans or archbishops and bishops e;ercise a 0urisdiction !hich is calledordinar% 9as attached b% la! to an office $iven to a person. . . 9Collier<s Enc%clopedia,Vol. '7, p. *2:.



66

/hile it is true and /e have to concede that in the profession of their faith, the Ro#an Pontiff isthe supre#e head6 that in the reli$ious #atters, in the e;ercise of their belief, the Catholiccon$re$ation of the faithful throu$hout the !orld see5s the $uidance and direction of theirSpiritual 4ather in the Vatican, %et it cannot be said that there is a #er$er o f personalitiesresultant therein. Neither can it be said that the political and civil ri$hts of the faithful, inherent orac=uired under the la!s of their countr%, are affected b% that relationship !ith the Pope. he factthat the Ro#an Catholic Church in al#ost ever% countr% sprin$s fro# that societ% that sa! itsbe$innin$ in Europe and the fact that the cler$% of this faith derive their authorities and receiveorders fro# the @ol% See do not $ive or besto! the citi?enship of the Pope upon thesebranches. Citi?enship is a political ri$ht !hich cannot be ac=uired b% a sort of 3radiation3. /ehave to reali?e that althou$h there is a fraternit% a#on$ all the catholic countries and thedioceses therein all over the $lobe, the universalit% that the !ord 3catholic3 i#plies, #erel%characteri?e their faith, a unifor#it% in the practice and the interpretation of their do$#a and inthe e;ercise of their belief, but certainl% the% are separate and independent fro# one another in

0urisdiction, $overned b% different la!s under !hich the% are incorporated, and entirel%independent on the others in the #ana$e#ent and o!nership of their te#poralities. o allo!theor% that the Ro#an Catholic Churches all over the !orld follo! the citi?enship of theirSupre#e @ead, the Pontifical 4ather, !ould lead to the absurdit% of findin$ the citi?ens of acountr% !ho e#brace the Catholic faith and beco#e #e#bers of that reli$ious societ%, li5e!iseciti?ens of the Vatican or of Ital%. "nd this is #ore so if /e consider that the Pope hi#self #a%be an Italian or national of an% other countr% of the !orld. he sa#e thin$ be said !ith re$ard tothe nationalit% or citi?enship of the corporation sole created under the la!s of the Philippines,!hich is not altered b% the chan$e of citi?enship of the incu#bent bishops or head of saidcorporation sole.

/e #ust therefore, declare that althou$h a branch of the Bniversal Ro#an Catholic "postolicChurch, ever% Ro#an Catholic Church in different countries, if it e;ercises its #ission and isla!full% incorporated in accordance !ith the la!s of the countr% !here it is located, is consideredan entit% or person !ith all the ri$hts and privile$es $ranted to such artificial bein$ under thela!s of that countr%, separate and distinct fro# the personalit% of the Ro#an Pontiff or the @ol%See, !ithout pre0udice to its reli$ious relations !ith the latter !hich are $overned b% the Canon>a! or their rules and re$ulations.

/e certainl% are conscious of the fact that !hatever conclusion /e #a% dra! on this #atter !illhave a far reachin$ influence, nor can /e overloo5 the pa$es of histor% that arouse indi$nationand criticis#s a$ainst church landholdin$s. his nurtured feelin$ that sno!bailed into a stron$nationalistic senti#ent #anifested itself !hen the provisions on natural to be e#bodied in thePhilippine Constitution !ere fra#ed, but all that has been said on this re$ard referred #ore

particularl% to landholdin$s of reli$ious corporations 5no!n as 34riar Estates3 !hich have alread%bee ac=uired b% our $overn#ent, and not to properties held b% corporations sole !hich, /erepeat, are properties held in trust for the benefit of the faithful residin$ !ithin its territorial

0urisdiction. hou$h that sa#e feelin$ probabl% precipitated and influenced to a lar$e e;tent thedoctrine laid do!n in the celebrated rivenco decision, /e have to ta5e this #atter in the li$ht of le$al provisions and 0urisprudence actuall% obtainin$, irrespective of senti#ents.

he =uestion no! left for our deter#ination is !hether the Bniversal Ro#an Catholic "postolicChurch in the Philippines, or better still, the corporation sole na#ed the Ro#an Catholic

"postolic "d#inistrator of Davao, Inc., is =ualified to ac=uire private a$ricultural lands in thePhilippines pursuant to the provisions of "rticle JIII of the Constitution.

/e see fro# sections ' and A of said "rticle =uoted before, that onl% persons or corporations=ualified to ac=uire hold lands of the public do#ain in the Philippines #a% ac=uire or be

assi$ned and hold private a$ricultural lands. Conse=uentl%, the decisive factor in the present

controvers% hin$es on the proposition or !hether or not the petitioner in this case can ac=uirea$ricultural lands of the public do#ain.

4ro# the data secured fro# the Securities and E;chan$e Co##ission, /e find that the Ro#anCatholic &ishop of a#boan$a !as incorporated 9as a corporation sole: in 'epte$ber, *)*,

principally to ad$inister its te$poralities and $anage its properties . Probabl% due to the rava$esof the last !ar, its articles of incorporation !ere reconstructed in the Securities and E;chan$eCo##ission on "pril ), '*(). "t first, this corporation sole ad#inistered all the te#poralities of

the church e;istin$ or located in the island of Mindanao. >ater on, ho!ever, ne! dioceses !erefor#ed and ne! corporations sole !ere created to correspond !ith the territorial 0urisdiction ofthe ne! dioceses, one of the# bein$ petitioner herein, the Ro#an Catholic "postolic

"d#inistrator of Davao, Inc., !hich !as re$istered !ith the Securities and E;chan$eCo##ission on Septe#ber ', '*A-, and succeeded in the ad#inistrative for all the3te#poralities3 of the Ro#an Catholic Church e;istin$ in Davao.

"ccordin$ to our Corporation >a!, Public "ct No. 'A(*, approved "pril ', '*-1, a corporationsole.

is or$ani?ed and co$posed of a single individual , the head of an% reli$ious societ% orchurch, for the "DMINISR"ION of te te$poralities of suc society or curc . &%3te#poralities3 is #eant estate and properties not used e;clusivel% for reli$ious!orship. he successor in office of such reli$ious head or chief priest incorporated as

a corporation sole shall beco#e the corporation sole on ascension to office, and shallbe per#itted to transact business as such on filin$ !ith the Securities and E;chan$eCo##ission a cop% of his co##ission, certificate of election or letter of appoint#entdul% certified b% an% notar% public or cler5 of court of record 9uevara<s he PhilippineCorporation >a!, p. 2:.

he Corporation >a! also contains the follo!in$ provisions

SECION 'A*. "n% corporation sole #a% purchase and hold real estate and personal6propert% for its church, charitable, benevolent, or educational purposes, and #a%receive be=uests or $ifts of such purposes. Such corporation #a% #ort$a$e or sellreal propert% held b% it upon obtainin$ an order for that purpose fro# the Court of 4irstInstance of the province in !hich the propert% is situated6 but before #a5in$ the orderproof #ust be #ade to the satisfaction of the Court that notice of the application for

leave to #ort$a$e or sell has been $iven b% publication or other!ise in such #annerand for such ti#e as said Court or the 8ud$e thereof #a% have directed, and that it isto the interest of the corporation that leave to #ort$a$e or sell #ust be #ade b%petition, dul% verified b% the bishop, chief priest, or presidin$ elder actin$ ascorporation sole, and #a% be opposed b% an% #e#ber of the reli$ious deno#ination,societ% or church represented b% the corporation sole Provided, ho!ever, hat incases !here the rules, re$ulations, and discipline of the reli$ious deno#ination,societ% or church concerned represented b% such corporation sole re$ulate the#ethods of ac=uirin$, holdin$, sellin$ and #ort$a$in$ real estate and personalpropert%, such rules, re$ulations, and discipline shall control and the intervention of theCourts shall not be necessar%.

It can, therefore, be noticed that the po!er of a corporation sole to purcase real propert%, li5ethe po!er e;ercised in the case at bar, it is not restricted althou$h the po!er to sell or$ortgage so#eti#es is, dependin$ upon the rules, re$ulations, and discipline of the church

concerned represented b% said corporation sole. If corporations sole can purchase and sell realestate for its church, charitable, benevolent, or educational purposes, can the% re$ister said real



67

propertiesH "s provided b% la!, lands held in trust for specific purposes #e be sub0ect ofre$istration 9section 1*, "ct (*1:, and the capacit% of a corporation sole, li5e petitioner herein, tore$ister lands belon$in$ to it is ac5no!led$ed, and title thereto #a% be issued in its na#e9&ishop of Nueva Se$ovia vs. Insular overn#ent, 1 Phil. 2--+'*'2:. Indeed it is absurd that!hile the corporations sole that #i$ht be in need of ac=uirin$ lands for the erection of te#ples!here the faithful can pra%, or schools and ce#eteries !hich the% are e;pressl% authori?ed b%la! to ac=uire in connection !ith the propa$ation of the Ro#an Catholic "postolic faith or infurtherance of their freedo# of reli$ion the% could not re$ister said properties in their na#e. "sprofessor 8avier 8. Nepo#uceno ver% !ell sa%s 3Man in his search for the i##ortal andi#ponderable, has, even before the da!n of recorded histor%, erected te#ples to the Bn5no!nod, and there is no doubt that he !ill continue to do so for all ti#e to co#e, as lon$ as hecontinues <i#plorin$ the aid of Divine Providence<3 9Nepo#uceno<s Corporation Sole, VI "teneo>a! 8ournal, No. ', p. (', Septe#ber, '*A1:. Bnder the circu#stances of this case, /e #i$htsafel% state that even before the establish#ent of the Philippine Co##on!ealth and of theRepublic of the Philippines ever% corporation sole then or$ani?ed and re$istered had b% e;pressprovision of la! the necessar% po/er and 6ualification to purchase in its na#e private landslocated in the territor% in !hich it e;ercised its functions or #inistr% and for !hich it !as created,independentl% of the nationalit% of its incu#bent uni=ue and sin$le #e#ber and head, thebishop of the dioceses. It can be also #aintained !ithout fear of bein$ $ainsaid that the Ro#anCatholic "postolic Church in the Philippines has no nationalit% and that the fra#ers of theConstitution, as !ill be hereunder e;plained, did not have in #ind the reli$ious corporations sole!hen the% provided that 1- per centu# of the capital thereof be o!ned b% 4ilipino citi?ens.

here could be no controvers% as to the fact that a dul% re$istered corporation sole is an artificialbein$ havin$ the ri$ht of succession and the po!er, attributes, and properties e;pressl%authori?ed b% la! or incident to its e;istence 9section ', Corporation >a!:. In outlinin$ the$eneral po!ers of a corporation. Public "ct. No. '(A* provides a#on$ others

SEC. '2. Every corporation has the po!er

9A: o purchase, hold, conve%, sell, lease, lot, #ort$a$e, encu#ber, and other!isedeal !ith such real and personal propert% as the purpose for !hich the corporation!as for#ed #a% per#it, and the transaction of the la!ful business of the corporation#a% reasonabl% and necessaril% re=uire, unless other!ise prescribed in this "ct . . .

In i#ple#entation of the sa#e and speciall% #ade applicable to a for# of corporationreco$ni?ed b% the sa#e la!, Section 'A* afore=uoted e;pressl% allo!ed the corporation sole to

purchase and hold real as !ell as personal properties necessar% for the pro#otion of the ob0ectsfor !hich said corporation sole is created. Respondent >and Re$istration Co##issioner,ho!ever, #aintained that since the Philippine Constitution is a later enact#ent than public "ctNo. '(A*, the provisions of Section 'A* in a#plification of Section '2 thereof, as re$ard realproperties, should be considered repealed b% the for#er.

here is a reason to believe that !hen the specific provision of the Constitution invo5ed b%respondent Co##issioner !as under consideration, the fra#ers of the sa#e did not have in#ind or overloo5ed this particular for# of corporation. It is undeniable that the naturali?ation andconservation of our national resources !as one of the do#inatin$ ob0ectives of the Conventionand in draftin$ the present "rticle JII of the Constitution, the dele$ates !ere $oaded b% thedesire 9': to insure their conservation for 4ilipino posterit%6 9: to serve as an instru#ent ofnational defense, helpin$ prevent the e;tension into the countr% of forei$n control throu$hpeaceful econo#ic penetration6 and 92: to prevent #a5in$ the Philippines a source of

international conflicts !ith the conse=uent dan$er to its internal securit% and independence 9Seehe 4ra#in$ of the Philippine Constitution b% Professor 8ose M. "rue$o, a Dele$ate to the

Constitutional Convention, Vol. II. P. A*+1-(:. In the sa#e boo5 Dele$ate "rue$o, e;plainin$the reason behind the first consideration, !rote

"t the ti#e of the fra#in$ of Philippine Constitution, 4ilipino capital had been to berather sh%. 4ilipinos hesitated s a $eneral rule to invest a considerable su# o f theircapital for the develop#ent, e;ploitation and utili?ation of the natural resources of thecountr%. he% had not as %et been so used to corporate as the peoples of the !est.his $eneral apath%, the dele$ates 5ne!, !ould #ean the retardation of the

develop#ent of the natural resources, unless forei$n capital !ould be encoura$ed toco#e and help in that develop#ent. Tey 0ne/ tat te naturalization of te naturalresources /ould certainly not encourage teINVESMEN O4 4OREIN C"PI">into the#. &ut there !as a $eneral feelin$ in the Convention that it !as better to havesuch a develop#ent retarded or even postpone to$ether until such ti#e !hen the4ilipinos !ould be read% and !illin$ to underta5e it rather than per#it the naturalresources to be placed under the o!nership or control of forei$ners in order that the%#i$ht be i##ediatel% be developed, !ith the 4ilipinos of the future servin$ not aso!ners but ut#ost as tenants or !or5ers under forei$n #asters. &% all #eans, thedele$ates believed, the natural resources should be conserved for 4ilipino posterit%.

It could be distilled fro# the fore$oin$ that the far#ers of the Constitution intended saidprovisions as barrier for forei$ners or corporations financed b% such forei$ners to ac=uire,e;ploit and develop our natural resources, savin$ these undeveloped !ealth for our people toclear and enrich !hen the% are alread% prepared and capable of doin$ so. &ut that is not the

case of corporations sole in the Philippines, for, /e repeat, the% are #ere ad#inistrators of the3te#poralities3 or properties titled in their na#e and for the benefit of the #e#bers of theirrespective reli$ion co#posed of an over!hel#in$ #a0orit% of 4ilipinos. No #ention nor allusion!hatsoever is #ade in the Constitution as to the prohibition a$ainst or the liabilit% of the Ro#anCatholic Church in the Philippines to ac=uire and hold a$ricultural lands. "lthou$h there !ereso#e discussions on landholdin$s, the% !ere #ostl% confined in the inclusion of the provisionallo!in$ the overn#ent to brea5 bi$ landed estates to put an end to absentee landlordis#.

&ut let us suppose, for the sa5e of ar$u#ent, that the above referred to inhibitor% clause ofSection ' of "rticle JIII of the constitution does have bearin$ on the petitioner<s case6 even sothe clause re=uirin$ that at least 1- per centu# of the capital of the corporation be o!ned b%4ilipinos is subordinated to the petitioner<s aforesaid ri$ht alread% e;istin$ at the ti#e of theinau$uration of the Co##on!ealth and the Republic of the Philippines. In the lan$ua$e of Mr.8ustice 8ose P. >aurel 9a dele$ate to the Constitutional Convention:, in his concurrin$ opinion of

the case of old Cree5 #inin$ Corporation, petitioner vs. Eulo$io Rodri$ue?, Secretar% of "$riculture and Co##erce, and Quirico "badilla, Director of the &ureau of Mines, respondent,11 Phil. A*

he savin$ clause in the section involved of the Constitution !as ori$inall% e#bodiedin the report sub#itted b% the Co##ittee on Naturali?ation and Preservation of >andand Other Natural Resources to the Constitutional Convention on Septe#ber '7,'*A(. It !as later inserted in the first draft of the Constitution as section '2 of "rticleJIII thereof, and finall% incorporated as !e find it no!. Sli$ht have been the chan$esunder$one b% the proviso fro# the ti#e !hen it co#es out of the co##ittee until it!as finall% adopted. /hen first sub#itted and as inserted to the first draft of theConstitution it reads <sub0ect to an% ri$ht, $rant, lease, or concession e;istin$ inrespect thereto on the date of the adoption of the Constitution<. "s finall% adopted, theproviso reads <sub0ect to an% e;istin$ ri$ht, $rant, lease, or concession at the ti#e ofthe inau$uration of the overn#ent established under this Constitution<. his

reco$nition is not #ere $raciousness but sprin$s for# the 0ust character of the$overn#ent established. he fra#ers of the Constitution !ere not obscured b% the



68

rhetoric of de#ocrac% or s!a%ed to hostilit% b% an intense spirit of nationalis#. he%!ell 5ne! that conservation of our natural resources did not #ean destruction orannihilation of ac=uired propert% ri$hts. /ithal, the% erected a $overn#ent neitherepisodic nor stationar% but !ell+ni$h conservative in the protection of propert% ri$hts.his not!ithstandin$ nationalistic and socialistic traits discoverable upon even asudden dip into a variet% of the provisions e#bodied in the instru#ent.

he !riter of this decision !ishes to state at this 0uncture that durin$ the deliberation of this case

he sub#itted to the consideration of the Court the =uestion that #a% be ter#ed the 3vested ri$htsavin$ clause3 contained in Section ', "rticle JII of the Constitution, but so#e of the #e#bers of this Court either did not a$ree !ith the theor% of the !riter, or !ere not read% to ta5e a definitestand on the particular point I a# no! to discuss deferrin$ our rulin$ on such debatable =uestionfor a better occasion, inas#uch as the deter#ination thereof is not absolutel% necessar% for thesolution of the proble# involved in this case. In his desire to face the issues s=uarel%, the !riter!ill endeavor, at least as a dis$ression, to e;plain and develop his theor%, not as a lucubration of the Court, but of his o!n, for he dee#s it better and convenient to $o over the c%cle of reasonsthat are lin5ed to one another and that step b% step lead Bs to conclude as /e do in thedispositive part of this decision.

It !ill be noticed that Section ' of "rticle JIII of the Constitution provides, a#on$ other thin$s,that 3all a$ricultural lands of the public do#ain and their disposition shall be li#ited to citi?ens ofthe Philippines or to corporations at least 8+ per centu$ of te capital of /ic is o/ned by succitizens, SB&8EC O "NF EJISIN RI@ " @E IME O4 @E IN"BBR"ION O4 @E

OVERNMEN ES"&>IS@ED BNDER @IS CONSIBION.3

"s recounted b% Mr. 8ustice >aurel in the afore#entioned case of old Cree5 Minin$Corporation vs. Rodri$ue? et al., 11 Phil. A*, 3this reco$nition 9in the clause alread% =uoted:, isnot #ere $raciousness but springs fro$ te 2ust caracter of te govern$ent establised. Tefar$ers of te %onstitution /ere not obscured by te retoric of de$ocracy or s/ayed toostility by an intense spirit of nationalis$. Tey /ell 0ne/ tat conservation of our naturalresources did not $ean destruction or anniilation of "CQBIRED PROPERF RI@S3.

&ut respondents< counsel #a% ar$ue that the pree;istin$ ri$ht of ac=uisition of public or privatelands b% a corporation !hich does not fulfill this 1- per cent re=uisite, refers to purchases of theConstitution and not to later transactions. his ar$u#ent !ould i#pl% that even assu#in$ thatpetitioner had at the ti#e of the enact#ent of the Constitution the ri$ht to purchase real propert%or ri$ht could not be e;ercised after the effectivit% of our Constitution, because said po!er or

ri$ht of corporations sole, li5e the herein petitioner, conferred in virtue of the afore=uotedprovisions of the Corporation >a!, could no lon$er be e;ercised in vie! of the re=uisite thereinprescribed that at least 1- per centu# of the capital of the corporation had to be 4ilipino. It hasbeen sho!n before that 9': the corporation sole, unli5e the ordinar% corporations !hich arefor#ed b% no less than A incorporators, is co#posed of onl% one persons, usuall% the head orbishop of the diocese, a unit !hich is not sub0ect to e;pansion for the purpose of deter#inin$an% percenta$e !hatsoever6 9: the corporation sole is onl% the ad$inistrator and not the o!nerof the te#poralities located in the territor% co#prised b% said corporation sole6 92: suchte#poralities are ad#inistered for and on behalf of the faithful residin$ in the diocese or territor%of the corporation sole6 and 9(: the latter, as such, has no nationalit% and the citi?enship of theincu#bent Ordinar% has nothin$ to do !ith the operation, #ana$e#ent or ad#inistration of thecorporation sole, nor effects the citi?enship of the faithful connected !ith their respectivedioceses or corporation sole.

In vie! of these peculiarities of the corporation sole, it !ould see# obvious that !hen thespecific provision of the Constitution invo5ed b% respondent Co##issioner 9section ', "rt. JIII:,

!as under consideration, the fra#ers of the sa#e did not have in #ind or overloo5ed thisparticular for# of corporation. If this !ere so, as the facts and circu#stances alread% indicatedtend to prove it to be so, then the inescapable conclusion !ould be that this re=uire#ent of atleast 1- per cent of 4ilipino capital !as never intended to appl% to corporations sole, and thee;istence or not a vested ri$ht beco#es un=uestionabl% i##aterial.

&ut let us assu#ed that the =uestioned proviso is #aterial. %et /e #i$ht sa% that a readin$ ofsaid Section ' !ill sho! that it does not refer to an% actual ac=uisition of land up to the rigt,

6ualification or po/er to ac6uire and hold private real propert%. he population of the Philippines,Catholic to a hi$h percenta$e, is ever increasin$. In the practice of reli$ion of their faithful thecorporation sole #a% be in need of #ore te#ples !here to pra%, #ore schools !here thechildren of the con$re$ation could be tau$ht in the principles of their reli$ion, #ore hospitals!here their sic5 could be treated, #ore hallo! or consecrated $rounds or ce#eteries !hereCatholics could be buried, #an% #ore than those actuall% e;istin$ at the ti#e of the enact#entof our Constitution. his bein$ the case, could it be lo$icall% #aintained that because thecorporation sole !hich, b% e;press provision of la!, has the po!er to hold and ac=uire realestate and personal propert% of its churches, charitable benevolent, or educational purposes9section 'A*, Corporation >a!: it has to stop its $ro!th and restrain its necessities 0ust becausethe corporation sole is a non+stoc5 corporation co#posed of onl% one person !ho in his unit%does not ad#it of an% percenta$e, especiall% !hen that person is not the o!ner but #erel% anad#inistrator of the te#poralities of the corporation soleH he !riter leaves the ans!er to!hoever #a% read and consider this portion of the decision.

"n%!a%, as stated before, this =uestion is not a decisive factor in disposin$ the case, for even if/e !ere to disre$ard such savin$ clause of the Constitution, !hich reads sub2ect to anyeisting rigt, grant, etc., at te sa$e ti$e of te inauguration of te !overn$ent establisedunder tis %onstitution, %et /e !ould have, under the evidence on record, sufficient $rounds touphold petitioner<s contention on this #atter.

In this case of the Re$ister of Deeds of Ri?al vs. Bn$ Sui Si e#ple, .R. No. >+1771,pro#ul$ated Ma% ', '*AA, !herein this =uestion !as considered fro# a different an$le, thisCourt throu$h Mr. 8ustice 8.&.>. Re%es, said

he fact that the appellant reli$ious or$ani?ation has no capital stoc5 does not sufficeto escape the Constitutional inhibition, since it is ad#itted that its #e#bers are offorei$n nationalit%. he purpose of the si;t% per centu# re=uire#ent is obviousl% toensure that corporation or associations allo!ed to ac=uire a$ricultural land or to

e;ploit natural resources shall be controlled b% 4ilipinos6 and the spirit of theConstitution de#ands that in te absence of capital stoc0, te controlling $e$bersipsould be co$posed of 9ilipino citizens.

In that case respondent+appellant Bn$ Siu Si e#ple !as not a corporation sole but acorporation a$$re$ate, i.e., an unre$istered or$ani?ation operatin$ throu$h 2 trustees, all ofChinese nationalit%, and that is !h% this Court laid do!n the doctrine 0ust =uoted. /ith re$ard topetitioner, !hich li5e!ise is a non+stoc5 corporation, the case is different, because it is are$istered corporation sole, evidentl% of no nationalit% and re$istered #ainl% to ad#inister thete#poralities and #ana$e the properties belon$in$ to the faithful of said church residin$ inDavao. &ut even if !e !ere to $o over the record to in=uire into the co#posin$ #e#bership todeter#ine !hether the citi?enship re=uire#ent is satisfied or not, !e !ould find undeniable proof that the #e#bers of the Ro#an Catholic "postolic faith !ithin the territor% of Davao arepredo#inantl% 4ilipino citi?ens. "s indicated before, petitioner has presented evidence to

establish that the cler$% and la% #e#bers of this reli$ion full% covers the percenta$e of 4ilipino



69

citi?ens re=uired b% the Constitution. hese facts are not controverted b% respondents and ourconclusion in this point is sensibl% obvious.

Dissenting pinion:Discussed . "fter havin$ developed our theor% in the case and arrived atthe findin$s and conclusions alread% e;pressed in this decision. /e no! dee# it proper toanal%?e and delve into the basic foundation on !hich the dissentin$ opinion stands up. &ein$a!are of the transcendental and far+reachin$ effects that Our rulin$ on the #atter #i$ht have,this case !as thorou$hl% considered fro# all points of vie!, the Court sparin$ no effort to solve

the delicate proble#s involved herein.

"t the deliberations had to attain this end, t!o !a%s !ere open to a pro#pt dispatch of the case9': the reversal of the doctrine /e laid do!n in the celebrated riven5o case b% e;cludin$ urbanlots and properties fro# the $roup of the ter# 3private a$ricultural lands3 use in this section A,

"rticle JIII of the Constitution6 and 9: b% drivin$ Our reasons to a point that #i$ht indirectl%cause the appoint#ent of 4ilipino bishops or Ordinar% to head the corporations sole created toad#inister the te#poralities of the Ro#an Catholic Church in the Philippines. /ith re$ard to thefirst !a%, a $reat #a0orit% of the #e#bers of this Court !ere not %et prepared nor a$reeable tofollo! that course, for reasons that are obvious. "s to the second !a%, it see#s to be #isleadin$because the nationalit% of the head of a diocese constituted as a corporation sole has no#aterial bearin$ on the functions of the latter, !hich are li#ited to the ad#inistration of thete#poralities of the Ro#an Catholic "postolic Church in the Philippines.

Bpon $oin$ over the $rounds on !hich the dissentin$ opinion is based, it #a% be noticed that itsauthor lin$ered on the outs5irts of the issues, thus thro!in$ the #ain points in controvers% out of focus. Of course /e full% a$ree, as stated b% Professor "rue$o, that the fra#ers of ourConstitution had at heart to insure the conservation of the natural resources of Our #otherlandof 4ilipino posterit%6 to serve the# as an instru#ent of national defense, helpin$ prevent thee;tension into the countr% of foreign control throu$h peaceful econo#ic penetration6 and toprevent #a5in$ the Philippines a source of international conflicts !ith the conse=uent dan$er toits internal securit% and independence. &ut all these precautions adopted b% the Dele$ates toOur Constitutional "sse#bl% could have not been intended for or directed a$ainst cases li5e theone at bar. he e#phasis and !onderin$s on the state#ent that once the capacit% of acorporation sole to ac=uire private a$ricultural lands is ad#itted there !ill be no li#it to the areasthat it #a% hold and that this !ill pave the !a% for the 3revival or revitali?ation of reli$iouslandholdin$s that proved so troubleso#e in our past3, cannot even furnish the 3penu#bra3 of athreat to the future of the 4ilipino people. In the first place, the ri$ht of 4ilipino citi?ens, includin$those of forei$n e;traction, and Philippine corporations, to ac=uire private lands is not sub0ect to

an% restriction or li#it as to =uantit% or area, and /e certainl% do not see an% !ron$ in that. heri$ht of 4ilipino citi?ens and corporations to ac=uire public a$ricultural lands is alread% li#ited b%la!. In the second place, corporations sole cannot be considered as aliens because the% haveno nationalit% at all. Corporations sole are, under the la!, #ere ad#inistrators of thete#poralities of the Ro#an Catholic Church in the Philippines. In the third place, ever%corporation, be it a$$re$ate or sole, is onl% entitled to purchase, conve%, sell, lease, let,#ort$a$e, encu#ber and other!ise deal !ith real properties !hen it is pursuant to or inconsonance !ith the purposes for !hich the corporation !as for#ed, and !hen the transactionsof the la!ful business of the corporation reasonabl% and necessaril% re=uire such dealin$ section '2+9A: of the Corporation >a!, Public "ct No. '(A* and considerin$ these provisionsin con0unction !ith Section 'A* of the sa#e la! !hich provides that a corporation sole #a% onl%3purchase and hold real estate and personal properties for its church, charitable, benevolent oreducational purposes3, the above #entioned fear of revitali?ation of reli$ious landholdin$s in thePhilippines is absolutel% dispelled. he fact that the la! thus epressly authori?es thecorporations sole to receive be6uests or gifts of real properties 9!hich !ere the #ain source thatthe friars had to ac=uire their bi$ haciendas durin$ the Spanish re$i#e:, is a clear indication thatthe re=uisite that be=uests or $ifts of real estate be for charitable, benevolent, or educational

purposes, !as, in the opinion of the le$islators, considered sufficient and ade=uate protectiona$ainst the revitali?ation of reli$ious landholdin$s.

4inall%, and as previousl% stated, /e have reason to believe that !hen the Dele$ates to theConstitutional Convention drafted and approved "rticle JIII of the Constitution the% do not havein #ind the corporation sole. /e co#e to this findin$ because the Constitutional "sse#bl%,co#posed as it !as b% a $reat nu#ber of e#inent la!%ers and 0urists, !as li5e an% otherle$islative bod% e#po!ered to enact either the Constitution of the countr% or an% public statute,

presu#ed to 5no! the conditions e;istin$ as to particular sub0ect #atter !hen it enacted astatute 9&oard of Co##erce of Oran$e Countr% vs. &ain, * S.E. '716 N. C. 277:.

I##e#orial custo#s are presu#ed to have been al!a%s in the #ind of the >e$islaturein enactin$ le$islation. 9In re ru$er<s Estate, '' ". '-*6 77 P. 21:.

he >e$islative is presu#ed to have a 5no!led$e of the state of the la! on thesub0ects upon !hich it le$islates. 9Clover Valle% >and and Stoc5 Co. vs. >a#b et al.,')7, p. 72,71.:

he Court in construin$ a statute, !ill assu#e that the le$islature acted !ith full5no!led$e of the prior le$islation on the sub0ect and its construction b% the courts.98ohns vs. o!n of Sheridan, )* N. E. )**, (( Ind. "pp. 1-.:.

he >e$islature is presu#ed to have been fa#iliar !ith the sub0ect !ith !hich it !asdealin$ . . . . 9>anders vs. Co##on!ealth, '-' S. E. 77), 7)'.:.

he >e$islature is presu#ed to 5no! principles of statutor% construction. 9People vs.>o!ell, 2- N. /. -, A- Mich. 2(*, follo!ed in P. vs. /ood!orth, 2- N./. '',A- Mich. (21.:.

It is not to be presu#ed that a provision !as inserted in a constitution or statute!ithout reason, or that a result !as intended inconsistent !ith the 0ud$#ent of #en ofco##on sense $uided b% reason3 9Mitchell vs. >a!den, '2 N.E. A11, )) Ill. 21.:See Cit% of Decatur vs. er#an, '( N. E. A, 2'- Ill. A*', and #a% other authoritiesthat can be cited in support hereof.

Conse=uentl%, the Constitutional "sse#bl% #ust have 5no!n

'. hat a corporation sole is or$ani?ed b% and co#posed of a single individual , thehead of an% reli$ious societ% or church operatin$ !ithin the ?one, area or 0urisdictioncovered b% said corporation sole 9"rticle 'AA, Public "ct No. '(A*:6

. hat a corporation sole is a non+stoc5 corporation6

2. hat the Ordinar% 9 the corporation sole proper: does not o!n the te#poralities!hich he #erel% ad#inisters6

(. hat under the la! the nationalit% of said Ordinar% or of an% ad#inistrator hasabsolutel% no bearin$ on the nationalit% of the person desirin$ to ac=uire real propert%

in the Philippines b% purchase or other la!ful #eans other than b% hereditar%



70

succession, !ho accordin$ to the Constitution #ust be a 4ilipino 9sections ' and A, "rticle JIII:.

A. hat section 'A* of the Corporation >a! epressly authori?ed the corporationsole to purcase and old real estate for its church, charitable, benevolent oreducational purposes, and to receive be6uests or giftsfor such purposes6

1. hat in approvin$ our Ma$na Carta the Dele$ates to the Constitutional Convention,

al#ost all of !ho# !ere Ro#an Catholics, could not have intended to curtail thepropa$ation of the Ro#an Catholic faith or the e;pansion of the activities of theirchurch, 5no!in$ prett% !ell that !ith the $ro!th of our population #ore places of!orship, #ore schools !here our %outh could be tau$ht and trained6 #ore hallo!$rounds !here to bur% our dead !ould be needed in the course of ti#e.

>on$ before the enact#ent of our Constitution the la! authori?ed the corporations sole even toreceive be=uests or $ifts of real estates and this Court could not, !ithout an% clear and specificprovision of the Constitution, declare that an% real propert% donated, let as sa% this %ear, couldno lon$er be re$istered in the na#e of the corporation sole to !hich it !as conve%ed. hat !ouldbe an absurdit% that should not receive our sanction on the prete;t that corporations sole !hichhave no nationalit% and are non+stoc5 corporations co#posed of onl% one person in the capacit%of ad#inistrator, have to establish first that at least si;t% per centu# of their capital belon$ to4ilipino citi?ens. he ne! Civil Code even provides

"R. '-. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of la/s , it is presu#edthat the la!#a5in$ bod% intended ri$ht and 0ustice to prevail.

Moreover, under the la!s of the Philippines, the ad#inistrator of the properties of a 4ilipino canac=uire, in te na$e of te latter , private lands !ithout an% li#itation !hatsoever, and that is sobecause the properties thus ac=uired are not for and !ould not belon$ to the ad#inistrator but tothe 4ilipino !ho# he represents. &ut the dissentin$ 8ustice in=uires If the Ordinar% is onl% thead#inistrator, for !ho# does he ad#inisterH "nd !ho can alter or overrule his actsH /e !illforth!ith proceed to ans!er these =uestions. he corporations sole b% reason of their peculiarconstitution and for# of operation have no desi$ned o!ner of its te#poralities, althou$h b% theter#s of the la! it can be safel% i#plied that the Ordinar% holds the# in trust for the benefit ofthe Ro#an Catholic faithful to their respective localit% or diocese. &orro!in$ the ver% !ords ofthe la!, /e #a% sa% that the te#poralities of ever% corporation sole are held in trust for the use,

purpose, behalf and benefit of the reli$ious societ%, or order so incorporated or of the church to!hich the diocese, s%nod, or district or$ani?ation is an or$ani?ed and constituent part 9section'12 of the Corporation >a!:.

In connection !ith the po!ers of the Ordinar% over the te#poralities of the corporation sole, letus see no! !hat is the #eanin$ and scope of the !ord 3control3. "ccordin$ to the Merria#+/ebster<s Ne! International Dictionar%, nd ed., p. A)-, on of the acceptations of the !ord3control3 is

(. o e;ercise restrainin$ or directin$ influence over6 to do#inate6 re$ulate6 hence, tohold fro# action6 to curb6 sub0ect6 also, Obs. to overpo!er.

SFN restrain, rule, $overn, $uide, direct6 chec5, subdue.

It is true that under section 'A* of the Corporation >a!, the intervention of the courts is notnecessar%, to$ortgage or sell real propert% held b% the corporation sole !here the rules,re$ulations and discipline of the reli$ious deno#ination, societ% or church concerned presentedb% such corporation sole re$ulates the #ethods of ac=uirin$, holdin$, sellin$ and #ort$a$in$real estate, and that the Ro#an Catholic faithful residin$ in the 0urisdiction of the corporationsole has no sa% either in the #anner of ac=uirin$ or of sellin$ real propert%. It #a% be alsoad#itted that the faithful of the diocese cannot $overn or overrule the acts of the Ordinar%, but allthis does not #ean that the latter can ad#inister the te#poralities of the corporation sole !ithoutchec5 or restraint. /e #ust not for$et that !hen a corporation sole is incorporated under

Philippine la!s, the head and onl% #e#ber thereof sub0ects hi#self to the 0urisdiction of thePhilippine courts of 0ustice and these tribunals can thus entertain $rievances arisin$ out of or!ith respect to the te#poralities of the church !hich ca#e into the possession of the corporationsole as ad#inistrator. It #a% be alle$ed that the courts cannot intervene as to the #atters ofdoctrine or teachin$s of the Ro#an Catholic Church. hat is correct, but the courts #a% step in,at the instance of the faithful for !ho# the te#poralities are bein$ held in trust , to chec5 unduee;ercise b% the corporation sole of its po!er as ad#inistrator to insure that the% are used for thepurpose or purposes for !hich the corporation sole !as created.

"#erican authorities have these to sa%

#t as been eld tat te courts ave 2urisdiction over an action brougt by personsclai$ing to be $e$bers of a curc, /o allege a /rongful and fraudulent diversion of te curc property to uses foreign to te purposes of te curc, since no

ecclesiastical 6uestion is involved and e6uity /ill protect fro$ /rongful diversion ofte property 9@endr%; vs. Peoples Bnited Church, ( /ash. 221, ( >.R.". n.s. ''A(:.

he courts of the State have no $eneral 0urisdiction and control over the officers ofsuch corporations in respect to the perfor#ance of their official duties6 but as inrespect to te property /ic tey old for te corporation, tey stand in position ofT1;'TEE' and te courts $ay eercise te sa$e supervision as in oter cases oftrust 9Ra#se% vs. @ic5s, '7( Ind. (), *' N.E. 2((, * N.E. '1(, 2- >.R.". n.s. 11A6 @endr%; vs. Peoples Bnited Church, supra.:.

Courts of the state do not interfere !ith the ad#inistration of church rules or disciplineunless civil ri$hts beco#e involved and !hich #ust be protected 9Morris St., &aptistChurch vs. Dart, 17 S.C. 22), (A S.E. 7A2, and others:. 9"ll cited in Vol. II, Coole%<s

Constitutional >i#itations, p. *1-+*1(.:.

If the Constitutional "sse#bl% !as a!are of all the facts above enu#erated and of theprovisions of la! relative to e;istin$ conditions as to #ana$e#ent and operation of corporationssole in the Philippines, and if, on the other hand, al#ost all of the Dele$ates thereto e#bracedthe Ro#an Catholic faith, can it be i#a$ined even for an instant that !hen "rticle JIII of theConstitution !as approved the fra#ers thereof intended to prevent or curtail fro# then on theac=uisition sole, either b% purchase or donation, of real properties that the% #i$ht need for thepropa$ation of the faith and for there reli$ious and Christian activities such as the #oraleducation of the %outh, the care, attention and treat#ent of the sic5 and the burial of the dead ofthe Ro#an Catholic faithful residin$ in the 0urisdiction of the respective corporations soleH he#ere indul$ence in said thou$ht !ould i#press upon Bs a feelin$ of apprehension andabsurdit%. "nd that is precisel% the leit #otiv that per#eates the !hole fabric of the dissentin$opinion.



71

It see#s fro# the fore$oin$ that the #ain proble# /e are confronted !ith in this appeal, hin$esaround the necessit% of a proper and ade=uate interpretation of sections ' and A of "rticle JIII of the Constitution. >et Bs then be $uided b% the principles of statutor% construction laid do!n b%the authorities on the #atter

he #ost i#portant sin$le factor in deter#inin$ the intention of the people fro# !ho#the constitution e#anated is the lan$ua$e in !hich it is e;pressed. he !ordse#plo%ed are to be ta5en in their natural sense, e;cept that le$al or technical ter#s

are to be $iven their technical #eanin$. he i#perfections of lan$ua$e as a vehicle for conve%in$ #eanin$s result in a#bi$uities that #ust be resolved b% result toe;traneous aids for discoverin$ the intent of the fra#ers. "#on$ the #ore i#portant of these are a consideration of the histor% of the ti#es !hen the provision !as adoptedand of the purposes ai#ed at in its adoption. he debates of constitutional convention,conte#poraneous construction, and practical construction b% the le$islative ande;ecutive depart#ents, especiall% if lon$ continued, #a% be resorted to resolve, butnot to create, a#bi$uities. . . . %onsideration of te conse6uences flo/ing fro$alternative constructions of doubtful provisions constitutes an i$portant interpretativedevice. . . . Te purposes of $any of te broadly prased constitutional li$itations/ere te pro$otion of policies tat do not lend te$selves to definite and specificfor$ulation. he courts have had to define those policies and have often dra!n onnatural la! and natural ri$hts theories in doin$ so. he interpretation of constitutionstends to respond to chan$in$ conceptions of political and social values. he e;tent to!hich these e;traneous aids affect the 0udicial construction of constitutions cannot be

for#ulated in precise rules, but their influence cannot be i$nored in describin$ theessentials of the process 9Rottschaeffer on Constitutional >a!, '*2* ed., p. ')+'*:.

here are ti#es that !hen even the literal e;pression of le$islation #a% beinconsistent !ith the $eneral ob0ectives of polic% behind it, and on the basis of e=uit%or spirit of the statute the cour ts rationali?e a restricted #eanin$ of the latter. "restricted interpretation is usuall% applied !here the effect of literal interpretation !ill#a5e for in0ustice and absurdit% or, in the !ords of one court, the lan$ua$e #ust be sounreasonable <as to shoc5 $eneral co##on sense<. 9Vol. 2, Sutherland on Statutor%Construction, 2rd ed., 'A-.:.

" constitution is not intended to be a li#itation on the develop#ent of a countr% nor anobstruction to its pro$ress and forei$n relations 9Mosco! 4ire Ins. Co. of Mosco!,Russia vs. &an5 of Ne! For5 and rust Co., *( N. F. S.1()6 A1 N.E. d. 7(A, *2

N.F. 7(*:.

"lthou$h the #eanin$ or principles of a constitution re#ain fi;ed and unchan$ed fro#the ti#e of its adoption, a constitution #ust be construed as if intended to stand for a$reat len$th of ti#e, and it is pro$ressive and not static. "ccordin$l%, it should notreceive too narro! or literal an interpretation but rather the #eanin$ $iven it should beapplied in such #anner as to #eet ne! or chan$ed conditions as the% arise 9B.S. vs.>assic, 2'2 B.S. **, )A >. Ed., '21):.

Effect should be $iven to the purpose indicated b% a fair interpretation of the lan$ua$eused and that construction !hich effectuates, rather than that !hich destro%s a plainintent or purpose of a constitutional provision, is not onl% favored but !ill be adopted9State e; rel. Randolph Countr% vs. /alden, -1 S./. d *7*:.

It is =uite $enerall% held that in arrivin$ at the intent and purpose the constructionshould be broad or liberal or e=uitable, as the better #ethod of ascertainin$ that

intent, rather than technical 9reat Southern >ife Ins. Co. vs. Cit% of "ustin, (2 S./.77):.

"ll these authorities uphold our conviction that the fra#ers of the Constitution had not in #indthe corporations sole, nor intended to appl% the# the provisions of section ' and A of said "rticleJIII !hen the% passed and approved the sa#e. "nd if it !ere so as /e thin5 it is, hereinpetitioner, the Ro#an Catholic "postolic "d#inistrator of Davao, Inc., could not be deprived ofthe ri$ht to ac=uire b% purchase or donation real properties for charitable, benevolent and

educational purposes, nor of the ri$ht to re$ister the sa#e in its na#e !ith the Re$ister ofDeeds of Davao, an indispensable re=uisite prescribed b% the >and Re$istration "ct for landscovered b% the orrens s%ste#.

/e leave as the last the#e for discussion the #uch debated =uestion above referred to as 3thevested ri$ht savin$ clause3 contained in section ', "rticle JIII of the Constitution. he dissentin$8ustice hurls upon the personal opinion e;pressed on the #atter b% the !riter of the decision the#ost pointed darts of his severe criticis#. /e thin5, ho!ever, that this stron$ dissent shouldhave been spared, because as clearl% indicated before, so#e #e#bers of this Court either didnot a$ree !ith the theor% of the !riter or !ere not read% to ta5e a definite stand on that particular point, so that there bein$ no #a0orit% opinion thereon there !as no need of an% dissensiontherefro#. &ut as the criticis# has been #ade the !riter dee#s it necessar% to sa% a fe! !ordsof e;planation.

he !riter full% a$rees !ith the dissentin$ 8ustice that ordinaril% 3a capacit% to ac=uire9propert%: in futuro, is not in itself a vested or e;istin$ propert% ri$ht that the Constitution protectsfro# i#pair#ent. 4or a propert% ri$ht to be vested 9or ac=uired: there #ust be a transition fro#the potential or contin$ent to the actual , and the proprietar% interest #ust have attached to athin$6 it #ust have beco#e <fi;ed and established<3 9&alboa vs. 4arrales, A' Phil. (*):. &ut thecase at bar has to be considered as an e;ception to the rule because a#on$ the ri$hts $rantedb% section 'A* of the Corporation >a! !as the ri$ht to receive be=uests or $ifts of realproperties for charitable, benevolent and educational purposes. "nd this ri$ht to receive suchbe=uests or $ifts 9!hich i#plies donations in futuro:, is not a #ere potentialit% that could bei#paired !ithout an% specific provision in the Constitution to that effect, especiall% !hen thei#pair#ent !ould disturbin$l% affect the propa$ation of the reli$ious faith of the i##ense#a0orit% of the 4ilipino people and the curtail#ent of the activities of their Church. hat is !h%the !riter $ave us a basis of his contention !hat Professor "rue$o said in his boo5 3he4ra#in$ of the Philippine Constitution3 and the enli$htenin$ opinion of Mr. 8ustice 8ose P.>aurel, another Dele$ate to the Constitutional Convention, in his concurrin$ opinion in the case

of oldcree5 Minin$ Co. vs. Eulo$io Rodri$ue? et al., 11 Phil. A*. "n%!a% the #a0orit% of theCourt did not dee# necessar% to pass upon said 3vested ri$ht savin$ clause3 for the finaldeter#ination of this case.

8BDMEN

/herefore, the resolution of the respondent >and Re$istration Co##ission of Septe#ber ','*A(, holdin$ that in vie! of the provisions of sections ' and A of "rticle JIII of the PhilippineConstitution the vendee 9petitioner: is not =ualified to ac=uire lands in the Philippines in theabsence of proof that at least 1- per centu# of the capital, properties or assets of the Ro#anCatholic "postolic "d#inistrator of Davao, Inc. is actuall% o!ned or controlled b% 4ilipinociti?ens, and den%in$ the re$istration of the deed of sale in the absence of proof of co#pliance!ith such re=uisite, is hereb% reversed. Conse=uentl%, the respondent Re$ister of Deeds o f theCit% of Davao is ordered to re$ister the deed of sale e;ecuted b% Mateo >. Rodis in favor of theRo#an Catholic "postolic "d#inistrator of Davao, Inc., !hich is the sub0ect of the presentliti$ation. No pronounce#ent is #ade as to costs. It is so ordered.



72

@IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 1'28%8. #u54 28, 1997B

TE DIRECTOR O" LANDS, petitioner , vs. COURT O" APPEALS /6 TEODOROA!ISTADO, susttut*6 4 MARGARITA, MARISSA, MARI!EL, ARNOLD /6MARY ANN, 55 su-/+*6 A!ISTADO, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANI!AN, J .;

Is ne!spaper publication of the notice of initial hearin$ in an ori$inal land re$istration case#andator% or director%H

Stt*+*/t o t0* Cs*

he Court of "ppeals ruled that it !as #erel% procedural and that the failure to cause suchpublication did not deprive the trial court of its authorit% to $rant the application. &ut the Solicitor eneral disa$reed and thus filed this petition to set aside the Decision ' pro#ul$ated on 8ul% 2,'**' and the subse=uent Resolution pro#ul$ated on Nove#ber '*, '**' b% RespondentCourt of "ppeals2 in C"+.R. CV No. 27'*. he dispositive portion of the challen$ed Decisionreads(

3/@ERE4ORE, pre#ises considered, the 0ud$#ent of dis#issal appealed fro# is hereb% setaside, and a ne! one entered confir#in$ the re$istration and title of applicant, eodoro "bistado,4ilipino, a resident of &aran$a% 7, Poblacion Ma#burao, Occidental Mindoro, no! deceasedand substituted b% Mar$arita, Marissa, Maribel, "rnold and Mar% "nn, all surna#ed "bistado,

represented b% their aunt, Miss 8osefa "bistado, 4ilipinos, residents of Poblacion Ma#burao,Occidental Mindoro, to the parcel of land covered under MSI 9IV+"+): 2'A+D located in PoblacionMa#burao, Occidental Mindoro.

he oppositions filed b% the Republic of the Philippines and private oppositor are hereb%dis#issed for !ant of evidence.

Bpon the finalit% of this decision and pa%#ent of the correspondin$ ta;es due on this land, let anorder for the issuance of a decree be issued.3

T0* "ts

On Dece#ber ), '*)1, Private Respondent eodoro "bistado filed a petition for ori$inalre$istration of his title over 1() s=uare #eters of land under Presidential Decree 9PD: No. 'A*.A he application !as doc5eted as >and Re$istration Case 9>RC: No. )1 and assi$ned to&ranch (( of the Re$ional rial Court of Ma#burao, Occidental Mindoro. 1 @o!ever, durin$ thependenc% of his petition, applicant died. @ence, his heirs ++ Mar$arita, Marissa, Maribel, "rnoldand Mar% "nn, all surna#ed "bistado ++ represented b% their aunt 8osefa "bistado, !ho !asappointed their $uardian ad lite$, !ere substituted as applicants.

he land re$istration court in its decision dated 8une '2, '*)* dis#issed the petition Kfor

!ant of 0urisdiction.L @o!ever, it found that the applicants throu$h their predecessors+in+interesthad been in open, continuous, e;clusive and peaceful possession of the sub0ect land since'*2).

In dis#issin$ the petition, the trial court reasoned 7

3; ; ;. @o!ever, the Court noted that applicants failed to co#pl% !ith the provisions of Section2 9': of PD 'A*, re=uirin$ the "pplicants to publish the notice of Initial @earin$ 9E;h. E<: in ane!spaper of $eneral circulation in the Philippines. E;hibit E< !as onl% published in the Officiala?ette 9E;hibits 4< and <:. Conse=uentl%, the Court is of the !ell considered vie! that it hasnot le$all% ac=uired 0urisdiction over the instant application for !ant of co#pliance !ith the#andator% provision re=uirin$ publication of the notice of initial hearin$ in a ne!spaper of$eneral circulation.3

he trial court also cited Ministr% of 8ustice Opinion No. (), Series of '*), !hich in itspertinent portion provides)

KIt bears e#phasis that the publication re=uire#ent under Section 2 of PD 'A* has a t!o+foldpurpose6 the first, !hich is #entioned in the provision of the afore=uoted provision refers topublication in the Official a?ette, and is 0urisdictional6 !hile the second, !hich is #entioned inthe openin$ clause of the sa#e para$raph, refers to publication not onl% in the Official a?ettebut also in a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation, and is procedural. Neither one nor the other isdispensable. "s to the first, publication in the Official a?ette is indispensabl% necessar%because !ithout it, the court !ould be po!erless to assu#e 0urisdiction over a particular landre$istration case. "s to the second, publication of the notice of initial hearin$ also in ane!spaper of $eneral circulation is indispensabl% necessar% as a re=uire#ent of procedural dueprocess6 other!ise, an% decision that the court #a% pro#ul$ate in the case !ould be le$all%infir#.L

Bnsatisfied, private respondents appealed to Respondent Court of "ppeals !hich, asearlier e;plained, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the re$istration of the titlein the na#e of eodoro "bistado.

he subse=uent #otion for reconsideration !as denied in the challen$ed C" Resolutiondated Nove#ber '*, '**'.

he Director of >ands represented b% the Solicitor eneral thus elevated this recourse tous. his Court notes that the petitioners counsel anchored his petition on Rule 1A. his is anerror. @is re#ed% should be based on Rule (A because he is appealin$ a final disposition of theCourt of "ppeals. @ence, !e shall treat his petition as one for revie! under Rule (A, and not for certiorari under Rule 1A.*

T0* Issu*

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn1


























73

Petitioner alle$es that Respondent Court of "ppeals co##itted K$rave abuse of discretionL'- in holdin$

K; ; ; that publication of the petition for re$istration of title in >RC Case No. )1 need not bepublished in a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation, and in not dis#issin$ >RC Case No. )1 for !antof such publication.L

Petitioner points out that under Section 2 of PD 'A*, the notice of initial hearin$ shall be

Kpublished bot in the Official a?ette and in a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation.L "ccordin$ topetitioner, publication in the Official a?ette is Knecessar% to confer 0urisdiction upon the trialcourt, and ;;; in ;;; a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation to co#pl% !ith the notice re=uire#ent of due process.L''

Private respondents, on the other hand, contend that failure to co#pl% !ith there=uire#ent of publication in a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation is a #ere Kproceduraldefect.L he% add that publication in the Official a?ette is sufficient to confer 0urisdiction.'

In reversin$ the decision of the trial court, Respondent Court of "ppeals ruled'2

K; ; ; althou$h the re=uire#ent of publication in the Official a?ette and in a ne!spaper of$eneral circulation is couched in #andator% ter#s, it cannot be $ainsaid that the la! also#andates !ith e=ual force that publication in the Official a?ette shall be sufficient to confer

0urisdiction upon the court.L

4urther, Respondent Court found that the oppositors !ere afforded the opportunit% Ktoe;plain #atters full% and present their side.L hus, it 0ustified its disposition in this !ise'(

K; ; ; /e do not see ho! the lac5 of co#pliance !ith the re=uired procedure pre0udiced the# inan% !a%. Moreover, the other re=uire#ents of publication in the Official a?ette, personalnotice b% #ailin$, and postin$ at the site and other conspicuous places, !ere co#plied !ith andthese are sufficient to notif% an% part% !ho is #inded to #a5e an% ob0ection of the application for re$istration.L

T0* Cou-t?s Ru5/g

/e find for petitioner.

Newspaper Publication Mandatory

he pertinent part of Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 'A* re=uirin$ publication of the notice of initial hearin$ reads as follo!s

KSec. 2. Notice of initial earin!" publication" etc. ++ he court shall, !ithin five da%s fro#filin$ of the application, issue an order settin$ the date and hour of the initial hearin$ !hich shallnot be earlier than fort%+five da%s nor later than ninet% da%s fro# the date of the order.

he public shall be $iven notice of initial hearin$ of the application for land re$istration b% #eansof 9': publication6 9: #ailin$6 and 92: postin$.

'. #y publication. ++

Bpon receipt of the order of the court settin$ the ti#e for initial hearin$, the Co##issioner of>and Re$istration shall cause a notice of initial hearin$ to be published once in the Officiala?ette and once in a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation in the Philippines Provided, ho!ever,

that the publication in the Official a?ette shall be sufficient to confer 0urisdiction upon thecourt. Said notice shall be addressed to all persons appearin$ to have an interest in the landinvolved includin$ the ad0oinin$ o!ners so far as 5no!n, and to all !ho# it #a% concern.< Saidnotice shall also re=uire all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and ti#e tosho! cause !h% the pra%er of said application shall not be $ranted.

;;; ;;; ;;;L

"d#ittedl%, the above provision provides in clear and cate$orical ter#s that publication inthe Official a?ette suffices to confer 0urisdiction upon the land re$istration court. @o!ever, the=uestion boils do!n to !hether, absent an% publication in a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation, theland re$istration court can validl% confir# and re$ister the title of private respondents.

/e ans!er this =uer% in the ne$ative. his ans!er is i#pelled b% the de#ands of

statutor% construction and the due process rationale behind the publication re=uire#ent.

he la! used the ter# KshallL in prescribin$ the !or5 to be done b% the Co##issioner of >and Re$istration upon the latters receipt of the court order settin$ the ti#e for initialhearin$. he said !ord denotes an i#perative and thus indicates the #andator% character of astatute.'A /hile concededl% such literal #andate is not an absolute rule in statutor% construction,as its i#port ulti#atel% depends upon its conte;t in the entire provision, !e hold that in thepresent case the ter# #ust be understood in its nor#al #andator% #eanin$. In 1epublic vs.arasigan,'1 the Court throu$h Mr. 8ustice @ilario . Davide, 8r. held that Section 2 of PD'A* re=uires notice of the initial hearin$ b% #eans of 9': publication, 9: #ailin$ and 92:postin$, all of !hich #ust be co#plied !ith. KIf the intention of the la! !ere other!ise, saidsection !ould not have stressed in detail the re=uire#ents of #ailin$ of notices to all personsna#ed in the petition !ho, per Section 'A of the Decree, include o!ners of ad0oinin$ properties,and occupants of the land.L Indeed, if #ailin$ of notices is essential, then b% parit% of reasonin$,publication in a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation is li5e!ise i#perative since the la! included

such re=uire#ent in its detailed provision.

It should be noted further that land re$istration is a proceedin$ in re$.'7 &ein$ in re$,such proceedin$ re=uires constructive sei?ure of the land as a$ainst all persons, includin$ thestate, !ho have ri$hts to or interests in the propert%. "n in re$ proceedin$ is validatedessentiall% throu$h publication. his bein$ so, the process #ust strictl% be co#plied!ith. Other!ise, persons !ho #a% be interested or !hose ri$hts #a% be adversel% affected!ould be barred fro# contestin$ an application !hich the% had no 5no!led$e of. "s has beenruled, a part% as an o!ner see5in$ the inscription of realt% in the land re$istration court #ustprove b% satisfactor% and conclusive evidence not onl% his o!nership thereof but the identit% of the sa#e, for he is in the sa#e situation as one !ho institutes an action for recover% of realt%.') @e #ust prove his title a$ainst the !hole !orld. his tas5, !hich rests upon the applicant,can best be achieved !hen all persons concerned ++ na%, Kthe !hole !orldL ++ !ho have ri$hts toor interests in the sub0ect propert% are notified and effectivel% invited to co#e to court and sho!cause !h% the application should not be $ranted. he ele#entar% nor#s of due process re=uirethat before the clai#ed propert% is ta5en fro# concerned parties and re$istered in the na#e of

the applicant, said parties #ust be $iven notice and opportunit% to oppose.































74

It #a% be as5ed !h% publication in a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation should be dee#ed#andator% !hen the la! alread% re=uires notice b% publication in the Official a?ette as !ell asb% #ailin$ and postin$, all of !hich have alread% been co#plied !ith in the case at hand. hereason is due process and the realit% that the Official a?ette is not as !idel% read andcirculated as ne!spapers and is oftenti#es dela%ed in its circulation, such that the noticespublished therein #a% not reach the interested parties on ti#e, if at all. "dditionall%, such parties#a% not be o!ners of nei$hborin$ properties, and #a% in fact not o!n an% other real estate. Insu#, the all+enco#passin$ in re$ nature of land re$istration cases, the conse=uences of defaultorders issued a$ainst the !hole !orld and the ob0ective of disse#inatin$ the notice in as !ide a

#anner as possible de#and a #andator% construction of the re=uire#ents for publication,#ailin$ and postin$.

"d#ittedl%, there !as failure to co#pl% !ith the e;plicit publication re=uire#ent of thela!. Private respondents did not proffer an% e;cuse6 even if the% had, it !ould not have#attered because the statute itself allo!s no e;cuses. Ineludibl%, this Court has no authorit% todispense !ith such #andator% re=uire#ent. he la! is una#bi$uous and its rationaleclear. i#e and a$ain, this Court has declared that !here the la! spea5s in clear andcate$orical lan$ua$e, there is no roo# for interpretation, vacillation or e=uivocation6 there isroo# onl% for application.'* here is no alternative. hus, the application for land re$istrationfiled b% private respondents #ust be dis#issed !ithout pre0udice to reapplication in the future,after all the le$al re=uisites shall have been dul% co#plied !ith.

:ERE"ORE, the petition is !1A(TED and the assailed Decision and Resolutionare 1EVE1'ED and 'ET A'#DE . he application of private respondent for land re$istration

is D#'#''ED !ithout pre0udice. No costs.

SO ORDERED.


Manila

@IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 7%'$2 No)*+*- 29, 1988

REPU!LIC O" TE PILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ROMAN CATOLIC !ISOP O" LUCENA,-*-*s*/t*6 4 Msg-. #os* T. S/0*, /6 REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, !RANC LIII,LUCENA CITY, respondents.

Te 'olicitor !eneral for petitioner.

!ilbert D. %a$aligan for private respondent.

!IDIN, J.:

his is an appeal fro# the ': decision of the 4IRS CIVI> C"SES DIVISION of the thenInter#ediate "ppellate Court dated Ma% '2, '*)1, in "C .R. No. -'('- entitled the ROM"N

C"@O>IC &IS@OP O4 >ucena, represented b% sgr. Jose T. 'ancez, applicant-appellee vs.1epublic of te Pilippines, et al ., Oppositors+appellants, affir#in$ the decision of the thenCourt of 4IRS INS"NCE of Que?on, *th 8udicial District, &ranch ', dated Nove#ber (, '*)-in >and Re$istration Case No. N+''-1 entitled the ROM"N C"@O>IC &IS@OP of >ucena,represented b% sgr. Jose T. 'ancez, applicant vs. te Director o f "ands and te Director,4ureau of 9orest Develop$ent , oppositors, orderin$ the re$istration of title to the parcel of landdesi$nated, as lots ', and 2 of plan PSD+1A1)1 and its technical descriptions, and the parcelof land described in plan PSB+''A* and its technical description, to$ether !ith !hateveri#prove#ents e;istin$ thereon, in the na#e of the ROM"N C"@O>IC &IS@OP of >ucena and

: its resolution Dated 8une '*,'*)1, den%in$ appellant<s 3Motion for Reconsideration for lac5 of#erit.3

he factual bac5$round of the case as found b% the Inter#ediate "ppellate Court are as follo!s

On 4ebruar% , '*7*, the ROM"N C"@O>IC &IS@OP of >ucena,represented b% Ms$r. 8ose . Sanche?, filed an application for confir#ationof title to four 9(: parcels of land. hree of said parcels, deno#inated as>ots ', and 2, respectivel%, of plan PSB+1A1)1 are situated in &arrioMasin, Municipalit% of Candelaria, Que?on Province. he fourth parcelsunder plan PSB+''A* is located in &arrio &ucal 9a$uan:, sa#e#unicipalit% and province. "s basis for the application, the applicant clai#edtitle to the various properties throu$h either purchase or donation datin$ asfar bac5 as '*).

he le$al re=uire#ents of publication and postin$ !ere dul% co#plied !ith,as !as the service of copies of notice of initial hearin$ on the proper$overn#ent officials.

In behalf of the Director of >ands and the Director of the &ureau of 4orestDevelop#ent, the Solicitor eneral filed an Opposition on "pril -, '*7*,alle$in$ therein a#on$ others, that the applicant did not have an i#perfecttitle or title in fee si#ple to the parcel of land bein$ applied for.

"t the initial hearin$ held on Nove#ber '2, '*7*, onl% the Provincial 4iscalin representation of the Solicitor eneral appeared to interpose personalob0ection to the application. @ence, an Order of eneral Default a$ainst the

!hole !orld !as issued b% the Court a =uo e;cept for the Director of >andsand the Director of the &ureau of 4orest Develop#ent.

he preli#inaries dispensed !ith, the applicant then introduced its proofs insupport of the petition, su##ed up b% the lo!er court as follo!s

<it respect to "ots *, , and =, plan P';-8>8?8.

>ots ', and 2 of plan PSB+1A1)1 respectivel%containin$ an area of '),*77, 1,*'- and '1,' s=uare#eters, are ad0oinin$ lots are situated in the &arrio ofMasin, Municipalit% of Candelaria, Province of Que?on9for#erl% a%abas: 9E;hibits 4, 4+', 4+ and 4+2:. Saidlots !ere surve%ed for the Ro#an Catholic Church on

Nove#ber 2, '*) 9E;hibit P+A: and the surve% planapproved on October -, '** 9E;hibit 4+1:.






75

>ot ' !as ac=uired b% the Ro#an Catholic Church thruRev. 4ather Ra%#undo Es=uenet b% purchase fro# thespouses "tanacio Franso and Maria Coronado onOctober -, '*) 9E;hibits , +':, portion of >ot also b% purchase thru Rev. 4ather Ra%#undo Es=uenetfro# the spouses &enito Mara#ot and VenanciaDescaller on Ma% , '*1* 9E;hibits M, N+':, !hile there#ainin$ portion of >ot and >ot 2 !ere alread%o!ned and possessed b% the Ro#an Catholic Church

even prior to the surve% of the said three lots in '*).

Records of burial of the Ro#an Catholic Church ofCandelaria, Que?on sho!ed that even as earl% asNove#ber '*'), >ot 2 has alread% been utili?ed b% theRo#an Catholic Church as its ce#eter% in Candelaria,Que?on 9E;hibit N, N+' to N+A:.@reBBanC*/F

hese three lots presentl% constituted the Ro#anCatholic Church ce#eter% in Candelaria, Que?on.

>ots ', and 2 are declared for ta;ation purposes inthe na#e of the Ro#an Catholic Church under a;

Declaration Nos. +'*+-+-7*, +'*+-+-77 and +'*+-+-) as <ce#eter% site< 9E;hibit S, V and :.

<it respect to te parcel of land described in planP';-**>)G

his parcel of land situated in the barrio of &ucal9a$uan:, Municipalit% of Candelaria, Province ofQue?on 9for#erl% a%abas: and #ore particularl%described in plan PSB+' 'A* and its technicaldescription !ith an area of 2,' s=uare #eters 9E;hibit': !as for#erl% o!ned and possessed b% the spousesPaulo . Macasaet, and abriela V. de Macasaet. Saidspouses, on 4ebruar% 1, '*(', donated this lot to the

Ro#an Catholic Church represented b% Reverend4ather Ra%#undo Es=uenet 9E;hibit 8, 8+' to 8+(:. It!as surve%ed for the Ro#an Catholic Church on "u$.'1, '*(- as church site and the correspondin$ surve%plan approved on 8an. 'A, '*(' 9E;hibits I+', I+, '+2:.

Previousl% erected on this >ot !as an old chapel !hich!as de#olished and ne! chapel no! stands in itsplace on the sa#e site.

4or his part, the 4iscal in a Manifestation dated 8ul% , '*)-, said <theState !ill not adduce evidence in support of its opposition and !ill sub#itthe instant case for decision.<

Evaluatin$ the applicant<s sub#itted proofs, the court a =uo concluded, onthe basis of ac=uisitive prescription at the ver% least, that the for#er hadade=uatel% sho!n title to the parcels of land bein$ clai#ed.

Since the ac=uisition of these four 9(: lots b% theapplicant, it has been in continuous possession anden0o%#ent thereof, and such possession, to$ether !ithits predecessors+in interest, coverin$ a period of #ore

than A %ears 9at least fro# the date of the surve% in'*): !ith respect to lots ' and , about 1 %ears !ithrespect to lot 2, all of plan PSB+ 1A1)16 and #ore than2* %ears !ith respect to the fourth parcel described inplan PSB+''A* 9at least fro# the date of the surve%in '*(-: have been open, public, continuous, peaceful,adverse a$ainst the !hole !orld, and in the concept ofo!ner.

"ccordin$l%, the court ordered the re$istration of the four parcels to$ether!ith the i#prove#ents thereon 3in the na#e of the ROM"N C"@O>IC&IS@OP O4 >BCEN", INC., a reli$ious corporation sole dul% re$istered ande;istin$ under the la!s of the Republic of the Philippines.3

"$ainst this decision, the Solicitor eneral filed a Motion for reconsiderationon the follo!in$ $rounds

'. "rticle JIV, Section '' of the Ne! Constitution9'*72: dis=ua lifies a privatecorporation fro# ac=uirin$ alienable lands for the public do#ain.

. In the case at bar the application !as filed after the effectivit% on the Ne!Constitution on 8anuar% '7, '*72.

!hich !as denied b% the lo!er court for lac5 of #erit.

Still insistin$ of the alle$ed unconstitutionalit% of the re$istration 9a point!hich, incidentall%, the appellant never raised in the lo!er court prior to its

Motion for Reconsideration:, the Republic elevated this appeal. 91ollo, pp.A+):

On Ma% '2, '*)1, the first Civil Cases Division of the Inter#ediate "ppellate Court rendered itsDecision the dispositive part of !hich reads

/@ERE4ORE, findin$ the 0ud$#ent a 6uo to be supported b% la! and theevidence on record, the sa#e is hereb% "44IRMED. No pronounce#ent asto costs.

SO ORDERED. 9Rollo p. 2-:

" reconsideration of the afore=uoted Decision !as sou$ht b% "ppellant Republic of the

Philippines, but for lac5 of #erit, its #otion for reconsideration !as denied on 8une '*, '*)1, b%



76

Resolution of the 4irst Civil Case Division, In ter#ediate "ppellate Court !hich resolution readsin full

Considerin$ appellant Republic of the Philippines 3Motion forreconsideration3 filed on 8une (, '*)16 the Court RESO>VED to DENF theMotion for Reconsideration for lac5 of #erit, $rounds raised therein havin$all been considered in the decision. 9Rollo, p. 2':

@ence, this petition.

he follo!in$ are the assi$ned errors raised b% the petitioner in its petition

'. he decision and the resolution in =uestion are contrar% to la! anddecisions of this honorable Court in eralco vs. %astro-4artolo$e and1epublic, ''( SCR" 7** 9pro#. 8une *,'*):6 1epublic vs. JudgeVillanueva and #glesia ni %risto, ''( SCR" )7A, 8une *, '*):6 andRepublic vs. 8ud$e onon$ and I$lesia ni Cristo, '') SCR" 7*+7229Nove#ber A,'*):6 Director of "ands vs. Her$anos y Her$anas, #nc. '('SCR" '+A 98an. 7,'*)1:.

. he lands applied for re$istration !ere the sub0ect of a previous

re$istration case !here a decree of re$istration !as alread% issued.

2. Respondent corporation failed to establish the indentit% of the landsapplied for. 9Rollo, pp. '(+'A:

he issue raised in this case involves the =uestion of !hether the Ro#an Catholic &ishop of>ucena, as a corporation sole is =ualified to appl% for confir#ation of its title to the four 9(:parcels of land sub0ect of this case.

Corollar% thereto is the =uestion of !hether or not a corporation sole should be treated as anordinar% private corporation, for purpose of the application of "rt. JIV, Sec. '' of the '*72Constitution.

"rticle JIV, Sec. '' of the '*72 Constitution, in part provides

Sec. ''. .... No private corporation or association #a% hold alienable landsof the public do#ain e;cept b% lease not to e;ceed one thousand hectaresin area6 nor #a% an% citi?en hold such lands b% lease in e;cess of fivehundred hectares....

Sec. () of the Public >and "ct, in part, provides

Sec. (). he follo!in$ described citi?ens of the Philippines occup%in$ landsof the public do#ain or clai#in$ to o!n an% such lands or an interesttherein, but !hose titles have not been perfected or co#pleted, #a% appl%to the Court of 4irst Instance of the province !here the land is located forconfir#ation of their clai#s and the issuance of a Certificate of title therefor,

under the >and Re$istration "ct, to !it

9a: ...

9b: hose !ho b% the#selves or throu$h theirpredecessor+in+interest have been in open, continuous,e;clusive, and notorious possession and occupation ofa$ricultural lands of the public do#ain under a bonafide clai# of ac=uisition of o!nership for at least thirt%%ears i##ediatel% precedin$ the filin$ of the application

for confir#ation of title e;cept !hen prevented b% !aror force #a0eure. hese shall be conclusivel% presu#edto have perfor#ed all the conditions essential to aovern#ent $rant and shall be entitled to a certificateof title under the provisions of this chapter.

9c: ...

In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner contends that the Ro#an Catholic &ishop of >ucena9private respondent herein: !hich is ad#ittedl% a corporation sole is dis=ualified to o!n andre$ister its title over the parcels of land involved herein. 9Rollo, p. (':

In its petition it li5e!ise ar$ued that bein$ a 0uridical entit%, private respondent cannot avail of thebenefits of Sec. ()9b: of the public land la! !hich applies to 4I>IPINO citi?ens or N"BR">

persons. On the other hand, private respondent in its MEMOR"NDBM espoused the contrar%vie!.

here is no #erit in this petition.

he parties herein do not dispute that since the ac=uisition of the four 9(: lots b% the applicant, ithas been in continuous possession and en0o%#ent thereof, and such possession, to$ether !ithits predecessors+in+interest, coverin$ a period of #ore than A %ears 9at least fro# the date ofsurve% in '*): !ith respect to lots ' and , about 1 %ears !ith respect to lot 2, all of plan PSB+1A1)16 and #ore than 2* %ears !ith respect to the fourth parcel described in plan PSB+'' A*9at least fro# the date of the surve% in '*(-: have been open, public, continuous, peaceful,adverse a$ainst the !hole !orld, and in the concept of o!ner.

&ein$ disputed before this Court is the #atter of the applicabilit% of "rt. JIV Sec. '' of the '*72Constitution to the case at bar.

Petitioner ar$ues that considerin$ such constitutional prohibition, private respondent isdis=ualified to o!n and re$ister its title to the lots in =uestion. 4urther, it ar$ues that since theapplication for re$istration !as filed onl% on 4ebruar% , '*7*, lon$ after the '*72 Constitutiontoo5 effect on 8anuar% '7, '*72, the application for re$istration and confir#ation of title isineffectual because at the ti#e it !as filed, private corporation had been declared ineli$ible toac=uire alienable lands of the public do#ain pursuant to "rt. JIV, Sec. '' of the said constitution.9Rollo, p. (':

he =uestioned posed before this Court has been settled in the case of D#1E%T1 9 "A(D'vs. #nter$ediate Appellate %ourt 9'(1 SCR" A-* '*)1: !hich reversed the rulin$ firstenunciated in the '*) case of anila Electric %o. vs. %A'T1 4A1T"E , 9''( SCR" 7)*'*): i#posin$ the constitutional ban on public land ac=uisition b% private corporations !hichrulin$ !as declared e#phaticall% as res 2udicata on 8anuar% 7, '*)1 inDirector of "ands vs.



77

Her$anos y Her$anas de 'ta. %ruz de ayo, #nc ., 9'(' SCR" ' '*)1:.@reBBanC*/F Insaid case, 9Director of >ands v. I"C, supra:, this Court stated that a deter#ination of thecharacter of the lands at the ti#e of institution of the re$istration proceedin$s #ust be #ade. Ifthe% !ere then still part of the public do#ain, it #ust be ans!ered in the ne$ative.

If, on the other hand, the% !ere alread% private lands, the constitutional prohibition a$ainst theirac=uisition b% private corporation or association obviousl% does not appl%. In affir#in$ theDecision of the Inter#ediate "ppellate Court in said case, this Court adopted the vi$orous

dissent of the then 8ustice, later Chief 8ustice Claudio eehan5ee, tracin$ the line of casesbe$innin$ !ith C"RINO, 1 in '*-*, thru SBSI, 2 in '*A, do!n to @ERICO, 3 in '*)-, !hichdeveloped, affir#ed and reaffir#ed the doctrine that open, e;clusive and undisputed possessionof alienable public land for the period prescribed b% la! creates the le$al fiction !hereb% theland, upon co#pletion of the re=uisite period ipso 2ure and !ithout the need of 0udicial or othersanction, ceases to be public land and beco#es< private p ropert%. 9DIRECOR O4 >"NDS vs.I"C, supra, p. A'):.

Nothin$ can #ore clearl% de#onstrate the lo$ical inevitabilit% of considerin$ possession of publicland !hich is of the character and duration prescribed b% statute as the e=uivalent of an e;press$rant fro# the state than the dicti# of the statute itself6 $ that the possessor 3... shall beconclusivel% presu#ed to have perfor#ed all the conditions essential to a $overn#ent $rant andshall be entitled to a certificate of title ...3 No proof bein$ ad#issable to overco#e a conclusivepresu#ption, confir#ation proceedin$s !ould, in truth be little #ore than a for#alit%, at the #ostli#ited to ascertainin$ !hether the possession clai#ed is of the re=uired character and len$th of

ti#e, and re$istration thereunder !ould not confer title, but si#pl% reco$ni?e a title alread%vested. he proceedin$s !ould not ORIIN">>F convert the land fro# pub lic to private land,but onl% confir# such a conversion alread% effected b% operation of la! fro# the #o#ent there=uired period of possession beca#e co#plete. "s !as so !ell put in Carino, 3... here areindications that re$istration !as e;pected fro# all, but none sufficient to sho! that, for !ant of it,o!nership actuall% $ained !ould be lost. he effect of the proof, !herever #ade, !as not toconfer title, but si#pl% to establish it, as alread% conferred b% the decree, if not b% earlier la!.9DIRECOR O4 >"NDS vs. I"C, supra, p. A-:.

he open, continuous and e;clusive possession of the four lots b% private respondent canclearl% be $leaned fro# the follo!in$ facts on record >ot ' and portion of >ot !as ac=uired b%purchase in '*) and '**, respectivel%. he re#ainin$ portion of lots and 2 !as alread%o!ned and possessed b% private respondent even prior to the surve% of said lots in '*). Infact, records of burial of the Ro#an Catholic Church of Candelaria, Que?on sho!ed that asearl% as '*'*, >ot 2 has alread% been utili?ed b% the Ro#an Catholic Church as its ce#eter%.hat at present, said three lots are utili?ed as the Ro#an Catholic Church of Candelaria,Que?on. hat said lots are declared for ta;ation purposes in the na#e of the Ro#an CatholicChurch. he fourth parcel of land !as ac=uired b% donation in '*(' and sa#e lot is utili?ed aschurch site.

It #ust be e#phasi?ed that the Court is not here sa%in$ that a corporation sole should be treatedli5e an ordinar% private corporation.

In 1o$an %atolic Apostolic Ad$inistration of Davao, #nc. vs. "and 1egistration %o$$ission, et al . 9>+)(A', Dece#ber -,'*A7,'- Phil. A*1:. /e articulated

In solvin$ the proble# thus sub#itted to our consideration, /e can sa% thefollo!in$ " corporation sole is a special for# of corporation usuall%

associated !ith the cler$%. Conceived and introduced into the co##on la!b% sheer necessit%, this le$al creation !hich !as referred to as 3that

unhapp% frea5 of En$lish >a!3 !as desi$ned to facilitate the e;ercise of thefunctions of o!nership carried on b% the clerics for and on behalf of thechurch !hich !as re$arded as the propert% o!ner 9See ' &ouvier<s >a!Dictionar%, p. 1)+1)2:.

" corporation sole consists of one person onl%, and his successors 9!ho !illal!a%s be one at a ti#e:, in so#e particular station, !ho are incorporatedb% la! in order to $ive the# so#e le$al capacities and advanta$es,

particular% that of perpetuit%, !hich in their natural persons the% could nothave had. In this sense, the in$ is a sole corporation6 so is a bishop, ordeans distinct fro# their several chapters 9Reid vs. &arr%, *2 fla. )(*, ''So. )(1:.

Pertinent to this case is the provision of Sec. ''2 &atas Pa#bansa &l$. 1) !hich reads asfollo!s

Sec. ''2. Ac6uisition and alienation of property . "n% corporation sole#a% purchase and hold real estate and personal propert% for its church,charitable, benevolent or educational purposes, and #a% receive be=uestsor $ifts for such purposes. Such corporation #a% #ort$a$e or sell realpropert% held b% it upon obtainin$ an order for that purpose fro# the Courtof 4irst Instance of the province !here the propert% is situated6 but before

the order is issued, proof #ust be #ade to the satisfaction of the Court thatnotice of the application for leave to #ort$a$e or sell has been $iven b%publication or other!ise in such #anner and for such ti#e as said court #a%have directed, and that it is to the interest of the corporation that leave to#ort$a$e or sell should be $ranted. he application for leave to #ort$a$e or sell #ust be #ade b% petition, dul% verified b% the chief archbishop, bishop,priest, #inister, rabbi or presidin$ elder actin$ as corporation sole, and #a%be opposed b% an% #e#ber of the reli$ious deno#ination, sect or churchrepresented b% the corporation sole Provided, hat in cases !here therules, re$ulations and discipline of the reli$ious deno#ination, sect orchurch reli$ious societ% or order concerned represented b% such corporationsole re$ulate the #ethod of ac=uirin$, holdin$, sellin$ and #ort$a$in$ realestate and personal propert%, such rules, re$ulations and discipline shallcontrol and the intervention of the courts shall not be necessar%.

here is no doubt that a corporation sole b% the nature of its Incorporation is vested !ith theri$ht to purchase and hold real estate and personal propert%. It need not therefore be treated asan ordinar% private corporation because !hether or not it be so treated as such, theConstitutional provision involved !ill, nevertheless, be not applicable.

In the li$ht of the facts obtainin$ in this case and the rulin$ of this Court in Director of "ands vs.#A% , 9supra, A'2:, the lands sub0ect of this petition !ere alread% private propert% at the ti#e theapplication for confir#ation of title !as filed in '*7*. here is therefore no co$ent reason todisturb the findin$s of the appellate court.

/@ERE4ORE, the petition is dis#issed for lac5 of #erit and the appealed decision andResolution of the Inter#ediate "ppellate Court is hereb% "44IRMED.

SO ORDERED.



78

Documents

Corpo Religious