[ G.R. No. 3013. January 24, 1908 ] 10 Phil. 1
[ G.R. No. 3013. January 24, 1908 ]
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, VS. CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES IX THE PROVINCE OF ILOCOS SUR ET AL., DEFENDANTS. D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
This is an original action brought in this court by virtue of the provisions of Act No. 1376. It is in all respects similar to the case of The Roman Catholic Church vs. The Municipalities of the Province of Tarlac.[1] It is therefore by the court adjudged and decreed that this action be dismissed without costs as to all of the defendants except the municipalities of Dolores, La Paz, Candon, and Santa Cruz, and except as to the defendants, Gregorio Aglipay, Rosalio Eduarte, Elipio Blanco, Benigno de Lara, and Candido Gironella. It is further adjudged and decreed that all of the property described in the complaint be eliminated therefrom except that which is hereinafter described, and as to the property thus eliminated this court makes no determination in regard to the. rights of the parties to this action in relation thereto. In reference; to the municipality of Dolores, the evidence shows that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the building called by them in their complaint “a convent.” It is proved to our satisfaction that this building was erected and has been used as a municipal building. Three churches have been built upon the lot originally dedicated to that purpose1, the last one having been constructed about two years ago. With this construction the plaintiffs had nothing to do. That the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the lot and land can not be questioned. However, the present building was constructed by persons who have presented no written or other evidence of ownership. They simply took possession of the property when its former possessors were compelled to abandon it by reason of war. They can not be considered as possessors in good faith. (Art. 433, Civil Code.) Not being possessors in good faith, they are not entitled to the structure erected upon land not their own. (Art. 3(12, Civil Code.) We have said that the last church was constructed upon 1 he site of the former churches. The evidence is in conflict upon this point, but we think it sustains our conclusion. However that may be, it would of course follow that, if in fact the present building is not upon the lot in question, the plaintiffs would have no interest whatever therein. [Here follows the formal part of the judgment, which is omitted.] So ordered. Arellano. C. J., Torres, Mapa, and Tracey, JJ., concur.