THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARTIN AVILA ET AL., OPPONENTS. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, APPELLANT.

Counsel for the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, through bill of
exceptions, appealed from the judgment of January 14, 1916, whereby the judge of
the Court of First Instance decreed the inscription in the registry of property
of the lots Nos. 584-A, 637, 751, 761, and 762, excepting the improvements
thereon, in favor of the Cofradia de Jesus Nazareno of San Roque and of the lot
No. 389 in favor of the members of the Archicofradia del Santisimo y Animas del
Purgatorio de Cavite, and whereby the petition of the said Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Manila was denied, without any special finding as to costs.

On October 6, 1913, these cadastral proceedings were instituted at the
instance of the Director of Lands, praying for a judicial declaration of the
ownership of 655 lots of land situated in the municipality of Cavite, Province
of Cavite, in accordance with the provisions of the Cadastral Act, No. 2259, and
the amendments thereof.

It appears from the record of the proceedings that lot No. 389 is claimed by
the Archicofradia del Santisimo y Animas del Purgatorio and also by the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Manila; that lots Nos. 584, 637, 751, 761, and 762 were
claimed by the Cofradia de Jesus Nazareno and by the said Archbishop; and that
the court, by virtue of an agreement entered into by the parties, combined lot
No. 584 with half of lot No. 919, calling them lot No. 584-A, and lot No. 1033
with lot No. 751, calling them lot No. 751-A.

At the hearing on March 9, 1915, by resolution of the court the members of
the Cofradia de Jesus Nazareno were ordered to amend their answer in behalf of
the association by specifying the names of all the members thereof, and that
they themselves should present the petition. The counsel for the Cofradia made
no objection to said order of the court, but the attorney for the Catholic
Archbishop excepted thereto (pp. 3 and 4, sten. notes).

With the permission of the court, counsel for the Archicofradia del Santisimo
y Animas del Purgatorio amended their answer by substituting the name of Andres
Samonte with the names of the present members of the said Archicofradia
mentioned on page 20 of said stenographic notes. In view of the evidence
adduced, both documentary and oral, the court rendered judgment to which counsel
for the Roman Catholic Archbishop excepted. A motion for a new trial having been
presented by counsel for the said Archbishop and denied by the court, said
counsel excepted to the order and presented the corresponding bill of exceptions
which was approved and certified by the trial court and forwarded to the clerk
of this court.

It appears to have been agreed upon by the parties that the Cofradia de Jesus
Nazareno has been in possession of lot No. 751-A for more than a hundred years
since it was donated to the Cofradia by Maria Gonzalez, according to a document
executed in 1762 (pp. 13 and 14, sten. notes). It has also been agreed upon by
the attorneys for both parties that lots Nos. 584, 637, 761, and 762 were
donated to the said Cofradia, according to the evidence presented to
substantiate this fact (p. 19), and that lot No. 389 has been in the possession
of the Archicofradia del Santisimo y Animas del Purgatorio for more than 50
years from the time that such lot had been acquired by donation from one of its
members (p. 21, sten. notes).

It is therefore undisputed that the said Cofradia and Archicofradia are in
possession as owners of the said lots of land, thus limiting the question for
the decision of this Court as to whether the inscription of the said lots in the
registry of property should be made in the name of the said Cofradias or in that
of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila.

Neither of the two associations named above is incorporated in accordance
with the provisions of the law in force regarding corporations, although it
appears proved in the records that the Cofradia de Jesus Nazareno is composed of
members belonging to the Catholic religion and that the actual rector of the
said Cofradia is the Catholic parish priest of the town of San Roque, Cavite. It
is a fact agreed upon by the parties (p. 21, sten. notes) that the Archicofradia
del Santisimo y Animas del Purgatorio is also a Catholic association whose
rector is the same Catholic priest, and whose funds as well as the products of
its property are destined to cover the expenses incurred in the celebration of
the Holy Week and to preserve the building of the Roman Catholic Church.

Notwithstanding the petition of counsel for the Catholic Archbishopric of
Manila the six lots involved in this appeal can only be inscribed in the
registry of property in the name jof the sole corporation, the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Manila, duly organized in accordance with the Corporation Law in
force, it is certain that this objecting entity has not in this controversy
presented any evidence whatever which tends to establish the fact that the
Catholic Church which it represents is the owner of the lots in question, so
that the inscription of these lands should be made in the name of the
association which enjoys a legal existence and possesses the conditions of a
juridical entity in accordance with the laws under which it has been
established.

There is no doubt that the Cofradia de Jesus Nazareno, a Catholic association
organized many years ago, has the right to inscribe as a legitimate owner in the
registry of property the five lots of land, Nos. 584-A, 637, 751-A, 761, and
762, excepting the improvements thereon, because, as a Catholic corporation, it
is included in section 19, No. 5 of Act No. 496, the provisions of which should
be applied to the proceedings to be followed in compliance with the Cadastral
Act, No. 2259, according to section 11 of the latter Act with regard to what the
said paragraph 5 refers to corporations of the class in which the Cofradia de
Jesus Nazareno is included.

It is true that the Cofradia organized under the old laws of the former
regime is not incorporated in accordance with Act No. 1459, known as the
Corporation Law, enacted subsequently to the said Land Registration Act, No.
496, amended by Act No. 809; but it is no less true that the said Registration
Act, No. 496, has not declared that the corporations ancL associations created
and established in accordance with the old laws of the former regime, to which
class of corporations the said Cofradia belongs, can not be recognized nor can
exist.

This Cofradia was organized under the provisions of Law 25, Title IV, Book 1
of the compilation of the laws of the Indies and of the Real Cedula of
October 15, 1805. Its by-laws were approved by the Royal Order of February
25,1895, upon a previous information by the Council of the Indies. From that
time the said Cofradia has had a legal existence and has been performing its
functions as a Catholic association duly organized with a right to possess and
administer property, applying the products of its property to the purposes
provided for in its by-laws, and, in enjoying the attributes and privileges
corresponding to an entity created by law, it is undisputed that, as owner of
the said five lots of land, it has a right to inscribe in its name, as a
juridical entity, the titles to the said property which it possesses. Without
the reasons above stated the present Corporation Law could have a retroactive
effect, for, while the said law recognizes the associations constituted under
the prior legislation, it has not declared in any of its provisions that the
said Cofradia became nonexistent since the said Corporation Law became
operative.

As regards the so-called Archicofradia del Santisimo y Animas del Purgatorio,
this association has no right to invoke the provision of section 19, paragraph 5
of the Land Registration Act, because it was not proven that said association
was constituted in accordance with the laws in force during the former regime,
neither was it shown that it was incorporated in accordance with the provisions
of the Corporation Law in force. For these reasons, said association is lacking
those requisites which would make it a juridical entity, notwithstanding that
the said Archicofradia appears actually as owner and legitimate possessor of lot
No. 389. If the said Archicofradia, for lack of personality, is not entitled to
inscribe the said lot in the registry of property, much less can the sole
corporation, The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, inscribe the said lot in
its name, since it has failed to prove that the said lot was the property of the
Catholic Church of the Philippines.

Aside from this, it is undisputed that the Catholic Archbishop of Manila, as
head and representative of the Catholic Church, has and enjoys the right of
intervention and supervision over the existence and modus operandi of
such Catholic associations and Cofradias as that of Jesus Nazareno, the actual
rector of which is the parish priest of the town which is the legal residence of
the Cofradia, but said supervision or intervention does not imply concentration
or assumption of taie right of ownership which the Cofradia de Jesus Nazareno
enjoys over the real property which it possesses, nor can such intervention
deprive the members of the Archicofradia del Santisimo y Animas del Purgatorio
of the ownership of the five lots which they possess in common and under title
of the members of an association, although such association is neither legally
constituted nor incorporated in accordance with the law in force regarding
corporations.

In view of the foregoing considerations, whereby the pertinent errors
assigned to the judgment appealed from are deemed to have been refuted, it
should be, as it hereby is, ordered, that, upon a previous declaration of
general default, the inscription in the registry of property of lots Nos. 684-A,
637, 751-A, 761, and 762, excepting the improvements thereon, be made in favor
and in the name of the Cofradia de Jesus Nazareno of San Roque, Cavite; that the
petition to inscribe the same in the name of the sole corporation, The Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Manila, be denied; that the petition for the inscription
of lot No. 339, made by the members of the Archicof radia del Santisimo y Animas
del Purgatorio as well as by The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, be denied,
without any special finding as to the costs of both instances. The judgment
appealed from is affirmed in so far as it conforms with this decision and
reversed in that part which is not in accordance therewith, So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, and Fisher, JJ.,
concur.

---

 

RESOLUTION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

November 9, 1918.

PER CURIAM:

In an additional printed brief, counsel for the Archbishop of Manila
petitioned for a reopening and a new trial of the case in order that, by virtue
of the evidence adduced, a judgment be hereon rendered, or that the case be
remanded to the lower court so that judgment may be entered therein in
conformity with the evidence of record and with the resolution adopted by the
members of the Cof radia del Santisimo y Animas del Purgatorio, with regard only
to that part of the prior decision of this court which denies the inscription of
lot No. 389 in favor of the appellant, and of the said Cofradia with relation to
what has been said by the counsel for the members of the other Cof radia de
Jesus Nazareno.

Considering that, upon the grounds given in the said decision, there exists
no plain terms in law in order that, by means of a change or a modification of
the said decision, the inscription of the five lots of land belonging to the Cof
radia de Jesus Nazareno might be granted, inasmuch as the inscription in the
registry of property under the Torrens system constitutes a sure guaranty that
the title which the owner of real property possesses is perfect, absolute, and
indefeasible, and free from all encumbrances and from any claim, courts are not
authorized to inscribe title to property in favor of persons and entities that
have not proven that they were owners of the real property they allege to be
owned by them, although no opposition thereto has been presented.

With respect to lot No. 389, which is claimed by the Cofradia del Santisimo y
Animas, the assertions of counsel for the Archbishop of Manila contained in
their written statement of the 21st of August last are not supported by evidence
which would justify the inscription sought as regards the said lot No. 389, for
the certificate issued by the hermano mayor (person in charge), rector
and secretary of the said Cofradia or Archicofradia, is not itself sufficient,
for the authenticity and truth of the facts which it expresses should have been
made to appear in the lower court and in a trial which can be initiated anew in
accordance with Act No. 496.

The motion for a reconsideration and a new trial in behalf of the appellant
is therefore denied, with the costs against the said appellant. So ordered,

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, and
Fisher, JJ.