THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOAQUIN, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OP JARO, OBJECTOR AND APPELLEE.

This appeal by bill of exceptions was filed by counsel for the municipality
of San Joaquin, Province of Iloilo, from the judgment of November 30, 1915, in
which the judge of the Twenty-third Judicial District, in granting the
application filed by said municipality for the registration of three parcels of
land, decreed the adjudication and inscription of the property in the name and
in behalf of the applicant, with the exception of the lot A of the first parcel,
belonging to the objector corporation.

By a written application of November 24, 1914, the provincial fiscal of
Iloilo, in the name and representation of the municipality of San Joaquin,
applied for the registration in accordance with law of three parcels of land of
which this municipality claimed to be the absolute owner. He alleged that the
first parcel was situated in the town of San Joaquin, the second, in the barrio
of Tarabunan, and the third, in that of Tiolas, all of the district of the said
municipality and the description and boundaries of which are given in detail in
the plans and technical descriptions Exhibits A, B, and C, made a part of the
application; that the applicant corporation acquired the said parcels of land by
possession since time immemorial; that the land was unencumbered; and that the
first parcel was occupied by the municipal building, a schoolhouse and the
public market.

On October 1, 1915, counsel for The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro, a legally
organized unipersonal corporation, filed a written opposition to the aforesaid
application and claimed as its exclusive property 15,576 square meters,
designated as lot A, of the first parcel of land specified and described in the
plan Exhibit A. He alleged that the objector-corporation had become the owner of
this lot A by a compromise entered into by and between it and the municipality
of Miagao, as shown by a resolution dated May 14, 1910 (which document, as
Exhibit 1, was attached to the opposition, as was also the plan of the land to
which the said compromise refers, Exhibit 2, and the letter Exhibit 3, written
by the provincial governor of Iloilo approving the compromise). The objector’s
counsel therefore requested that the said lot A of the first parcel of land be
excluded from the decree of registration issued in favor of the
applicant-corporation.

Counsel for the latter alleged in his reply that even though the documents
presented by the objector were authentic, they were nevertheless illegal,
invalid and utterly valueless, inasmuch as (a) the session of the
municipal council of Miagao, in which the said compromise was authorized, was
illegal, because it was not attended by a sufficient number of councilors to
form a quorum; (b) that the said resolution of the municipal council of
Miagao (then the principal town of the present municipality of San Joaquin),
authorizing its president to effect a compromise with the objector Church, was
not performed in the lawful exercise of its powers, but to the prejudice of the
interests of the present municipality of San Joaquin; (c) that, for the
same reason, the act of the municipal president of Miagao in executing the said
document of compromise was illegal; (d) that the approval of the said
compromise by the provincial governor was likewise illegal and beyond his
powers; (e) that the acts of the officials and corporations that
intervened in the said compromise constituted a violation of subsection
(c) of section 40 of the Municipal Code, inasmuch as this section
authorizes municipalities to encumber or alienate municipal property only when a
benefit may accrue to them thereby, but never to the prejudice of municipal
interests; and (f) that the land claimed by the objector is required
for the development and advancement of the municipality of San Joaquin.
Applicant’s counsel therefore prayed the court to declare null and void the
documents 1, 2 and 3 presented by the objector, and to decree the registration
of all the said properties in favor of the municipality of San Joaquin.

After the hearing of the case, wherein both parties adduced evidence, the
court rendered the judgment aforementioned, to which counsel for the applicant
municipality excepted and in writing moved for a reopening of the proceedings
and a new trial. This motion was denied, exception was taken by the moving
party, and, after the proper bill of exceptions was presented the same was
approved and forwarded to the clerk of this court.

The issue to be decided in this case is whether or not the municipality of
San Joaquin is entitled to enter in the property registry lot A of the first
parcel of land, situated in the town of the said municipality and concerning the
identity and location of which there is no disagreement between the parties. In
regard to the other parcels of land and to the rest of the first parcel, also
the subject-matter of the application and the registration of which has been
decreed, no opposition was made and the judgment of the lower court became final
in respect thereto.

Whatever be the result of the testimony introduced at trial by the
municipality of San Joaquin, and, furthermore, even supposing that that
testimony was favorable to the claim made by this municipality, in deciding this
case consideration must first be given to the compromise agreed upon, May 14,
1910, by and between the Catholic Church and the municipality of Miagao—-which
municipal corporation represented the present pueblo of San Joaquin, then a
barrio attached to and forming part of the municipality of Miagao. According to
article 1816 of the Civil Code, a compromise has, with regard to the parties,
the same force as a res adjudicata.

It is unquestionable that the municipality claimed to be the owner of the
parcel of land in controversy; but, once the compromise was stipulated the
parties thereto must abide by it (Civ. Code, arts. 1809, 1812, and 1815), unless
there has been error, deceit, violence, or forgery in the compromise (art.
1817), and no such circumstance has, even been alleged.

It is to be seen why the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church made no special
effort to prove that it had performed acts of possession over the lot A,
inasmuch as its opposition is founded on the recognition of its ownership in
said land through the compromise of May 14, 1910, (resolution marked Exhibit 1)
with the municipality of Miagao, which formerly represented the present town of
San Joaquin. That compromise was duly approved by the provincial governor of
Iloilo on June 4th of the same year, according to the document Exhibit 3. The
document Exhibit 1, entitled “Resolution containing a compromise,” is as
follows:

“A session of the municipal council of Miagao, Province of Iloilo, having
been held on May 5, 1910, to pass upon the claim filed by the Roman Catholic
Apostolic Church in reference to the boundaries between the properties of the
said Church and those of the municipality in the suburb of San Joaquin, the
council resolved; To compromise under the following conditions the claim
presented against the municipality by the said Catholic Church.

“1. The plan of the municipal property of Miagao situated in the barrio of
San Joaquin, prepared by J. M. Woodroof, a surveyor of the Bureau of Lands, in
accordance with the survey made on May 24 and 26, 1909, and approved by the
Director of Lands on August 10, 1909, or a correct copy of this plan, shall form
an integral and essential part of the present compromise.

“2. On the said plan a straight line designated as ‘Alphabeta’ is drawn south
of the schoolhouse and the municipal building. All the southeastern part of the
said line, to wit, that comprised by the lines Alpha, Beta, Delta, Mu, Nu, Pi,
Rho, Tau, and Omega, and marked with the Roman numeral I, is recognized by the
municipality to be of the lawful and exclusive ownership of the Roman Catholic
Apostolic Church, as likewise all the trees, plants and sowings, and all else
found on the aforesaid portion marked with the numeral I.

“3. The part marked with the numeral II and comprised between the lines
Gamma, Eta, Lambda, and Kappa, is recognized and admitted by the municipality to
be of the absolute and exclusive ownership of the said Catholic Church, but the
Church shall bind itself not to fence in or enclose the line Gamma-Eta and the
line Eta-Lambda.

“4. All the southeastern part of the property that is shown on the plan under
the Roman numeral III is also of the absolute ownership of the Catholic Church,
but as to this portion the municipality has never claimed any interest
whatever.

“5. All the other remaining parts shown on the plan, with the exception of
those already mentioned, are recognized by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church
to be of the absolute and lawful ownership of the suburb of San Joaquin,
municipality of Miagao, Province of Iloilo.

“6. The municipality of Miagao binds itself never under any circumstances to
erect or construct a building of any kind in the public square shown on the plan
as Lot Number One.

“7. Likewise the municipality binds itself to keep open to traffic, now and
always, the streets named Calle Domingo and Calle Santo Nino, shown on the
plan.

“8. Special, ample and sufficient power is conferred upon the municipal
president and he is hereby authorized to sign this compromise jointly with the
representative of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, and this compromise shall
be valid, final, and effective on the date of its approval by the provincial
governor; and both the municipality and the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church
agree, by themselves and their successors, to rigorously observe all the
conditions contained in this compromise, and the municipality hereby delivers to
the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church the parts or portions (of the property)
“recognized by the municipality to be of the lawful and exclusive ownership of
the said Church.

“Miagao, May 14, 1910.

(Sgd.) “Gregorio Rosaldes,

“Representative of the R. C. A.
Church.

(Sgd.) “Tomas NONATO, municipal president.

“[Official Seal of the Municipality of Miagao.]”

The portion ceded to the church by the said compromise and described in the
plan Exhibit 2, made a part of the said document, concords exactly with the lot
A shown on the applicant’s plan Exhibit A. Moreover, the witnesses Sanglap and
Subillo admitted that the lot A and the land recognized to belong to the Roman
Catholic Apostolic Church, in accordance with the said “resolution containing a
compromise,” are identical.

As a juridic person, the municipality of Miagao was authorized to execute a
contract of compromise in the manner and with the requisites necessary to
alienate its property (Civ. Code, art. 1812), and such requisites and
formalities were fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of section 40,
subsection (c) of the Municipal Code. The provincial governor was of that
opinion when he gave his approval to the contract of compromise, which was
deemed to benefit the contracting municipality for the reason that it thereby
avoided a lawsuit and got the Church to renounce other claims and to recognize
the municipality’s right in the other real properties sought to be registered.
Furthermore, the record does not show that the Church, on its part, failed to
comply with the condition imposed in the compromise, ,and it is presumed that
the latter was executed in accordance with law and that the formalities
established by law have been complied with (Code of Civ. Proa, sec. 334, Nos.
14, 18 and 31). There is no proof contrary to these presumptions.

For the foregoing reasons whereby the errors assigned are deemed to have been
refuted, and as the judgment appealed from is in accordance with law and the
merits of the case, it should be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with the costs of
this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Moreland,
J., concurs in the result.