FELIPE C. ALVIAR ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. REV. LEO A. CULLUM, S.J., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

This is an action brought in the Court of First Instance of Manila
by Felipe Alviar and other 164 plaintiffs against Rev. Father Leo A.
Cullum, in his own name and as Father Superior of the Society of Jesus
in the Philippines, to enforce the “Pragmatica Sancion” issued by King
Charles the 3d of Spain on April 2d, 1767, expelling the Jesuits from
all the dominions of Spain including the Philippines, and confiscating
all their personal and real property on behalf of the Crown of Spain;
also, to enforce the “Real Cedula” issued by Queen Elizabeth the 2nd on
October 19, 1852 allowing the Jesuits to come back to the Philippines
but without restoring them in the possession or enjoyment of their
properties; and consequently to enjoin all the Jesuits from interfering with the plaintiffs in the ownership and possession of the property
called “Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan”, .or with, the ownership and
possession of other parsons on the other properties from which the
Jesuits had been excluded by said “Pragmatica Sancion” and “Real
Cedula.”

On motion of defendant, upon the ground that the plaintiffs have no
cause of action, the case was dismissed by the lower court. Hence, this
appeal by plaintiffs.

The theory of the lower court is that the “Pragmatica Sancion” and
“Real Cedula” above mentioned are political in nature and had ceased to
be in force in the Philippines upon the cessation of the Spanish
Sovereignly over this country. We find this holding to be correct for
there can be no question that said “Pragmatica Sancion” and “Real
Cedula” were political in character for they concerned matters
affecting the relations between the inhabitants of the Philippines and
their sovereign.

But even supposing that the confiscated properties of the Jesuits
belonged to the Crown of Spain which by the treaty of Paris were ceded
to the United States and later to the Republic of the Philippines, it
is this Republic, not the plaintiffs, who may claim said properties.

It appears, further, that the title of the Roman Catholic Church
over the “Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan” was recognized in a contract
executed and signed by and between the Secretary of War, Honorable
William H. Taft and the Most Rev. Jeremiah Harty, Archbishop of Manila,
and expressly approved by the President of the United States of
America, and that such a recognition has been ratified by the
Government of the Philippines through Act No. 1724, Section 2 of which
in part provides “that the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands
shall enter judgment in the said action decreeing to the Roman Catholic
Church of tie Philippine Islands, as represented by the Archbishop of
Manila, the right of possession and absolute title, free from all
claims or demands of the Government of the Philippine Islands, to the
buildings and other property, real, personal, and mixed, pertaining to
and belonging to the College of San Jose, said college to be
administered for the specific purposes of its foundation”. And this
Court, on December 3, 1909, rendered judgment upholding the title and
ownership of the Roman Catholic Church over said properties, including
the “Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan” (T. H. Pardo de Tavera et al., vs. the Roman Catholic Church, 14 Phil. 775).

On May 3d, 1910, Pope Pius X ordered the Father Superior of the
Society of Jesus in the Philippines to resume the administration of the
Colegio de San Jose and its tempo rail ties. On June 5, 1915, the
Colegio de San Jose was made a corporation sole under the laws of the
Philippines and acquired juridical personality to on properties and
temporalities including the “Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan”. In
Government of the Philippines vs. Colegio de San Jose (53
Phil., 423), this Court held that thetwo parcels of land in litigation
form an integral part of the “Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan” belonging
to the claimant Colegio de San Jose”, and the Original Certificate No.
10851 was issued in favor of Colegio de San Jose over portions of land
included in said “Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan”.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs have once recognized the title of
Colegio de San Jose over the “Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan. In Guevara
vs. Young G. R. No. 46698, the plaintiffs herein brought an
action to compel the Colegio de San Jose to respect its contract of
lease with them over several portions of the “Hacienda de San Pedro
Tunasan”, and this is certainly inconsistent with. their attitude in
the instant case.

For all the foregoing, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against appellants.

Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.