THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

An action for recovery of possession, filed on August 22, 1911, by counsel
for the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church against the municipality of Cebu, in
which the plaintiff claims a certain parcel of land and the building erected
thereon. The metes and bounds of the land are given in the complaint. The
plaintiff alleged that it had been for more than thirty years the exclusive
owner of this property, holding same as such quietly, peaceably and
uninterruptedly; that notwithstanding these facts, in 1902, without the
plaintiff’s consent and against its will, the municipality of Cebu had usurped
and unlawfully appropriated and was retaining at that time said property; that
at no time had the defendant paid the plaintiff the reasonable rent for the use
of the property, estimated by the latter to be worth P80 per month; and that,
the plaintiff being informed of the municipality of Cebu’s claim of rights
adverse to plaintiff’s and attempt to acquire the ownership of the property,
requested judgment awarding it the possession and ownership of said lot and
building and sentencing the defendant corporation to forever hold its peace with
respect to the ownership of the said property as well as to pay the plaintiff
the sum of P80 as rental and uncollected revenue for each month that the
defendant has been in possession of the property, with the costs against the
latter.

On September 23, 1911, the provincial fiscal of Cebu, in representation of
the municipality of Cebu, filed a written answer to the aforesaid complaint,
denying each and all of the allegations contained in each and all of the
paragraphs thereof.

After the hearing was had and evidence had been introduced by both parties,
the court rendered judgment, on December 8, 1914, holding that the ownership of
the disputed property formerly lay and now does lie in the state which has not
lost same by permitting the erection of a church and convent on the land, but
that, even on the supposition that it had lost such ownership the state
had recovered the same by prescription, inasmuch as it had subsequently held the
land and building for more than thirty years, during which time it had used the
property for public purposes. Therefore, as the court found that the allegations
of the complaint had not been proven, it absolved the municipality of Cebu from
the complaint, with the costs against the plaintiff. The court also decreed that
its judgment should not affect any rights the Insular Government might have in
the said property.

In due time the plaintiff filed a petition for the reopening of the case and
a new trial. This motion was overruled, exception was taken and, upon
presentation of the proper bill of exceptions, the same was approved and
transmitted to the clerk of this court.

As leading up to this suit the following facts are to be noted. On May 9,
1906, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church and the Very Reverend Thomas
Hendricks, Bishop of Cebu, filed a complaint with this court under Act No. 1376
against several municipalities of the Province of Cebu, among which was included
that of Cebu, the herein defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that since time
immemorial they had been the owner of a parcel of land and a parish house
standing thereon which was known as the old parochial building of Parian, then
in the possession of and being administered by the defendant municipality of
Cebu. The plaintiffs asked that this property be decreed to belong to the Roman
Catholic Apostolic Church. (See the record in case 3354 [11 Phil. Rep.,
405].)

Section 1 of Act No. 1376, in accordance with which that action was brought,
prescribes:

“The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands is hereby given original
jurisdiction and constituted the tribunal to hear and, finally determine all
actions which involve controversies between the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church
and its representatives on the one hand and the Independent Filipino Church and
its representatives or any municipality or other person on the other hand, as to
the title to any and all churches, convents, or cemeteries in the Philippine
Islands and real and personal property used in connection therewith, or as to
the ownership, right of administration, or possession thereof.”

On October 8, 1908, the said case was decided by the Supreme Court in the
following terms (11 Phil. Rep., 405):

“The only property which the plaintiffs claim in the municipality of Cebu is
a building formerly used as a convent in connection with the Parian Church. The
evidence of the plaintiffs themselves shows that this building has not been used
as a convent since 1862 or 1863; that no services were held in the church next
to the convent after 1868 or 1869, and that the church itself was taken down in
1878. From 1862 or 1863 to 1887, the building was used as a tribunal for the
Chinese guild (gremio de chinos). In 1887 a part of the building was, by order
of the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Cebu, converted into a hospital
and it was used as such until 1898, when it was taken possession of by the
municipality of Cebu, which has since occupied it.

“The facts above stated show that, by disposition of the church itself, the
property has not been used as a convent for more than twenty years. Act No. 1376
gives this court original jurisdiction to hear and determine actions of this
class relating to churches, convents, or cemeteries. This building is not a
convent and has not been one for twenty years. It is now a hospital, and we have
already held that we have no original jurisdiction to determine controversies of
this class. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church against certain of the
municipalities of the Province of Iloilo (10 Phil. Rep., 8), the plaintiffs, in
an action brought under Act No. 1376, attempted to recover possession of a
building known as the Hospital of Jaro, and it was there held that such action
could not be maintained. (See also The Roman Catholic Church vs.
Certain Municipalities in Oriental Negros, 9 Phil. Rep., 691.)

“The action must, therefore, be dismissed as to the municipality of
Cebu.”

So that in this action for recovery, brought by the same party plaintiff of
the previous proceedings, involving the same disputed property, the plaintiff
must prove ownership, not by having occupied the property as a convent but, like
any other property of the church, by means of other acts and methods of holding
and retaining possession of a thing in litigation.

For this reason and in view of the decision rendered in the case
above-mentioned, the legal precedents cited in appellant’s brief are not
applicable to the case at bar—especially the principle laid down in the case of
Barlin vs. Ramirez and Municipality of Lagonoy (7 Phil. Rep., 41) where
this court said that: “Prior to the cession of the Philippines to the United
States, the King of Spain was not ihe owner of the consecrated churches therein
and had no right to the possession thereof. The exclusive right to such
possession was in the Roman Catholic Church and such right has continued since
such cession and now exists”—inasmuch as in the case at bar the building in
question (including the lot) at the time of the cession of this Archipelago to
the United States could not have been considered a church nor consecrated to the
purposes of a religious temple; but, on the contrary, as stated in the
aforecited decision in case No. 3354, the building was used as a hospital and
therefore had all the characteristics and conditions of any other similar
privately owned property, susceptible to all the actions, claims, exceptions and
defenses involved in ordinary litigation.

Is the Catholic Church the owner and proprietor of the lot on which
previously stood the parish church of San Juan Bautista del Parian, a church
that was abolished and aggregated to the Cathedral of Cebu, and is it also the
owner and proprietor of the adjacent building which was used as a parish house?
That is the question submitted to this court for decision.

The appellant alleges that since the time said Parian parish church was
ordered demolished the Catholic Church has not lost its right of ownership in
the land that it occupied because the Bishop of Cebu performed certain periodic
acts of possession, to wit: (1) When in 1849 thj Governor and Captain General of
the Philippine Islands ordered the discontinuance of the Parian parish and the
demolition of the church, the Bishop of Cebu protested, and as a result the
Parian church continued to stand as a hermitage where religious services were
held until the year 1868; (2) in 1887 the Bishop of Cebu founded a casa de
socorro (house of charity) in the said pueblo of Cebu, which house was
established in the building that was formerly a convent of the said Parian
church, and continued in that site until 1889; (3) in 1893 the Bishop of Cebu
formally claimed from the Government the ownership of the old convent and of the
lot occupied by the Parian church; (4) in the same year, 1893, the governor of
Cebu wished to construct a theater on the lot in question, but the Bishop of
Cebu succeeded in getting him to desist from his purpose; (5) in the same year,
1893, the same Bishop of Cebu caused a stone monument and a cross to be erected
on the litigated land and both stand there at the present time;.(6) in 1893, the
municipal council of Cebu asserted title to the disputed land, whereupon the
Bishop of Cebu protested and claimed the said lot and building as being the
property of the Catholic Church; (7) about the year 1898 the junta popular
de Cebu occupied the said property, after being granted permission so to do
by the Bishop of Cebu; and (8) the said real property was occupied by the
American military authorities from 1899 to 1907, always over the protest of the
Catholic Church.

The trial record shows that the following facts were fully proven, to wit,
that prior to the year 1741, when the Very Reverend Protasio Cabezas, the bishop
elect, assumed charge of the Diocese of Cebu, the parish of San Juan Bautista
del Parian existed in the Province of Cebu; that Father Cabezas was the parish
priest of the said parish before his exaltation to the bishopric (p. XII and the
picture of certain bishops contained in the book entitled “Circulars and
Diocesan Pastorals of Cebu”); that “it being necessary to reincorporate the
pueblos of Parian and Lutaos in the city of Cebu, leaving the cathedral as the
only parish church and discontinuing that of Parian,” the Captain General and
Governor of the Philippines, on January 31, 1849, decreed among other things the
following:

“2. The Parian parish church of Cebu is discontinued, and all comprised
therein and pertaining thereto shall be aggregated to the cathedral of that
city, the only one to remain, whose parish shall be the whole of the pueblo.

“*           *           *           *           *          
*           *

“4. As the chapel which serves as a parochial church for Parian is
unnecessary, especially since in the town there exist the convents of San
Agustin, Recoletos and Seminario Conciliar, the said chapel shall be completely
demolished * * *.

“5. The present Parian parochial building shall be used as a tribunal de
mestizos. (See plaintiff’s Exhibit 2.)”

When this decree was first issued the Bishop of Cebu protested in due season
against the orders contained therein and, by a written petition addressed to the
proper civil authority (Exhibit 5), requested that for the time being its
fulfilment be suspended in respect to the points mentioned; that the then parish
priest be left in the charge of the Parian parish until such time as his death
should occur or until some new provision might be made; that thereafter a
coadjutor or assistant priest be placed in charge of all cathedral parish
affairs, and that the parochial building should be the dwelling of the said
coadjutor. He also requested that the order to demolish the said church be
suspended and that divine services be continued therein. In view of that
petition, by a decree of January 4, 1850, the Governor and Vice Patron of the
Philippines amended the aforementioned decree and ordered that the demolition of
the Parian church, provided for in paragraph 4 of the superior decree of the
31st of the preceding month of January, should be suspended without prejudice to
complying with said paragraph if necessary circumstances arose; that for the
time being the said church should remain open as a hermitage, without implying
however that said order for demolition was revoked, and that the holy service of
mass on Sundays, other prescribed days, and those in honor of the patron San
Juan Bautista could be celebrated therein with the understanding that the
expenses occasioned thereby should not be paid out of the funds of the
sanctorum (tax to support the parish church) but should be defrayed by
such of the faithful as might be willing so to do.

In conformity with the aforementioned decrees the Bishop of Cebu, Ximeno, in
February, 1850 (Exhibit 7), ordered the Parian and Lutaos parishes consolidated
with the cathedral parish of the city of Cebu, and the old Parian church to
remain as a hermitage. About April, 1859, the parish priest of the pueblo of
Cebu complained to the bishop of his diocese of the lack of necessary personnel
for the saying of mass in the Parian hermitage on the days authorized and, after
the matter had been disposed of and before the papers had been filed, record was
made by this same parish priest that he had no coadjutor of whose services he
might avail himself for the purpose of saying mass in the said Parian hermitage
(Exhibit 8).

From the testimony of the witnesses examined at the trial it appears that the
Parian church was actually demolished. Father Emiliano Mercado stated that the
building was taken down in 1879 (record, p. 33), Mons. Singson that this was
accomplished in 1878 (record, p. 85, and Exhibit 1) and that the materials from
the church were taken to the jail and used for public works. Therefore only the
convent adjacent to the church was left standing and this, in conformity with
the decrees of the central government, has been occupied by the tribunal de
mestizos since some time prior to 1856, as the witness Escolastico Duterte
testified (Exhibit 1, p. 159), and, as the witness Miguel Bondoc testified,
since the year 1858 (Exhibit 1, p. 169). Both these witnesses testified that the
rehearsal of the plays for the royal festivities in honor of the birth of King
Alfonso XII which occurred in 1857 were held in the said convent which was then
already occupied by
the tribunal de mestizos.

Florentino Rallos, who was an employee of the government under the past
sovereignty for 22 years, testified that about the year 1860 or 1861 the
gremio de mestizos was already occupying the said convent (Exhibit 1,
p. 103). Placido Cabilte stated that the tribunal de mestizos had been
in possession of this convent building since 1850, and that the first
gobernadorcillo, Esteban Rodos Roman, took possession in that year (Exhibit 1,
p. 131). Esteban Solon, 59 years of age in 1907, testified that since the time
he reached the age of discretion he had known the convent to be occupied by the
gremio de mestizos (record, 179). All the witnesses who testified for
the municipality of Cebu unanimously stated that the said tribunal had
its quarters in the convent until the revolution broke out when the junta
popular of the revolutionary government, succeeding the ayuntamiento
municipal, occupied the said building, and that when the American troops
came they took possession of this building. Although the ecclesiastic
authorities allege that the tribunal de mestizos ceased to occupy the
building upon the dissolution of the tribunal de mestizos by the Maura
Law in 1893, which reorganized the municipal governments; that the junta
popular sought and obtained permission from the Bishop of Cebu to occupy
the convent, and that later on, under the protest of the bishop, these premises
were occupied by the American troops, yet these allegations were not proven.
There was no discussion as to the facts that the American troops remained in the
building and occupied it until 1907, that immediately after they moved out the
defendant municipality of Cebu took possession and that, up to the present time
it has remained in possession of the building, using it as a fire-station.

It was also proven that in the year 1887 the Bishop of Cebu founded in the
said locality a casa de socorro, maintained by public charity, which
was installed in one-half of the building in question. The repairs and the
division of the building for the purpose were made by popular subscription,
although it is to be supposed that the bishop contributed funds of his own
toward the payment of these expenses. This charitable institution remained in
the building until the year 1889 when the bishop ordered its removal, and the
tribunal de mestizos recovered the exclusive use of the entire building
(Exhibits 10 and 11).

In consequence of the promulgation in the Philippines of the Maura Law, in
1893, which reorganized the municipal governments and abolished the gremios
de mestizos, the Bishop of Cebu, Friar Martin Alcocer, in the Communication
(Exhibit 9) addressed to the Governor-General of the Philippines on January 6,
1894, urgently requested the return of the old Parian parochial building to the
Church, though he made no explicit mention of the land. This petition was not
granted by the government of that time, as disclosed by the documents presented
by the party defendant (Exhibit 6). From the record of the proceedings in that
connection it appears that on March 26, 1894, the Direccion General de
Administracion Civil de Filipinas was of the opinion that from the text of
the decree of the Governor-General of the year 1849, abolishing the Parian
parish, sufficient points of law were found to warrant deciding the matter in
favor of the Government (Exhibit 6, pp. 289-91) although, in a communication of
the Counsel of Administration dated May 29, 1894, the letrado consultor
(consulting attorney) of the Government decided there could be no objection
whatever to the delivery of the building, when vacated, to the Bishop of Cebu
for the service of that cathedral, the Government reserving the ownership and
control of the property (Exhibit 6, p. 286); that information having been
requested of the politico military governor of Cebu, he informed the
Director General de Administracion Civil, on October 22, 1894, that the
tribunal de mestizos had neither been dissolved nor incorporated with
the ayuntamiento and that the tribunal continued to occupy, as
it had been doing for the past 40 years, the building claimed by the Church
(Exhibit 6, pp. 287-88); that therefore the said administration civil, in a
communication dated July 11, 1895, addressed to the Governor-General of the
Philippines (Exhibit 6, pp. 298-94) recommended that inasmuch as the tribunal of
the gremio de mestizos which was abolished for a short time on account
of the municipal reform was reorganized by superior order on May 12 of last year
to continue until the Ministerio de Ultramar should decide the inquiry
made in regard to this point; and whereas, on the other hand, the building was
occupied for a very long period by express order of the higher authority (shown
by the record); and whereas the circumstances which brought about the occupation
of the building ought not to be lost sight of, the said tribunal having
been reorganized a short time after its abolishment, the Direccion General
de Administracion de Filipinas was of the opinion it was not then advisable
to return the Bishop of Cebu the building claimed by him; that this could be
done afterwards, if the said superior authority deemed it advisable so to do and
the causes which brought about that occupation of the said property disappeared
or a new use might be made of the property, as proposed by his excellency, the
politico-military governor of Cebu, to wit, the installing in the building of a
school of arts and trades.

From the record of the case at bar it does not appear what decision was taken
by the Governor-General of the Philippines, nor was it proven that the
tribunal de mestizos of Cebu remained permanently abolished. The
supposition that the said corporation ceased to occupy the building is therefore
unwarranted.

The statements of the witnesses put forward by the defendant municipality are
worthy of special attention. They assert that the tribunal de mestizos
continued to occupy the convent building until the organization of the so-called
junta popular. This was corroborated by one of the plaintiff Church’s
own witnesses, Mateo Mercado, who stated that from 1862 or 1863 to 1898, when
the revolution broke out, the gremio de mestizos remained in the
convent; that since the year 1862 or 1863 no parish priest whosoever had had
charge of the Parian parish (Exhibit 1, page 17), adding however that the
building never was occupied by the ayuntamiento de Cebu. The plaintiffs
other witness, Enerio Denzon, testified that the gremio de mestizos
ceased to exist at the time of the revolution.

From all these facts it follows that from 1859, if not before, the building
in question was occupied as a tribunal by the gremio de mestizos till
the time the revolution broke out, namely, for a period of more than 55 years,
and that the church’s performance of acts of ownership over, or collection of
rentals for, the occupation and use of said building was in no manner proven—in
connection with the claim of the Bishop of Cebu the Government of the previous
sovereignty having specified the reservation of said ownership and control
(record, p. 286).

There is no proof of the junta popular having obtained permission
from the Bishop of Cebu to occupy the building, or that the present Government
bound itself to pay rentals for its use by the American army from 1899 to 1907.
The correspondence exchanged between the church authorities and the military
government in reference to this matter was not presented in evidence in this
case, and that any rental payment whatever was made in acknowledgment of the
ownership of the church was not shown.

The occupation of one-half of the building by the casa de socorro
between the year 1887 and 1889 can in nowise be considered a possession under
title of ownership on the part and in representation of the Catholic Church,
inasmuch as it is an undeniable fact that that institution was created and
maintained by the charity of the inhabitants of Cebu in the form of
contributions gathered under the personal direction of the Bishop of Cebu, and
nis intervention in, and control and supervision over the said casa de
socorro can not be considered as acts of ownership performed in the name of
the Church.

With respect to the ownership of the land on which was erected the Parian
Church that was taken down in 1878, the plaintiff claims to have retained its
right of ownership therein because, as owner of the property, it opposed the
application of the ayuntamiento de Cebu for title to the said land in 1893 and,
also in 1893, the proposition of Governor Junquera to erect a theater thereon,
and because in the same year, by order of the bishop, it erected a monument and
a cross on the said land.

The record does not show why the Parian Church was taken down, but there is
no question that its removal was decreed by the Governor-General, who was vested
with the character of vice royal patron as the representative of the King of
Spain in these Islands. However, the demolition of the church, ordered by the
highest authority of the Archipelago by virtue of his right of patronage, could
not mean the secularization of the land on which stood a temple dedicated to the
worship of God, consecrated in accordance with the canon laws and, under article
25 of the regulations for the application of the Mortgage Law, not susceptible
of registration in the property registry as being outside of the commerce of
man. Notwithstanding the disappearance of the church that formerly stood on the
said land, this property partook of the character impressed upon the building
that previously stood thereon.

After the disappearance of the Parian Church the land in litigation became a
vacant lot accessible to the public. Neither the Government nor the municipality
occupied or disposed of it as a thing belonging to either of them but the
representative of the church, the Bishop of Cebu, considering that this land was
devoted to the purposes of worship and that for a long time there had stood on
it a temple consecrated in accordance with the laws of the Catholic Church,
ordered that a stone pedestal and an iron cross (shown in the photograph
exhibited at the trial) be erected on the land as an ostensible sign of the
church’s ownership and possession. The record does not show that any opposition
was put forward at that time, either by the Government or by the municipality,
to the erection of the pedestal and cross. In view of the acts performed for
many years by the most prominent representative of the church which were
directly opposed to all acts of occupation of the said land and to all acts
based on a claim of ownership or possession of the land, it must be recognized
that the Catholic Church, represented by the Bishop of Cebu, has an indisputable
right in, and is the lawful owner of, the land in litigation. This land is
considered independently from the building that was a convent or parochial
house. After the demolition of the church, the land was never occupied or held
by the municipality of Cebu, nor has the latter disposed of it in any manner as
the owner thereof; while the Bishop of Cebu, considering himself the owner of
the land, in the name of the church as the proprietor thereof, performed acts of
ownership by erecting on the land the said pedestal and cross as a patent and
manifest proof of the property right exercised by him in the name of the
church.

For all the foregoing reasons we hold that the building which was occupied
for many years by the tribunal de mestizos of Cebu, then by the army
and now by the firestation, through governmental disposal, is the exclusive
property of the Government and hence of the municipality of Cebu, and that the
land adjacent to the said building, occupied by the San Juan Bautista del Parian
church, on which at the present time there stands a stone pedestal with an iron
cross is.the lawful property of the Catholic Church. The judgment appealed from
is thus affirmed in so far as it agrees with this decision and reversed in so
far as it does not. No special finding is made as to the costs of both
instances. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Carson, and Trent, JJ.,
concur.
Moreland, J., did not sign.