FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2832. November 24, 1906.]

REV. JORGE BARLIN, in his capacity as apostolic administrator of

this vacant bishopric and legal representative of the general
interests of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in the diocese of
Nueva Caceres , plaintiff-appellee, vs . P. VICENTE RAMIREZ, ex-rector
of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Parochial Church of Lagonoy, AND
THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAGONOY , defendants-appellants.

Manly & Gallup, for appellants.

Leoncio Imperial and Chicote, Miranda & Sierra, for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. CHURCH BUILDINGS; POSSESSION; ADMINISTRATION; ESTOPPEL. — In

an action brought by the Roman Catholic Church to recover a church building, against a
priest whom it has put in possession thereof to administer the same, the latter is
estopped from alleging ownership at the time he took possession either in himself or in
a third person.
2. ID.; ID.; EJECTMENT; RECOVERY OF POSSESSION. — Bishop of Cebu vs.
Mangaron (6 Phil. Rep., 286), followed to the point that a person in possession of real
estate who has been derived of such possession can recover it unless the defendants
can show a better right thereto.
3. ID.; TRANSFER TO MUNICIPALITIES BY GOVERNMENT. — The Government
of the Philippine Island has never undertaken to transfer to the municipalities the
ownership or right of possession of the churches therein.
4. ID.; OWNERSHIP; POSSESSION. — Prior to the cession of the Philippines to
the United State the King of Spain was not the 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
cession and now exists.
5. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. — The Roman Catholic Church is a judicial
person in the Philippine Islands.
PER CARSON, J., concurring in the result:
6. CHURCH BUILDINGS; OWNERSHIP. — The legal title to the State-
constructed churches in the Philippine Island is in the United States.
7. ID.; USUFRUCT. — The beneficial ownership of these churches is in the
people of the Philippine Islands.
8. ID.; POSSESSION AND CONTROL. — The right to the possession and
control of these churches is in the Roman Catholic Church so long as it continues to use
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 them for the purposes for which they were dedicated.

DECISION

WILLARD , J : p

There had been priests of the Roman Catholic Church in the pueblo of Lagonoy, in
the Province of Ambos Camarines, since 1839. On the 13th of January, 1869, the
church and convent were burned. They were rebuilt between 1870 and 1873. There was
evidence that this was done by the order of the provincial governor. The labor
necessary for this reconstruction was performed by the people of the pueblo the
direction of the cabeza de barangay. Under the law then in force, each man in the pueblo
was required to work for the government, without compensation, for forty days every
year. The time spent in the reconstruction of these buildings was counted as a part of
the forty days. The material necessary was brought and paid for in part by the parish
priest from the funds of the church and in part was donated by certain individuals of the
pueblo. After the completion of the church it was always administered, until November
14, 1902, by a priest of a Roman Catholic Communion and all the people of the pueblo
professed that faith and belonged to that church.
The defendant, Ramirez, having been appointed by the plaintiff parish priest, took
possession of the church on the 5th of July, 1901. he administered it as such under the
orders of his superiors until the 14th day of November, 1902. His successor having
been then appointed, the latter made a demand on this defendant for the delivery to him
of the church, convent, and cemetery, and the sacred ornaments, books, jewels, money,
and other property of the church. The defendant, by a written document of that date,
refused to make such delivery. That document is as follows:
"At 7 o'clock last night I received through Father Agripino Pisino your respected
order of the 12th instant, wherein I am advised of the appointment of Father Pisino as
acting parish priest of this town, and directed to turn over to him this parish and to
report to you at the vicarage. In reply thereto, I have the honor to inform you that the
town of Lagonoy, in conjunction with the parish priest thereof, has seen fit to sever
connection with the Pope at Rome and his representatives in these Islands, and join the
Filipino Church, the head of which is at Manila. This resolution of the people was
reduced to writing and triplicate copies made, of which I beg to inclose a copy
herewith.
"For this reason I regret to inform you that I am unable to obey your said order
by delivering to Father Agripino Pisino the parish property of Lagonoy which, as I
understand, is now outside of the control of the Pope and his representatives in these
Islands. May God guard you many years.
"Lagonoy, November 14, 1902.
(Signed) "VICENTE RAMIREZ.
"RT. REV. VICAR OF THIS DISTRICT."
The document, a copy of which is referred to in this letter, is as follows:
"LAGONOY, November, 9, 1902.
"The municipality of this town and some of its most prominent citizens having
learned through the papers from the capital of these Islands of the constitution of the
Filipino National Church, separate from the control of the Pope at Rome by reason of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the fact that the latter has refused to either recognize or grant the rights to the Filipino
clergy which have many times been urged, and it appearing to us that the reasons
advanced why such offices should be given to the Filipino clergy are evidently well-
founded, we have deemed it advisable to consult with the parish priest of this town as
to whether it would be advantageous to join the said Filipino Church and to separate
from the control of the Pope as long as he continues to ignore the rights of the said
Filipino clergy, under the conditions that there will be no change in the articles of faith,
and that the sacraments and other dogmas will be recognized and particularly that of
the immaculate conception of the mother of our Lord. But the moment the Pope at
Rome recognizes and grants the rights heretofore denied to the Filipino clergy we will
return to his control. In view of this, and subject to this condition, the reverend parish
priest, together with the people of the town, unanimously join in declaring that from
this date they separate themselves from the obedience and control of the Pope and
join the Filipino National Church. This assembly and the reverend parish priest have
accordingly adopted this resolution written in triplicate, and resolved to send a copy
thereof to the civil government of this province for its information, and do sign the
same below. Vicente Ramirez, Francisco Israel, Ambrosio Bocon, Florentino Relloso,
Macario P. Ledesma, Cecilio Obias, Balbino Imperial, Juan Preseñada, Fernando
Deudor, Mauricio Torres, Adriano Sabater."
At the meeting at which the resolution spoken of in this document was adopted,
there were present about 100 persons of the pueblo. There is testimony in the case
that the population of the pueblo was at that time 9,000 and that all but 20 of the
inhabitants were satis ed with the action there taken. Although it is of no importance in
the case, we are inclined to think that the testimony to this effect merely means that
about 100 of the principal men of the town were in favor of the resolution and about 20
of such principal men were opposed to it. After the 14th of November, the defendant,
Ramirez, continued in the possession of the church and other property and
administered the same under the directions of his superior, the Obispo Maximo of the
Independent Filipino Church. The rites and ceremonies and the manner of worship were
the same after the 14th day of November as they were before, but the relations
between the Roman Catholic Church and the defendant had been entirely severed.
In January, 1904, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, Ramirez,
alleging in his amended complaint that the Roman Catholic Church was the owner of
the church building, the convent, cemetery, the books, money, and other property
belonging thereto, and asking that it be restored to the possession thereof and that the
defendant render an account of the property which he had received and which was
retained by him, and for other relief.
The answer of the defendant, Ramirez, in addition to a general denial of the
allegation of the complaint, admitted that he was in the possession and administration
of the property described therein with the authority of the municipality of Lagonoy and
of the inhabitants of the same, who were the lawful owners of the said property. After
this answer had been presented, and on the 1st day of November, 1904, the
municipality of Lagonoy led a petition asking that it be allowed to intervene in the case
and join with the defendant, Ramirez, as a defendant therein. This petition been granted,
the municipality of the 1st day of December led an answer in which it alleged that the
defendant, Ramirez, was in possession of the property described in the complaint
under the authority and with the consent of the municipality of Lagonoy and that such
municipality was the owner thereof.
Plaintiff answered this complaint, or answer in intervention, and the case was
tried and nal judgment in entered therein in favor of the plaintiff and against the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 defendants. The defendants then brought the case here by a bill of exceptions.
That the person in the actual possession of the church and other property
described in the complaint is the defendant, Ramirez, is plainly established by the
evidence. It does not appear that the municipality, as a corporate body, ever took any
action in reference to this matter until they presented their petition for intervention in
this case. In fact, the witnesses for the defense, when they speak of the ownership of
the buildings, say that they are owned by the people of the pueblo, and one witness, the
president, said that the municipality as a corporation had nothing whatever to do with
the matter. That the resolution adopted on the 14th of November, and which has been
quoted above, was not the action of the municipality, as such, is apparent from an
inspection thereof.

The witnesses for the defenses speak of a delivery of the church by the people of
the pueblo to the defendant, Ramirez, but there is no evidence in the case of any such
delivery. Their testimony in regard to the delivery always refers to the action taken on
the 14th of November, a record of which appears that in the document above quoted. It
is apparent that the action taken consisted simply in separating themselves from the
Roman Catholic Church, and nothing is said therein in reference to the material property
then in possession of the defendant, Ramirez.
There are several grounds upon which this judgment must be affirmed.
(1) As to the defendant, Ramirez, it appears that he took possession of the
property as the servant or agent of the plaintiff. The only right which he had to the
possession at the time he took it, was the right which was given to him by the plaintiff,
and he took possession under the agreement to return that possession whenever it
should be demanded of him. Under such circumstances he will not be allowed, when
the return of such possession is demanded by him the plaintiff, to say that the plaintiff
is not the owner of the property and is not entitled to have it delivered back to him. The
principle of law that a tenant can not deny his landlord's title, which is found in section
333, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also in the Spanish law, is
applicable to a case of this kind. An answer of the defendant, Ramirez, in which he
alleged that he himself was the owner of the property at the time he received it from the
plaintiff, or in which he alleged that the pueblo was the owner of the property at that
time, would constitute no defense. There is no claim made by him that since the
delivery of the possession of the property to him by the plaintiff he has acquired the
title thereto by other means, nor does he is own behalf make any claim whatever either
to the property or to the possession thereof.
(2) The municipality of Lagonoy, in its answer, claims as such, to be the
owner of the property. As we have said before, the evidence shows that it never was in
the physical possession of the property. But waiving this point and assuming that the
possession of Ramirez, which he alleges in his answer is the possession of the
municipality, gives the municipality the rights of a possessor, the question still arises,
Who has the better right to the present possession of the property? The plaintiff, in
1902, had been in the lawful possession thereof for more than thirty years and during
all that time its possession had never been questioned or disturbed. That possession
has been taken away from it and it has the right now to recover the possession from
the persons who have so deprived it of such possession, unless the latter can show
that they have a better right thereto. This was the preposition which was discussed and
settled in the case of Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron, 1 No. 1748, decided June 1, 1906.
That decision holds that as against one who has been in possession for the length of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the plaintiff has been in possession, and who had been deprived of his possession, and
who can not produce any written evidence of title, the mere fact that the defendant is in
possession does not entitle the defendant to retain that possession. In order that he
may continue in possession, he must show a better right thereto.
The evidence in this case does not show that the municipality has, as such, any
right of whatever in the property in question. It has produced no evidence of ownership.
Its claim of ownership is rested in its brief in this court upon the following propositions:
That the property in question belonged prior to the treaty of Paris to the Spanish
Government; that by the treaty of Paris the ownership thereof passed to the
Government of the United States; that by section 12 of the act of Congress of July 1,
1902, such property was transferred to the Government of the Philippine Islands, and
that by the circular of that Government, dated November 11, 1902, the ownership and
the right to the possession of this property passed to the municipality of Lagonoy. If,
for the purposes of the argument, we should admit that the other propositions are true,
there is no evidence whatever to support the last proposition, namely that the
Government of the Philippine Islands has transferred the ownership of this church to
the municipality of Lagonoy. We have found no circular of the date above referred to.
The one of February 10, 1903, which is probably the one intended, contains nothing that
indicates any such transfer. As to the municipality of Lagonoy, therefore, it is very clear
that it has neither title, ownership, nor right of possession.
(3) We have said that it would have no such title or ownership ever admitting
that the Spanish Government was the owner of the property and it has passed by the
treaty of Paris to the American Government. But this assumption is not true. As a
matter of law, the Spanish Government at the time the treaty of peace was signed, was
not the owner of this property, nor of any other property like it, situated in the Philippine
Islands.
It does not admit of doubt that from the earliest times the parish churches in the
Philippine Islands were built by the Spanish Government. Law 2, title 2, book 1, of the
Compilation of the Laws of the Indies is, in part, as follows:
"Having erected all the churches, cathedrals, and parish houses of the Spaniards
and natives of our Indian possessions from their discovery at the cost and expense of
our royal treasury, and applied for their service and maintenance the part of the tithes
belonging to us by apostolic concession according to the division we have made."
Law 3 of the same title to the construction of parochial churches such as the one
in question. That law is as follows:
"The parish churches which was erected in Spanish towns shall be of durable
and decent construction. Their costs shall be divided and paid in three parts: One by
our royal treasury, another by the residents and Indian encomenderos of the place
where such churches are constructed, and the other part by the Indians who abide
there; and if within the limits of a city, village, or place there should be any Indians
incorporated to our royal crown, we command that for our part there be contributed the
same amount as the residents and encomenderos, respectively, contribute; and the
residents who have no Indians shall also contribute for this purpose in accordance
with their stations and wealth, and that which is so given shall be deducted from the
share of the Indians should pay."
Law 11 of the same title is as follows:
"We command that the part of the tithes which belongs to the fund for the
erection of churches shall be given to their superintendents to be expended for those
things necessary for these churches with the advice of the prelates and officials, and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 by their warrants, and not otherwise. And we request and charge the archbishops and
bishops not to interfere in the collection and disbursement thereof, but to guard these
structures."
Law 4, title 3, book 6, is as follows:
"In all settlements, even though the Indians are few, there shall be erected a
church where mass can be decently held, and it shall have a donor with a key,
notwithstanding the fact that it be the subject to or separate from a parish."
Not only were all the parish churches in the Philippines erected by the King and
under his direction, but it was made unlawful to erect a church without the license of the
King. This provision is contained in Law 2, title 6, book 1, which is as follows:
"Whereas it is our intention to erect, institute, found, and maintain all cathedrals,
parish churches, monasteries, votive hospitals, churches, and religious and pious
establishments where they are necessary for the teaching, propagation, and preaching
of the doctrine of our sacred Roman Catholic faith, and to aid to this effect with out
royal treasury whenever possible, and to receive information of such places where they
should be founded and are necessary, and the ecclesiastical patronage of all our Indies
belonging to us:
"We command that there shall not be erected, instituted, founded, or maintained
any cathedral, parish church, monastery, hospital, or votive churches, or other pious or
religious establishment without our express permission as is provided in Law 1, title 2,
and Law 1, title 3, of this book, notwithstanding any permission heretofore given by our
viceroy or other ministers, which in this respect we revoke and make null, void, and of
no effect."
By agreement at an early date between the Pope and the Crown of Spain, all
tithes in the Indies were given by the former to the latter and the disposition made the
King of the fund thus created is indicated by Law 1, title 16, book 1, which is as follows:
"Whereas the ecclesiastical tithes from the Indies belong to us by the apostolic
concessions of the supreme pontiffs, we command the officials of our royal treasury
of those provinces to collect and cause to be collected all tithes due and to become
due from the crops and flocks of the residents in the manner in which it has been the
custom to pay the same, and from these tithes the churches shall be provided with
competent persons of good character to serve them and with all ornaments and things
which may be necessary for divine worship, to the end that these churches may be well
served and equipped, and we shall be informed of God, our Lord; this order shall be
observed where the contrary has not already been directed by us in connection with the
erection of churches."
That the condition of things existing by virtue of the Laws of the Indies was
continued to the present time is indicated by the royal order of the 31st of January,
1856, and by the royal order of the 13th of August, 1876, both relating to the
construction and repair of churches, there being authority for saying that the latter
order was in force in the Philippines.

This church, and other churches similarly situated in the Philippines, having been
erected by the Spanish Government, and under its direction, the next question to be
considered is, To whom did these churches belong?
Title 28 of the third partida is devoted to the ownership of things and, after
discussing what can be called public property and what can be called private property,
speaks, in Law 12, of those things which are sacred, religious, or holy. That law is as
follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Law XII. — HOW SACRED OR RELIGIOUS THINGS CAN NOT BE OWNED BY ANY
PERSON.
"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 without 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 others things which they might be in need of, and other similar
charitable purposes."
And then taking up for consideration the rst of the classes in to which this law
has divided these things, it de nes in Law 13, title 28, third partida, consecrated things.
That law is as follows:
"Sacred things, we say, are those which are consecrated by the bishops, such as
churches, the altars therein, crosses, chalices, censers, vestments, books, and all other
things which are in tended for the service of the church, and the title to these things
can not be alienated except in certain specific cases as we have already shown in the
first partida of this book by the laws dealing with this subject. We say further that even
where a consecrated church is razed, the ground upon which it formerly stood shall
always be consecrated ground. But if any consecrated church should fall into the
hands of the enemies of our faith it shall there and then cease to be sacred as long as
the enemy has it under control, although once recovered by the Christians, it will again
become sacred, reverting to its condition before the enemy seized it and shall have all
the right and privileges formerly belonging to it."
That the principles of the partida in reference to churches still exist is indicated
by Sanchez Roman, whose work on the Civil Law contains the following statement:
"First Group. Spiritual and corporeal or ecclesiastical. A. Spiritual. — From
early times distinction has been made by authors and by law between things governed
by divine law, called divine, and those governed by human law, called human, and
although the former can not be the subject of civil juridical relations, their nature and
species should be ascertained either to identify them and exclude them from such
relations or because they furnish a complete explanation of the foregoing tabulated
statement, or finally because the laws of the partida deal with them.
"Divine things are those which are either directly or indirectly established by God
for his service and sanctification of men and which are governed by divine or
canonical laws. This makes it necessary to divide them into spiritual things, which are
those which have a direct influence on the religious redemption of man such as the
sacrament, prayers, fasts, indulgences, etc., and corporeal or ecclesiastical, which are
those means more or less direct for the proper religious salvation of man.
"7. First Group. Divine things. B. Corporeal or ecclesiastical things
(sacred, religious, holy, and temporal belonging to the church). Corporeal or
ecclesiastical things are so divided.
"(a) Sacred things are those devoted to God, religion, and worship in
general, such as temples, altars, ornaments, etc. These things can not be alienated
except for some pious purpose and in such cases as are provided for in the laws,
according to which their control pertains to the ecclesiastical authorities, and in so far
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 as their use is concerned, to the believers and the clergy. (2 Derecho Civil Español,
Sanchez Roman, p. 480; 8 Manresa, Commentaries on the Spanish Civil Code, p. 636; 3
Alcubilla, Diccionario de la Administracion Española, p. 486.)"
The partidas de ned minutely what things belonged to the public in general and
what belonged to private persons. In the rst group churches are not named. The
present Civil Code declares in article 338 that property is of public or private
ownership. Article 339, which defines public property, is as follows:
"Property of public ownership is —
"1. That destined to the public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents,
ports, and bridges constructed by the State, and banks, shores, roadsteads, and that of
similar character.
"2. That belonging exclusively to the state without being for public use and
which is destined to some public service, or to the development of the national wealth,
such as walls, fortresses, and other works for the defense of the territory, and mines,
until their concession has been granted."
The code also de nes the property of provinces and of pueblos, and in de ning
what property is of public use, article 344 declares as follows:
"Property for public use in provinces and in towns comprises the provincial and
town roads, the squares, streets, fountains, and public waters, the promenades, and
public works of general service supported by the said towns or provinces.
"All other property possessed by either is patrimonial, and shall be governed by
the provisions of this code, unless otherwise prescribe in special laws."
It will be noticed that in either one of these articles is any mention made of
churches. When the Civil Code undertook to de ne those things in a pueblo which were
for the common use of the inhabitants of the pueblo, or which belonged to the State,
while it mentioned a great many other things, it did not mention churches.
It has been said that article 25 of the Regulations for the Execution of the
Mortgage Law indicates that churches belong to the State and are public property. That
article is as follows:
"There shall be excepted from the record required by article 2 of the law:
"First. Property which belongs exclusively to the eminent domain of the
State, and which is for the use of all, such as the shores of the sea, islands, rivers and
their borders, wagon roads, and the roads of all kinds, with the exception of railroads;
streets, parks, public promenades, and commons of towns, provided they are not lands
of common profit to the inhabitants; walls of cities and parks, ports, and roadsteads,
and any other analogous property during the time they are in common and general use,
always reserving the servitudes established by law on the shores of the sea and
borders of navigable rivers.
"Second. Public temples dedicated to the Catholic faith."
A reading of this article shows that far from proving that churches belong to the
State and to the eminent domain thereof, it proves the contrary, for, if they had
belonged to the State, they would have been included in the rst paragraph instead of
being placed in a paragraph by themselves.
The truth is that, from the earliest times down to the cession of the Philippines to
the United States, churches and other consecrated objects were considered outside of
the commerce of man. They were not public property, nor could they be subjects of
private property in the sense that any private person could the owner thereof. They
constituted a kind of property distinctive characteristic of which was that it was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 devoted to the worship of God.
But, being material things was necessary that some one should have the care and
custody of them and the administration thereof, and the question occurs, To whom,
under the Spanish law, was intrusted that possession and administration? For the
purposes of the Spanish law there was only one religion. That was the religion
professed by the Roman Catholic Church. It was for the purposes of that religion and
for the observance of its rites that this church and all other churches in the Philippines
were erected. The possession of the churches, their care and custody, and the
maintenance of religious worship therein were necessarily, therefore, intrusted to that
body. It was, by virtue of the laws of Spain, the only body which could under any
circumstances have possession of, or any control over, any church dedicated to the
worship of God. By virtue of those laws this possession and right of control were
necessarily exclusive. It is not necessary or important to give any name to this right of
possession and control exercised by the Roman Catholic Church in the church buildings
of the Philippines prior to 1898. It is not necessary to show that the church as a
juridical person was the owner of the buildings. It is suf cient to say that this right to
the exclusive possession and control of the same, for the purposes of its creation,
existed.
The right of patronage, existing in the King of Spain with reference to the
churches in the Philippines, did not give him any right to interfere with the material
possession of these buildings.
Title 6 of book 1 of the Compilation of the laws of the Indies treats Del
Patronazgo Real de las Indias. There is nothing in any one of the fty-one laws which
compose this title which in any way indicates that the King of Spain was the owner of
the churches in the Indies because he had constructed them. These laws relate to the
right of presentation to ecclesiastical charges and of ces. For example, Law 49 of the
title commences as follows:
"Because the patronage and right of presentation of all archbishops, bishops,
dignitaries, prevents, curates, and doctrines and all other beneficiaries and
ecclesiastical offices whatsoever belong to us, no other person can obtain or possess
the same without our presentation as provided in Law 1 and other laws of this title."

Title 15 of the rst partida treats of the right of patronage vesting in private
persons, but there is nothing in any one of its fteen laws which in any way indicates
that the private patron is the owner of the church.
When it is said that this church never belonged to the Crown of Spain, it is not
intended to say that the Government and had no power over it. It may be that by virtue
of that power of eminent domain which is necessarily resides in every government, it
might have appropriated this church and other churches, and private property of
individuals. But nothing of this kind was ever attempted in the Philippines.
It, therefore, follows that in 1898, and prior to the treaty of Paris, the Roman
Catholic Church had by law the exclusive right to the possession of this church and it
had the legal right to administer the same for the purposes for which the building was
consecrated. It was then in the full and peaceful possession of the church with the
rights aforesaid. That these rights were fully protected by the treaty of Paris is very
clear. That treaty, in article 8, provides, among other things, as follows:
"And it is hereby declared that the relinquishment or cession, as the case may
be, to which the preceding paragraph refers, can not in any respect impair the property
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 or rights which by law belong to the peaceful possession of property of all kinds, or
provinces, municipalities, public or private establishments, ecclesiastical or civic
bodies, or any other associations having legal capacity to acquire and possess
property in the aforesaid territories renounced or ceded, or of private individuals, or
whatsoever nationality such individuals may be."
It is not necessary, however, to invoke the provisions of that treaty. Neither the
Government of the United States, nor the Government of these Islands, has ever
attempted in any way to interfere with the rights which the Roman Catholic Church had
in this building when Spanish sovereignty ceased in the Philippines. Any interference
that has resulted has been caused by private individuals, acting without any authority
from the Government. Against such interference by private persons with the rights of
others, redress is given in the courts of justice without reference to the provisions of
the treaty of Paris.
No point is made in the brief of the appellant that any distinction should be made
between the church and the convent. The convent undoubtedly was annexed to the
church and, as to it, the provisions of Law 19, title 2, book 1, of the Compilation of the
Laws of the Indies would apply. That law is as follows:
"We command that the Indians of each town or barrio shall construct such
houses as may be deemed sufficient in which the priests of such towns or barrios may
live comfortably adjoining the parish church of the place where that may be built for
the benefit of the priests in charge of such churches and engaged in the education and
conversion of their Indian parishioners, and they shall not be alienated or devoted to
any other purpose."
The evidence in this case makes no showing in regard to the cemetery. It is
always mentioned in connection with the church and convent and no point is made by
the possession of the church and convent, he is not also entitled to recover possession
of the cemetery. So, without discussing the question as to whether the rules applicable
to churches are all respects applicable to cemeteries, we hold for the purpose of this
case that the plaintiff has the same right to the cemetery that he has to the church.
(4) It is suggested by the appellant that the Roman Catholic Church has no
legal personality in the Philippine Islands. This suggestion, made with reference to an
institution which antedates by almost a thousand years any other personality in Europe,
and which existed "when Grecian eloquence still ourished in Antioch, and when idols
were still worshiped in the temple of Mecca," does not require serious consideration. In
the preamble to the budget relating to ecclesiastical obligations, presented by Montero
Rios to the Cortes on the 1st of October 1871, speaking of the Roman Catholic Church,
he says:
"Persecuted as an unlawful association since the early days of its existence up
to the time of Galieno, who was the first of the Roman emperors to admit it among the
juridical entities protected by the laws of the Empire, it existed until then by the mercy
and will of the faithful and depended for such existence upon pious gifts and
offerings. Since the latter half of the third century, and more particularly since the year
313, when Constantine, by the edict of Milan, inaugurated an era of protection for the
church, the latter gradually entered upon the exercise of such rights as were required
for the acquisition, preservation, and transmission of property the same as any other
juridical entity under the laws of the Empire. (3 Dictionary of Spanish Administration,
Alcubilla, p. 211. See also the royal order of the 4th of December, 1890, 3 Alcubilla,
189.)"
The judgment of the court below is af rmed, with the costs of this instance
against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days from the date hereof let
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter the record be
remanded to the court below for execution. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., reserves his vote.

Separate Opinion s
CARSON, J., concurring in the result:

I am in entire accord with the majority of the court as to the disposition of this
case, but I can not adopt the reasoning by which some of the conclusions appear to
have been obtained, nor accept without reserve all of the propositions laid down in the
majority opinion.
Profoundly as I respect the judgment of my associates, and distrustful as I ought
to be of my own, the transcendant importance of the issues involved seems to impose
upon me the duty of writing a separate opinion and stating therein as clearly as may be
the precise grounds upon which I base my assent and the reasons which forbid my
acceptance of the majority opinion in its entirety.
I accept the argument and authority of the opinion of the court in so far as it
nds: That the Roman Catholic Church is a juridical entity in the Philippine Islands; that
the defendant, Ramirez, can not and should not be permitted in this action to deny the
plaintiff's right to the possession of the property in question, because he can not be
heard to set up title thereto in himself or a third person, at least until he has rst
formally surrendered it to the plaintiff who intrusted it to his care; that the municipality
of Lagonoy has failed to show by evidence of record that it is or ever was in physical
possession of the property in question; and that the possession of the defendant
Ramirez, can not be relied upon as the possession of the municipality because the
same reason which estops Ramirez from denying the right of possession in the plaintiff
estops any other person claiming possession through him from denying that right. I
agree, furthermore, with the nding that the defendant municipality failed to establish a
better right to the possession than the plaintiff in this action, because, claiming to be
the owner by virtue of a grant from the Philippine Government, it failed to establish the
existence of such grant; and because, furthermore, it was shown that the plaintiff or his
predecessors had been in possession and control of the property in question for a long
period of years prior to the treaty of Paris by unlawful authority of the King of Spain, and
that since the sovereignty of these Islands has been transferred to the United States
the new sovereign has never at any time divested or attempted to divest the plaintiff of
this possession and control.
Thus far I am able to accept the reasoning of the majority opinion, and these
propositions, supported as they are by the law and the evidence in this case, completely
dispose of the question before us and establish the right of the plaintiff to a judgment
for possession.
I am not prepared, however, to give my assent to the proposition that prior to the
Treaty of Paris "The King of Spain was not the owner of the property in question nor of
any other property like it situated in the Philippine Islands," and inferentially that the
United States is not now the owner thereof and has no property rights therein other
than, perhaps, the mere right of eminent domain.
I decline to af rm this proposition, rst, because it is not necessary in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 decision of this case; and second, because I am of opinion that, in the unlimited and
unrestricted sense in which it is stated in the majority opinion, it is inaccurate and
misleading, if not wholly erroneous.
That it is not necessary for the proper disposition of this case will be apparent if
we consider the purpose for which it is introduced in the argument and the proposition
which it is intended to controvert. As stated in the majority opinion, the claim of
ownership of the defendant municipality —
"Is rested upon the following propositions: That the property in question
belonged, prior to the treaty of Paris, to the Spanish Government; that by the treaty of
Paris the ownership of thereof passed to the Government of the United States; that by
article 12 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, such property was transferred to the
Government of the Philippine Islands, and that by a circular of that Government dated
November 11, 1902, the ownership and the right to the possession of this property
passed to the municipality of Lagonoy."
It is evident that if any of these propositions is successfully controverted, the
defendants' claim of ownership must fall to the ground. The majority opinion nds (and
I am entire accord as to this nding) that neither the Government of the United States
nor the Philippine Government had ever made, or attempted to make, such transfer, and
in making its nding it completely, conclusively, and nally disposes of defendants'
claim of ownership.

All the acts of the Government of the United States and of the present
Government of the Philippine Islands which can have any relation to the property in
question are before us, and so short a period of years has elapsed since the transfer of
the sovereignty of these Islands to the United States that it is possible to demonstrate
with the utmost certainty that by no act of the United States or of the Government of
the Philippine Islands has the ownership and possession of this property been
conferred upon the defendant municipality; it is a very different undertaking, however, to
review the legislation of Spain for the three centuries of her Philippine occupation for
the purpose of deciding the much-vexed question of the respective property rights of
the Spanish sovereign and the Roman Catholic Church in State-constructed and State-
aided churches in these Islands; and if I am correct in my contention that a holding that
the King of Spain was not." and, inferentially, that the Government of the United States is
not, "the owner of this property or any other property like it is situated in the Philippine
Islands" is not necessary for the full, nal, and complete determination of the case at
bar, then I think that this court should refrain from making so momentous a nding in a
case wherein the United States is not a party and has never had an opportunity to be
heard.
But the mere fact that a nding that the King of Spain had no right of ownership
in this property which could pass to the United States under the provisions of the treaty
of Paris is not necessary in my opinion for the disposition of the case at bar, would not
impose upon me the duty of writing a separate opinion if it were in fact and a law a
correct holding. I am convinced, however, that when stated without limitations or
restrictions, as it appears in the majority opinion, it is inaccurate and misleading, and it
may not be improper, therefore, to indicate briefly my reasons for doubting it.
As stated in the majority opinion, "it does not admit of doubt that the parish
churches in the Philippines were built by the Spanish Government," and it would seem
therefore that prior to their dedication, the bene cial ownership, the legal title, the
possession and control of all this property must be taken to have been vested in that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Government. But it must be admitted that after this property was dedicated, the
ownership, in contemplation of Spanish law, was said to have been in God, and there
can be no doubt that the physical possession and control of these churches for the
purposes for which they were dedicated was given to the Roman Catholic Church not,
as I think, absolutely and conclusively, but limited by and subject to the royal patronage
(patronato real) which included the right to intervene in the appointment of the
representatives of the church into whose hands the possession and control of the
sacred editors were to be intrusted.
The anomalous status thus created might well have given rise to doubts and
uncertainties as to the legal title and bene cial ownership of this property had not the
grantor and the lawgiver of Spain expressly and speci cally provided that neither the
Roman Catholic Church nor any other person was or could become the owner thereof,
and that all these sacred edi ces were to be regarded as beyond the commerce of
men.
"No sacred, religious, or holy thing, devoted to the service of God, can be the
subject of ownership by any man, nor it can 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 captivers and the repairing of the churches, and the buying of chalices,
clothing, books, and other things which they might be in seed of, and other similar
charitable purposes." (Law 12, title 28, partida 3.)
It is dif cult to determine, and still more dif cult to state, the precise meaning
and legal effect of this disposition of the ownership, possession, and control of the
parish churches in the Philippines; but since it was not possible for God, in any usual or
ordinary sense to take or hold, to enforce or to defend the legal title to this property, it
would seem that a grant to Him by the King or the Government of Spain could not
suf ce to convey to Him the legal title of the property set out in the grant, and the truth
would seem to be that the treatment of this property in contemplation of Spanish law
as the property of God was a mere arbitrary convention, the purpose and object of
which was crystallize the status of all such property in the peculiar and unusual mold in
which it was cast at the time of its dedication.
So long as church and state remained united and so long as the Roman Catholic
Church continued to be the church of the State, this convention served its purpose well;
indeed, its very inde niteness seems to have aided in the accomplishment of the end
for which it was adopted, and on a review of all the pertinent citations of Spanish law
which have been brought to my attention, I am satis ed that the status created by the
above-cited law 12 of the partidas continued without substantial modi cation to the
date of the transfer of sovereignty from the King of Spain to the United States. But this
transfer of sovereignty, and the absolute severance of church and state which resulted
therefrom, render it necessary to ascertain as definitely as may be the true meaning and
intent of this conventional treatment of the parish churches in the Philippines as the
property of God, and it is evident that for this purpose we must look to the substance
rather than the form and examine the intention of the grantor and the object he sought
to attain, rather than the words and conventional terms whereby that intent was
symbolically expressed.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 It is not necessary to go beyond the citations of the majority opinion to see that
the objects which the grantor sought to attain were, rst, and chie y, to advance the
cause of religion among the people of the Philippine Islands and to provide for their
religious instruction and edification by furnishing them with parish churches suitable for
the worship and glori cation of God; second, to place those sacred edi ces under the
guardian care and custody of the church of the State; and, third, to deny to that church
and to all others the right of ownership in the property thus dedicated; and since God
could neither take nor hold the legal title to this property, the declaration of the King of
Spain as set out in the above-cited law, that when dedicated these churches became in
some peculiar and especial manner the property of God, was in effect no more than a
solemn obligation imposed upon himself to hold them for the purposes for which they
were dedicated, and to exercise no right of property in them inconsistent therewith.
This declaration that these churches are the property of God and the provisions
which accompanied it, appear to me to be precisely equivalent to a declaration of trust
by the grantor that he would hold the property as trustee for the use for which it was
dedicated — that is, for the religious edi cation and enjoyment of the people of the
Philippine Islands — and that he would give to the Roman Catholic Church the physical
possession and control thereof, including the disposition of any funds arising
therefrom, under certain stipulated conditions and for the purposes expressly provided
by law. In other words, the people of the Philippine Islands became the bene cial
owners of all such property, and the grantor continued to hold the legal title, in trust
nevertheless to hold the property for the purposes for which it was dedicated and on
the further trust to give the custody and control thereof to the Roman Catholic Church.
If this interpretation of the meaning and intent of the convention of Spanish law which
treated God as the owner of the parish churches of the Philippine Islands be correct, a
holding that the King of Spain had no right to ownership in this property which could
pass to the United States by virtue of the treaty of Paris can not be maintained; and it is
to withhold my assent from this proposition that I have been compelled to write this
separate opinion.
For the purposes of this opinion it is not necessary, nor would it be pro table, to
do more than indicate the line of reasoning which has led me to my conclusions, nor to
discuss at length the question of ownership of this property, because whether it be held
to be in abeyance or in God or in the Roman Catholic Church or in the United States it
has been shown without deciding this question of ownership that the right to the
possession for the purpose for which it was dedicated is in the Roman Catholic Church,
and while the complaint in this action alleges that the Roman Catholic Church is the
owner of the property in question, the prayer of the complaint is for the possession of
this property of which it is alleged that church has been unlawfully deprived; and
because, furthermore, if I am correct in my contention that the legal title to the State-
constructed churches in the Philippines passed to the United States the virtue of the
treaty of Paris, it passed, nevertheless, subject to the trusts under which it was held
prior thereto, and the United States can not at will repudiate the conditions of that trust
and retain its place in the circle of civilized nations; and as long as the property
continues to be used for the purposes for which it was dedicated, the Government of
the United States has no lawful right to deprive the Roman Catholic Church of the
possession and control thereof under the terms and conditions upon which that
possession and control were originally granted.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes

1. 6 Phil. Rep., 286.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com