REV. JORGE BARLIN vs. P.

VICENTE RAMIREZ FACTS:

Priests of the Roman Catholic Church were assigned in Lagonoy, Ambos, Camarines Sur since 1839 !n 18"9, the church and con#ent in the $ueblo were burned %he reconstruction of the church and con#ent was ordered by the go#ernor and the labor was $erformed by the $eo$le in the $ueblo &unds for the materials of construction were funded by the $arish $riest and donations from certain indi#iduals After its com$letion, the church was always administered by a Roman Catholic $riest %he defendant, Ramire', was a$$ointed as $arish $riest for the said church in 19(1 until 19() where he was ordered to transfer $ossession of the church and con#ent together with all its other $ro$erties to Agri$ino Pisino, his successor Ramire' refused to turn o#er the $ro$erty stating that the church belonged to the $ueblo and he being the $arish $riest of the $ueblo should continue $ossession of the church and the con#ent !t should be noted that Ramire' wrote a letter to the Catholic Church stating its desire to se$arate from the Po$e in Rome *e also stated that the munici$ality of Lagonoy ado$ted a resolution to that effect and since the church belonged to the munici$ality, the Catholic Church has no right to ta+e $ossession of the same Catholic Church, through the $laintiff herein, sued the defendant as+ing for the reco#ery of $ossession of the church and con#ent together with all its other $ro$erties and to render an account for all such $ro$erties %he lower court ruled in $laintiff,s fa#or !SS-./ 0hether or not the Catholic Church is a 1uridical $erson and has the ca$acity to sue in this case2 *.L3/ %he court held that under e4isting laws, the only religion in the Phili$$ine !slands during that time is the Roman Catholic and that for this $ur$ose churches were erected %he $ossession of the churches, their care and custody and the maintenance of the religious worshi$ therein, were necessarily entrusted to the same body !t was by #irtue of the laws of S$ain, the only body, which could under any circumstances ha#e any $ossession of, or any control o#er any church dedicated to the worshi$ of 5od 6y #irtue of those laws this $ossession and right of control were necessarily e4clusi#e !t is not necessary or im$ortant to gi#e any name to this right of $ossession and control e4ercised by the Roman Catholic Church in the church buildings of the Phili$$ines $rior to 1898 !t is not necessary to show that the Church as a 1uridical $erson was the owner of the said buildings !t is sufficient to say that this right is e4clusi#e $ossession and control of the same, for the $ur$oses of its creation, e4isted Also, by #irtue of the %reaty of Paris, the Roman Catholic Church had by law the e4clusi#e right to the $ossession of this church and it had the legal right to administer the same for the $ur$oses aforementioned %hat these rights were fully $rotected by the %reaty of Paris is #ery clear 3ecision of the lower court affirmed