Roman Catholic Apostolic Church vs. Santos

Property devoted to the service of God under Spanish law became incapable of private ownership, being held by the clergy as guardians or trustees for the Roman Catholic Church. When property was given for a particular religious object and that object failed, the property did not revert to the donor or his heirs but devolved to the Crown or the Church, unless the donation contained an express condition in writing to the contrary. The Roman Catholic Church, as a corporation, was entitled to the exclusive possession and occupancy of church property that had been devoted to Catholic worship from time immemorial.

The plaintiffs, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church and Lorenzo Gregorio, brought an action to recover possession of a chapel and annexed convent situated in the barrio of Concepcion, in the pueblo of Tambobong, in the province of Rizal. A document presented by the defendants stated that a chapel had existed on the site for more than one hundred years. The case was governed by Spanish law principles that applied prior to the Treaty of Paris, particularly the rule that property given to the service of God became incapable of private ownership.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover the possession of a chapel and the convent annexed thereto situated in the barrio of Concepcion, in the pueblo of Tambobong, in the province of Rizal. A document presented by the defendants stated that a chapel had existed on this site for more than one hundred years. The lower court found that from time immemorial until the year 1902, the chapel had been constantly destined to the ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion, with Roman Catholic priests being the only ones who said mass and exercised the ministry of preaching and administration of the sacraments of baptism and confession therein, until December 1902 when the Aglipayan communion celebrated its cults in the visita and took possession of it.

The buildings standing upon the site were destroyed by an earthquake in 1880, and their reconstruction was at once commenced and completed within a few years. The work of reconstruction was performed, and the materials therefor furnished, by the inhabitants of the barrio. One witness for the plaintiffs, Blas Marcelo, described in detail the manner of construction, specifying the names of the persons who contributed to the erection of particular parts of the buildings and of persons who donated ornaments and other articles for the use of the church. The witnesses for the defendants, with one exception, all stated, when asked who the owner of the chapel was, that it was owned by the people of the barrio. After its construction, it was maintained and repairs were made thereon by the contributions of the Roman Catholics living in the barrio and pueblo.

On the 26th of November, 1902, forcible possession of the chapel was taken by representatives of the Independent Filipino Church, and since that time the worship therein has been in accordance with the rites of that church. What proportion of the people of the barrio belonged to the Independent Church and what proportion belonged to the Roman Catholic Church did not appear. The plaintiffs presented in evidence a document signed by 134 persons in which they stated that their desire was that the chapel should be used for purposes of the religion professed by the Roman Catholic Church.

The principal claim set up by the defense was that there existed, and still exists, in the barrio of Concepcion a cofradia; that this cofradia was and is a juridical entity; that it constructed the church building and convent, has always had the possession thereof, and has always been and now is the owner thereof, and that among the defendants in this action is the hermano mayor, an officer of the cofradia, who is charged with the administration of its affairs. No evidence of any kind was presented to show the formation of this alleged cofradia in the manner pointed out by the laws existing prior to the Treaty of Paris. No document setting forth the organization of the cofradia or its purposes or objects was introduced, nor did the parol evidence presented at the trial show any of these things. With the exception of Angel Luna, the last witness for the defense, no one mentioned the existence of this cofradia. Luna testified that the cofradia was the reunion of the neighbors, among them the hermanos mayores who have the representation of those of the barrio, and that he was named hermano mayor by Don Martin Esguerra, Manuel Tuason, Lino Paez, and various neighbors, more or less fifty, all of the barrio of Concepcion, who took part in the junta that elected him and signed the act of his appointment. The memorandum to which he referred was dated the 2d of October, 1902, and recited that the church and convent were erected by the hermanos mayores or cofradia, but this document was drawn up after difficulties had arisen between the Roman Catholic Church and the Independent Filipino Church, and its recitals were therefore entitled to no weight.

All of the witnesses, however, both of the plaintiffs and of the defendants, testified that there was a person called the hermano mayor (eldest brother) and that he was charged with the supervision of the building, keeping the keys thereof, the collection of the contributions, the making of repairs and arrangements for the celebration of the fiesta of the barrio. As to the way in which he was elected, the witnesses differed. Some of the witnesses for the defendants said that he was elected by the ex-hermanos mayores; others that he was elected by the principal contributors to the maintenance of the church. The hermano mayor was rather the representative of the barrio than the representative of a cofradia; in fact, many of the witnesses for the defendants testified that the church was owned by the barrio, represented by the hermano mayor. The necessity for some such person was apparent when it is considered that these buildings constituted a visita or hermita which had no resident priest. From time immemorial the visita or chapel had been administered by the parish priest of Tambobong, who did not reside in the barrio. There being no resident priest, it was necessary that some person, resident in the barrio, should be charged with the care of the buildings, and in this case that person was called the hermano mayor.

The defendants in their answer set up the defense of res adjudicata, and alleged that in a former suit between the same parties concerning the possession of these buildings a final judgment had been rendered in favor of the defendants which still remained in force. At the trial, however, they offered no evidence in support of these allegations of their answer.

The plaintiffs-appellees argued that the chapel and convent belonged to the Roman Catholic Church as a corporation, having been devoted to Catholic worship from time immemorial.

• Ownership by the Roman Catholic Church: The plaintiffs presented evidence, including the testimony of Blas Marcelo and a document signed by 134 persons, to establish that the chapel had been continuously used for Roman Catholic worship and that the Church was entitled to exclusive possession and occupancy of the property.

The defendants-appellants raised two principal defenses: ownership by a cofradia and res adjudicata.

• Ownership by a cofradia: The defense claimed that there existed, and still exists, in the barrio of Concepcion a cofradia; that this cofradia was and is a juridical entity; that it constructed the church building and convent, has always had the possession thereof, and has always been and now is the owner thereof, and that among the defendants is the hermano mayor, an officer of the cofradia, who is charged with the administration of its affairs.
• Res Adjudicata: The defendants alleged that in a former suit between the same parties concerning the possession of these buildings, a final judgment had been rendered in favor of the defendants which still remained in force.

• Ownership of Church Property: Whether the chapel and convent in barrio Concepcion belonged to the Roman Catholic Church as a corporation, such that it was entitled to exclusive possession and occupancy thereof.
• Existence of a Cofradia: Whether the defendants established the existence of a cofradia as a juridical entity that owned the church building and convent.
• Res Adjudicata: Whether the defense of res adjudicata was properly established by the defendants.

• Ownership of Church Property: Yes. The Roman Catholic Church was entitled to the exclusive possession and occupancy of the property, the building being a church that was consecrated, used, occupied, and possessed by the Roman Catholic Church as a corporation from the earliest times down to November 1902.
• Existence of a Cofradia: No. The proof did not sustain the claim of a cofradia; no evidence of any kind was presented to show the formation of the alleged cofradia in the manner pointed out by the laws existing prior to the Treaty of Paris, and no document setting forth its organization or purposes was introduced.
• Res Adjudicata: No. The defendants offered no evidence in support of their allegations of res adjudicata at the trial.

• Ownership of Church Property: The Court found that the building was a church, consecrated as such, and was used, occupied, and possessed by the Roman Catholic Church as a corporation from the earliest times down to November 1902. The case was ruled by the decision in Barlin vs. Ramirez. The Court quoted the Supreme Court of the United States in Mormon Church vs. The United States: "By the Spanish law, whatever was given to the service of God became incapable of private ownership, being held by the clergy as guardians or trustees; and any part not required for their own support, and the repairs, books, and furniture of the church, was devoted to works of piety, such as feeding and clothing the poor, supporting orphans, marrying poor virgins, redeeming captives, and the like. (Partida 3, tit. 28, 11, 12-15.) When property was given for a particular object, as a church, a hospital, a convent or a community, etc., and the object failed, the property did not revert to the donor, or his heirs, but devolved to the Crown, the church, or other convent or community, unless the donation contained an express condition in writing to the contrary. (Tapia, Febrero Novisimo, lib. 2, tit. 4, cap. 24-26.)" It followed that the Roman Catholic Church was entitled to the exclusive possession and occupancy of the property mentioned in the complaint.
• Existence of a Cofradia: The Court found that the proof did not sustain the claim of a cofradia. No evidence of any kind was presented to show the formation of the alleged cofradia in the manner pointed out by the laws existing prior to the Treaty of Paris. No document setting forth the organization of the cofradia or its purposes or objects was introduced, nor did the parol evidence presented at the trial show any of these things. With the exception of Angel Luna, the last witness for the defense, no one mentioned the existence of this cofradia. The memorandum to which Luna referred was drawn up in October 1902, after difficulties had arisen between the Roman Catholic Church and the Independent Filipino Church, and its recitals were therefore entitled to no weight. The evidence did not show that there ever existed in the barrio any such organization as a cofradia. The hermano mayor was rather the representative of the barrio than the representative of a cofradia; in fact, many of the witnesses for the defendants testified that the church was owned by the barrio, represented by the hermano mayor. The necessity for such a person was apparent because the buildings constituted a visita or hermita which had no resident priest, and it was necessary that some person resident in the barrio should be charged with the care of the buildings.
• Res Adjudicata: The defendants set up the defense of res adjudicata in their answer, alleging that in a former suit between the same parties concerning the possession of these buildings a final judgment had been rendered in favor of the defendants which still remained in force. At the trial, however, they offered no evidence in support of these allegations of their answer.

• Property Devoted to the Service of God Under Spanish Law — Under Spanish law, whatever was given to the service of God became incapable of private ownership, being held by the clergy as guardians or trustees. When property was given for a particular object, as a church, a hospital, a convent, or a community, and the object failed, the property did not revert to the donor or his heirs, but devolved to the Crown, the church, or other convent or community, unless the donation contained an express condition in writing to the contrary. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the Roman Catholic Church, as a corporation, was entitled to the exclusive possession and occupancy of the chapel and convent that had been devoted to Catholic worship from time immemorial.
• Cofradia as a Juridical Entity — A cofradia is a juridical entity that must be formed in the manner pointed out by the laws existing prior to the Treaty of Paris, requiring documentary evidence of its organization, purposes, or objects. The Court held that the mere existence of a functionary called the hermano mayor, who supervised the building, kept the keys, collected contributions, and made repairs, did not prove the existence of a juridical entity such as a cofradia in which the legal title to the property was based. The hermano mayor was rather the representative of the barrio than the representative of a cofradia.

• "By the Spanish law, whatever was given to the service of God became incapable of private ownership, being held by the clergy as guardians or trustees; and any part not required for their own support, and the repairs, books, and furniture of the church, was devoted to works of piety, such as feeding and clothing the poor, supporting orphans, marrying poor virgins, redeeming captives, and the like." — This passage, quoted from the Supreme Court of the United States in Mormon Church vs. The United States, states the controlling Spanish law principle that property devoted to the service of God cannot be privately owned and is held by the clergy as trustees.
• "When property was given for a particular object, as a church, a hospital, a convent or a community, etc., and the object failed, the property did not revert to the donor, or his heirs, but devolved to the Crown, the church, or other convent or community, unless the donation contained an express condition in writing to the contrary." — This passage establishes the rule of devolution of property given for a particular religious object, which the Court applied to affirm the Roman Catholic Church's entitlement to the property.
• "The evidence does not show that there ever existed in the barrio any such organization as a cofradia." — This statement summarizes the Court's finding that the defendants failed to prove the existence of a cofradia as a juridical entity that owned the church property.

• Barlin vs. Ramirez (5 Off. Gaz., 130) — Controlling precedent. The Court held that the present case was ruled by what had been decided in this case, which established the Roman Catholic Church's right to church property under Spanish law.
• Mormon Church vs. The United States, 136 U.S. 53 — Cited as authority for the Spanish law principle that property given to the service of God became incapable of private ownership and was held by the clergy as guardians or trustees.

• Partida 3, tit. 28, 11, 12-15 — Cited for the principle that whatever was given to the service of God became incapable of private ownership, being held by the clergy as guardians or trustees, with any part not required for their own support and the repairs, books, and furniture of the church devoted to works of piety.
• Tapia, Febrero Novisimo, lib. 2, tit. 4, cap. 24-26 — Cited for the rule that when property was given for a particular object, as a church, a hospital, a convent, or a community, and the object failed, the property did not revert to the donor or his heirs, but devolved to the Crown, the church, or other convent or community, unless the donation contained an express condition in writing to the contrary.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concurred. Johnson, J., reserved his vote.