THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF LIPA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOSE, BATANGAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal prosecuted through a bill of exceptions by the provincial
fiscal, representing the government of the town of San Jose, Batangas, from the
decision dated May 12, 1913, whereby the Honorable Mariano Cui, judge, sentenced
the defendant municipality to restore and deliver to the plaintiff corporation
the two parcels of land in question, and held that there was no ground for the
damages claimed by the plaintiff, and without special finding as to costs.

On September 29, 1911, counsel for the plaintiff filed a written complaint,
amended on November 9 of the same year, alleging that it was and is the owner in
fee simple of two parcels of land, known locally as “the lands of the Virgin,”
partly cultivated and coffee producing and partly uncultivated; that these
parcels of land, the area and boundaries whereof are set forth in the said
document, are at present occupied by the municipality of San Jose, which claims
to be the owner thereof and which has refused to return them to the plaintiff
despite the demands made; that this detainer has caused the plaintiff damages to
the extent of P2,000; and therefore judgment was prayed for declaring that the
real property described in the amended complaint belongs to the plaintiff and
directing that the defendant deliver possession of said parcels of land and pay
P2,000 as damages, and the costs of the suit.

The municipal president, representing the municipality of San Jose, in his
answer admitted as true the first and second paragraphs of the complaint and
absolutely denied the remainder thereof, requesting dismissal of the suit, with
the costs against the plaintiff.

After a hearing and examination of the evidence adduced by the parties, the
court rendered the judgment above referred to, and from which counsel for the
defendant appealed and asked for a new trial, which motion was denied, with
exception on the part of the appellant.

The defendant municipality of San Jose, which at the present time holds the
two parcels of land claimed, flatly denied the claim contained in the action for
recovery instituted by the Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Right
Reverend Bishop of Lipa, without alleging any title or reason whereon to base
the possession it now enjoys of the two parcels of land mentioned, which it now
claims to belong to it.

Nor did it present at the trial of the case any proof justifying its right to
possession of the lands in litigation, while the plaintiff exhibited two
certificates issued by the register of deeds of said province, setting forth two
possessory informations which were filed in the justice of the peace court of
the said town, whereby its possession of the parcels of realty to which each
refers is proven, and which, in view of the testimony of the owners of the
adjacent lands, after citation of the teniente de sementera of that
town, were approved by an order dated February 15, 1895, issued in each case;
and said informations were recorded in the property registry, as proven by the
documents, Exhibits A and B. These documents were not objected to nor impugned
as false when they were presented at the trial of the case.

For an action of recovery to meet with success it is indispensable that
the.party instituting it and claiming ownership of a parcel of realty prove
fully not only the ownership it exercises over the realty that is the subject
matter of the complaint but also the identity of the land.

The title consisting of a possessory information has the same legal efficacy
as other titles recognized in law, and a possessory information inscribed in the
property registry constitutes prima facie proof that the possessor of
the land to which the information refers is the owner thereof, so long as no
other title is presented evidencing and proving a better right. (Inchausti &
Co. vs. Commanding General, & Phil. Rep., 556; Baldovino
vs. Amenos, 9 Phil. Rep., 537; Salacup vs. Rambac, 17 Phil.
Rep., 21; Arcenas vs. Laserna, post, p. 599.)

The defendant municipality has been unable to allege or exhibit any title to
prove how and by what right it occupies these parcels of land; and therefore the
allegation of the plaintiff must be sustained by virtue of the title, proving,
if not ownership, at least the right of possession that pertains to it with
reference to the land in litigation.

If a year and a day had not elapsed from the date when through the absence of
the parish priests of the church of San Jose, as a consequence of the
disturbances caused by the revolution, the representative of the church could
have exercised the action provided for in sections 80 and 81 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, still even though said period has elapsed the representative of
the church is entitled to exercise, as he has done, the action for recovery, as
he could also have exercised the plenary action of possession for the purpose of
securing recognition of his right to possession of the lands in question and of
obtaining restoration thereof.

The parish priest of San Jose, the legitimate representative of the Catholic
Church in said town, has been in possession of the lands in litigation from time
immemorial by virtue of the ownership vested in his principal, although he was
forced to abandon said lands because of the revolution and the municipality of
San Jose took advantage of this circumstance to occupy them without any right.
The church could not lose its right of possession thereto on that account
because article 444 of the Civil Code provides that acts executed clandestinely
and without knowledge of the possessor of the thing, or by force, do not affect
the right of possession the lawful owner or possessor enjoys, when it was
physically impossible to possess or to hold the thing which he was forced to
abandon by the circumstances that prevailed in the locality.

Without alleging in first instance any exception to the action for recovery
tending to demonstrate the legal non-existence of the confraternity of the Lady
of Consolation, in whose favor, according to said informations, the lands in
litigation were donated, nor its incapacity to acquire ownership thereof, the
appellant municipality sustains its appeal pending in this second instance by
imputing to the trial court, as errors it incurred in its judgment, its
recognition of the legal existence of said confraternity, its holding that the
same legally acquired the ownership of said lands, its holding that they had
become the property of the plaintiff corporation, and its rendition of judgment
directing restitution and delivery to the plaintiff of the lands in
question.

Although this court is not obliged to take into consideration or to pass upon
such errors, because no exception to the complaint was taken in first instance
with regard to those points, for it is proper only to examine and consider, in
second instance the errors arising from questions raised in first instance and
decided by the trial court according to the allegations and the evidence at the
trial, still we will consider them in this decision in order to demonstrate in
an irrefragable manner the justness and correctness of the foregoing
complaint.

While the defendant in its reply to the complaint absolutely denies the truth
of paragraphs 3 to 6 thereof, it does not appear to deny either expressly or
tacitly the existence of the confraternity entitled “of the Lady of Consolation”
which from time immemorial has operated in said town of San Jose, Batangas, and
so witnesses of both parties testify, wherefore it is to be presumed that it
implicitly recognizes the existence of said confraternity, as well as the fact
that the same has been legally constituted. A confraternity is a kind of
association of devotees formed for the purpose of carrying on with greater
solemnity and pomp the adoration of the Virgin Mother of the Savior, as
authorized by the rites of the Catholic Church, and therefore as such legally
established association, it is a juridical entity with rights and obligations
and can’ validly acquire real property, as shown by said certificates of
possessory annotations.

Moreover, it is beyond dispute that the said lands, donated to the
confraternity of the Virgin in the said town of San Jose, are property dedicated
to the Catholic religion and the operation of said confraternity was suspended
by force majeure in consequence of the revolution and of the profound
and general upheaval nearly all the towns in these Islands suffered. It is to be
noted that the lands in question, which have always been administered by the
parish priests of that town and, in spite of their temporary absence from the
parish of San Jose, have not ceased to belong to the faith nor have they lost
the character they had from the instant when they passed into possession of the
church in charge of the persons who directed and administered the Catholic
worship in the parish of that town.

The lands in question were apparently abandoned for the space of some years
during the revolution, but the church did not thereby lose its right of
possession and administration thereof, as intended and devoted to maintaining
the faith, especially when it does not appear of record that they were duly
alienated according to law.

In the case of the Roman Catholic Church vs. Santos (7 Phil. Rep.,
66), after affirming that the ruling in the case of Barlin vs. Ramirez
(7 Phil. Rep., 41) is applicable thereto, it is stated that to the authorities
cited in that case may be added the following statement by the Supreme Court of
the United States in the case of the Mormon Church vs. The United
States (136 U, S., 53):

“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. 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.

“It follows that the Roman Catholic Church is entitled to the exclusive
possession and occupancy of the property mentioned in the
complaint.”

Three laws are cited in the foregoing quotation from Title 28 of the Third
Partida, of which Law 12 is here quoted as’ the most pertinent, reading
thus:

“No sacred, religious, or holy thing, devoted to the service of God, can be
the subject of ownership by any man, nor can it be considered as included in his
property holdings. Although the priests may have such things in their
possession, yet they are not the owners thereof. They hold them thus as
guardians or servants, or because they have the care of the same and serve God
in or with them. Hence they were allowed to take from the revenues of the church
and lands what was reasonably necessary for their support; the balance,
belonging to God, was to be devoted to pious purposes, such as the feeding and
clothing of the poor, the support of orphans, the marrying of poor virgins to
prevent their becoming evil women because of their poverty; and for the
redemption of captives and the repairing of the churches, and the buying of
chalices, clothing, books, and other things which they might be in need of, and
other similar charitable purposes.”

It is a fact proven in the record that the lands in litigation, as property
devoted to the faith by their original owners, were placed at the disposition
and under the administration of the parish priest of San Jose, as the
representative of the Roman Catholic Church in the town of San Jose and
administrator of the parish church thereof, and it is also proven in the case
that the representative of the church in said town has continued to possess and
administer the said lands for many years, applying the products thereof to
supporting the Catholic worship in that town; and yet in spite of all this the
municipality of San Jose, in view of the upheavals the revolution brought about
after the year 1896 and of the fact that the parish priest of said town was
absent, took possession of the lands in question without the consent of the
church’s representatives and without right or title that would legalize and
justify its possession, which is nothing more than a mere detainer or
usurpation; and therefore no legal reason or ground exists whereby it ought to
be maintained therein, for it has not exhibited or presented any title to
demonstrate a better right than that pertaining to the representative of the
church, which in strict justice must be restored to possession of the said
lands, either as the lawful owner thereof or at least as possessor with perfect
right to continue to use the said fields, so that the products thereof may be
employed.in supporting the worship for which they were intended.

For the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors assigned to the judgment
appealed from are deemed refuted, and finding that it is correct according to
the law and the merits of the case, affirmation thereof is proper, as we do
affirm it, with the costs against the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Moreland and Carson, JJ., concur in the result.