7/31/2019 Director of Lands vs. Roman Catholic Bishopdocx

1/1

Director of Lands vs. Roman CatholicBishop of Zamboanga

61 Phil. 644

Facts:

Roman Catholic Bishop of Zamboanga soughtthe registration in the name of the Roman CatholicApostolic Church of four (4) parcels of land, knownas lots Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the improvementsthereon, situated in the center of the town of themunicipality of Misamis. The Director of Landsclaimed said properties alleging them to be of thepublic domain, having been reserved for parks byvirtue of the Governor- Generals Proclamation No.

360, dated February 7, 1931. The municipality of

Misamis likewise claimed lots No. 1, 2, and 3, and asouthwestern portion of lot No. 4, having an area of 5,539 square meters, alleging them to be publicplazas.

The four lots are really only one parcel and arebounded on the four sides. These four streets existedfrom time immemorial, although with differentnames. Said four lots were already in the possessionof the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church some yearsprior to the year 1789, and the church, belfry andconvert which served as dwelling for the parishpriests were built on lot No. 4. Heretofore itspossession has been quiet, open, public, continuousand under claim of ownership.

On one side of this land the municipalauthorities succeeded in erecting a monument of Rizal, which still stands.

Issue:

Whether or not the disputed lots belong to theMunicipality of Misamis.

Held:

No. The possession by the Roman CatholicApostolic Church of the lands in dispute for a periodof about a century and a half, can mean nothingmore than that said lands were designated by theState itself to be devoted to the building of thechurch, belfry and convent for the purpose of

implanting the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religionand maintaining the cult thereof.

Neither does the existence of a monument of Rizal on said land prove the ownership of themunicipality of Misamis, nor can the recentoccupation thereof be invoked as a title thereto. Itshould be interpreted as a tolerated possession inaccordance with articles 444(537) and 447 of theCivil Code which in no way can be made the basisfor the adjudication of a title.

The evidence in this case does not show that themunicipality has, as such, any right whatever in theproperty in question. It has produced no evidence of ownership. Its claim of ownership is rested in itsbrief in this court upon the following propositions:That the property in question belonged prior theTreaty of Paris to the Spanish Government; that bythe Treaty of Paris the ownership thereof passed tothe Government of the United States; that by section12 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, suchproperty was transferred to the Government of thePhilippine Islands, and that by the circular of thatGovernment, dated November 11, 1902, theownership and the right to the possession of thisproperty passed to the municipality of Lagonoy. If,

for the purposes of the argument, the court admitthat the other propositions are true, there is noevidence whatever to support the last proposition,namely that the Government of the PhilippineIslands has transferred the ownership of this churchto the municipality of Lagonoy. The court found nocircular of the date above referred to. As to themunicipality of Lagonoy, therefore, it is very clearthat it has neither title, ownership, nor right topossession.

The lower court found that lots Nos. 1, 2 and 3are public plazas, as claimed by the municipality of Misamis, and decreed the registration thereof in thename of the said municipality. Held: This decree isuntenable. If they are public plazas they are notsusceptible or registration in the name of any branchof the State.