[ G.R. No. 39533. December 29, 1934 ] 63 Phil. 881
[ G.R. No. 39533. December 29, 1934 ]
NICOLAS TRINIDAD ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
VILLA-REAL, J.:
This case is before this court on an appeal taken by the plaintiffs Nicolas Trinidad, Atilano Trinidad and Santiago Gochangco, the last as administrator of the intestate estate of Alejandro Trinidad, from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila absolving the defendant Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila from the complaint, which was dismissed, without special pronouncement as to costs.
In support of their appeal, the appellants assign the following alleged errors as committed by the court a quo in its said judgment, to wit:
“1. The lower court erred in holding that the Convenio Ley of 1867 relative to collative chaplaincies is not in force in the Islands as supplementary to the Civil Code.
“2. The trial court erred in not declaring that the chaplaincy founded by Da. Valentina Teodoro is subject to commutation and redemption by the plaintiffs.
“3. The lower court erred in not declaring plaintiffs entitled to an accounting of the fruits of the chaplaincy properties during its vacancy, and in not ordering defendant to render such accounting.
“4. The court a quo erred in not ordering defendant to turn over to plaintiffs the products of the chaplaincy and its surplus products during the vacancy.
“5. The lower court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.”
This action was brought by virtue of the reservation made by the Court of First Instance of Manila in the dispositive part of its decision of March 6, 1930, rendered in civil case No. 33816 of said court and affirmed by this court in its decision promulgated on March 11, 1931, except in so far as it held that the action of the plaintiffs in said case had prescribed, which dispositive part reads as follows:
“Wherefore, it is ordered that the defendants cause to be noted on the Torrens certificates of title of the properties left by Valentina Teodoro the legal charge imposed by the deed of foundation executed by Basilio de la Trinidad. With this exception, the case is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to assert in a new action their rights, if they have any, to the surplus income accruing from the properties during the incumbency of Rosauro Trinidad and during the vacancies in the office of chaplain, without special pronouncement as to costs.” (55 Phil., 801, 804.)
In the complaint in this case, it is prayed: (a) That the defendant be ordered to render to the plaintiffs a detailed account of the income collected by him on said properties from April 3, 1878, and to pay the same to said plaintiffs minus the expenses necessarily incurred by the trustee; (b) that the defendant be ordered to transfer to the plaintiffs, as owners, the properties covered by Torrens certificates of title Nos. 5027, 16950 and 4546 of the office of the register of deeds of the City of Manila, declaring the plaintiffs entitled to receive the rents collected by the defendant.
The pertinent facts necessary for the resolution of the questions raised in this appeal are those which are hereinbelow copied from the stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, to wit:
“3. That on April 20, 1838, Valentina Teodoro made a will, a copy of which appears in Exhibits A and B attached to and made a part of this stipulation.
“4. That after making said will, the testatrix Valentina Teodoro died on or about April 22, 1838, and after her death a chaplaincy was created and constituted on the properties stated in her will, under the circumstance appearing in the Chaplaincy proceedings, Exhibit A, as well as in the excerpt from the Domesday Book of the defunct Ayuntamiento of the City of Manila, Exhibit B, which are made an integral part of this stipulation.
“5. That after the constitution of the chaplaincy, Telesforo Trinidad was appointed first chaplain thereof up to the time of his death on or about April 3, 1878, and was succeeded by Rosauro Trinidad, born in August, 1861, and died on December 12, 1914, from which date the chaplaincy became vacant, the defendant having received the income thereof during such vacancy and used it to defray the charges and other similar pious works.
“11. That in 1918 the new ‘Codex Juris Canonici’ was adopted and published by the Holy See, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of this stipulation as Exhibit 1 of the defendant.
“12. That of the 184 chaplaincies founded in the Philippine Islands from the year 1650 to 1930, none has been disentailed or subjected to a commutation of income or redemption of charges to date.”
The pertinent parts of the will referred to in paragraph 3 of the above-quoted stipulation of facts are as follows:
“FOURTH: Likewise, having in my possession some properties belonging to my sister Doña Marcelina Bonifacio Alonso, situated in the market place or public square of this town, I leave the same at the disposal of my elder brother Don Basilio de la Trinidad and my nephews so that they may thereby procure the establishment of a chaplaincy charged with seventy-five masses.
“FIFTH: Likewise, I possess another house of stone and mortar with four stores and it is my will that another chaplaincy charged with fifty masses be established.
“SIXTH: Likewise, I declare that the house where I live was inherited from my parents, and a third chaplaincy charged with thirty masses annually shall be established thereon, for all of which it is my desire that my nearest relatives be nominated and preferred, the most worthy in case they belong to the same degree; and it being my object, partly, to leave this aid to those of my own blood, it is my will that each of them obtain a chaplain, for I expressly prohibit the union of two of these chaplaincies in only one person, unless no other relative of mine can be found entitled to it, in which case the person possessing the qualification of relationship may obtain all the three chaplaincies, his possession and enjoyment to be without prejudice to the right of any of my relatives who may later be found to be qualified to obtain them, upon whom I then wish one of them to be conferred; and should there be absolutely no relative of mine qualified to obtain them, a chaplain or three of them may be temporarily appointed as administrator or administrators, without the right of ownership or possession.”
The first question to be decided in this appeal is whether or not the chaplaincy in question is collative or laical.
In the previous case between the same parties, G. R. No. 33769 (55 Phil., 801), this court, through Justice Malcolm, said: “We reach the very definite conclusion that no error was committed in holding the chaplaincy legally established and subsisting”, without stating whether the chaplaincy in question therein and in this case is collative or laical. Although it is collative, judging from the manner of its establishment, and the court a quo so understood in said case, however, to better clarify this point, we shall examine the will founding it in order to determine to which of these two kinds belongs the chaplaincy which the testatrix wished established. In the fourth clause of said will the testatrix leaves the establishment of chaplaincies on the properties enumerated and described therein at the disposal of her elder brother and sole heir, Basilio de la Trinidad, and her nephews. In the sixth clause thereof, she expresses her desire that “her nearest relatives be nominated and preferred, the most worthy in case they belong to the same degree”, for appointment as chaplains of the chaplaincies in question. With this authority, and interpreting the will of the testatrix, the executor Basilio de la Trinidad, on September 25, 1841, filed a petition with the Archbishop of Manila praying that said properties be raised to the status of an ecclesiastical benefice for the proper compliance with the pious request of said deceased, his legitimate sister, nominating Telesforo Trinidad, his own son, for appointment as first chaplain. There is no question and the parties admit that a collative chaplaincy was established and constituted on the properties of the deceased with all the formalities and requisites prescribed by the canon laws, Telesforo Trinidad having been appointed first chaplain thereof. While the will of the founder does not expressly state that the chaplaincies which she desired established with her properties be collative ones, in providing that her nearest relatives be nominated and preferred for appointment as chaplains and in leaving the establishment of said chaplaincies at the disposal of her elder brother Basilio de la Trinidad and her nephews, she made it understood that the chaplaincies which she desired established be collative and familiar and not laical, since it is only in the establishment of collative chaplaincies where it is necessary for the guardian to nominate the candidates for appointment as chaplains to the proper authority or competent person, and not in laical ones where the appointment of a chaplain is made by the guardian without the intervention of the ecclesiastical authority, except to see to it that the charges are complied with (5 Seix, Enciclopedia Juridica Española, page 15; 3 Campos y Pulido, Legislacion y Jurisprudencia Canonica, page 370).
It may be alleged that the testatrix, in providing at the end of the sixth clause of her will that “should there be absolutely no relative of mine qualified to obtain them, a chaplain or three of them may be temporarily appointed as administrator or administrators, without the right of ownership or possession”, desired that laical chaplaincies be established.
As will be seen later, the naked ownership of the properties constituting the endowment of a collative chaplaincy, after said properties are spiritualized, is vested in the church, and the usufruct thereof in the chaplain appointed by canonical collation to receive the fruits thereof with the obligation to comply with the charges imposed by the foundation. Inasmuch as the usufruct and possession thereof, in case of vacancy, vests in the church to which the naked ownership already belongs, the fact that the founder provides for the appointment of temporary chaplains to temporarily administer the properties of the chaplaincy but without the right of ownership or possession is not in conflict with the nature and purposes of collative chaplaincies. Had she provided otherwise, that is, that the temporary chaplain was entitled to the ownership and possession of the properties constituting the endowment of the chaplaincy, and were there nothing in the will indicating that it was her intention and desire to establish collative chaplaincies, then it could be assumed that her intention was to create laical chaplaincies.
But if there should really be some doubt in the testamentary foundation as to the intention or wish of the testatrix on this point, Campos y Pulido, in his book on “Legislacion y Jurisprudencia Canonica”, volume III, page 372, speaking of the distinction between collative and laical chaplaincies, states as follows: “So, when a chaplaincy may be granted to a church or the rector thereof, or to a corporation of clergymen, be they regular or secular, as provided for in the foundation, the chaplaincy shall be ecclesiastical, otherwise it shall be laical when it involves a corporation of laymen. In the case of a hospital, the nature thereof shall be taken into consideration. Lastly, should the founder express himself ambiguously so that it is difficult to determine the nature of the chaplaincy, and documents are at the same time lacking to clarify these doubts, in such case it shall be considered ecclesiastical.”
In Seix’s Enciclopedia Juridica Española, volume V, page 13, it is also stated as follows: “When the founder has expressed himself in ambiguous terms, so that it is difficult to determine the nature of the chaplaincy, and documents are at the same time lacking to clarify these doubts, it shall be considered collative.”
Therefore, under the rule of canonical interpretation and under the terms of the testamentary foundation, the chaplaincy in litigation is ecclesiastical and collative and was established in accordance with the canon laws and the will of the founder.
The second question to be decided is in whom the ownership of the properties constituting the endowment of the ecclesiastical or collative chaplaincies is vested.
“Canonists entertain different opinions as to the person in whom the ownership of the ecclesiastical properties is vested, with respect to which we shall, for our purpose, confine ourselves to stating with Donoso that, while many doctors cited by Fagnano believe that it resides in the Roman Pontiff as Head of the Universal Church, it is more probable that ownership, strictly speaking, does not reside in the latter and, consequently, ecclesiastical properties are owned by the churches, institutions and canonically established private corporations to which said properties have been donated.” (Campos y Pulido, supra, page 420.)
In the case of Late Corporation of Latter-Day Saints Church vs. United States (136 U. S., 1, 53), the Supreme Court of the United States said:
“By the Spanish law, whatever was given to the service of God became incapable of private ownership, being held by the clergy as guardians or trustees; and any part not required for their own support, and the repairs, books and furniture of the church, was devoted to words of piety, such as feeding and clothing the poor, supporting orphans, marrying poor virgins, redeeming captives and the like. (Partida III, tit. 28, 11, 12-15.) When property was given for a particular object, as a church, a hospital, a convent or a community, etc., and the object failed, the property did not revert to the donor or his heirs, but devolved to the crown, the church, or other convent or community unless the donation contained an express condition in writing to the contrary.”
Upon the establishment of the chaplaincy under consideration and the conversion of the properties constituting the endowment thereof from temporal to spiritual ones, the naked ownership of the same became vested in the church, subject to the charges imposed in the documentary foundation. It cannot be otherwise, inasmuch as the continuation of the ownership of said properties in the executor, after a collative chaplaincy has been established thereon, conflicts with the idea of their spiritualization and conversion into ecclesiastical properties. Ecclesiastical properties, being outside the commerce of men, cannot be owned by lay persons. According to paragraph 8 of the stipulation of facts, the properties on which the chaplaincy in litigation was constituted have neither been disentailed nor subjected to commutation of income or redemption of charges to date; therefore, they continue to belong to the church (V Seix, supra, page 15; Royal Decree of October 12, 1895).
The third question to be decided is whether or not the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to recover possession of the properties in question or to commute the income thereof.
Article VIII of the Treaty of Paris, which was signed and ratified on December 10, 1898, provides as follows:
“In conformity with the provisions of Articles I, II and III of this treaty, Spain relinquishes in Cuba, and cedes in Porto Rico and other islands of the West Indies, in the Island of Guam, and in the Philippine Archipelago, all the buildings, wharves, barracks, forts, structures, public highways, and other immovable property which, in conformity with law, belong to the public domain, and as such belong to the Crown of Spain.
“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 or rights which by law belong to the peaceful possession of property of all kinds, of provinces, municipalities, public or private establishments, ecclesiastical or civil bodies, or any other associations having legal capacity to acquire and possess property in the aforesaid territories renounced or ceded, or of private individuals, of whatsoever nationality such individuals may be.”
At the time of the signing of said Treaty of Paris, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, through its representative in these Islands, continued to be the owner of the properties in question and, therefore, its ownership was guaranteed by said treaty.
By virtue of the change of sovereignty, the only laws that continued in force, according to the rules of public law, were those intended for the protection of private rights and which were not inconsistent with the laws and the constitution of the new sovereignty, until abrogated or changed by the new government (Ortega vs. Lara, 202 U. S., 339, 342).
On August 14, 1898, General Merritt, commander in chief of the United States Army, published a proclamation which reads:
“3. The government established among you by the United States Army is a government of military occupation; and for the present it is ordered that the municipal laws such as affect private rights of persons and property, regulate local institutions, and provide for the punishment of crime, shall be considered as continuing in force, so far as compatible with the purposes of military government, and that they be administered through the ordinary tribunals substantially as before occupation; but by officials appointed by the government of occupation.”
It will be seen that in the above-quoted proclamation the only laws considered as continuing in force at the commencement of the American occupation were those that “affect private rights of persons and property, regulate local institutions, and provide for the punishment of crime.”
The second paragraph of article 38 of the Civil Code invoked by the plaintiffs in their favor in connection with the Convenio Ley of June 24, 1867, in so far as it refers to the church, is of special character and is subordinated to the agreement between the Holy See and the Crown of Spain regarding the form and manner in which the church may acquire and possess property of all kinds. Concordats are “treaties or agreements between ecclesiastical and civil powers to regulate the relations between the church and the state in those matters which, in some respect, are under the jurisdiction of both” (8 Seix, supra, page 17), and they take place in countries where there is union of church and state. As a consequence of such union both powers have common interest in moral, social, religious and temporal matters. On the other hand, in countries where there is separation of church and state and where the state as a political entity cannot, by constitutional law, adopt any definite religion, such concordats cannot take place.
The same may be said of the Convenio Ley of June 24, 1867, since it is a contract between the Holy See and the Spanish Government wherein both powers make mutual concessions regarding property in which both have interest.
In the case of United States vs. Balcorta (25 Phil., 273), this court stated as follows:
“The change of sovereignty and the enactment of the fourteenth paragraph of section 5 of the Philippine Bill caused the complete separation of church and state, and the abolishment of all special privileges and restrictions theretofore conferred or imposed upon any particular religious sect.”
Therefore, under the principle of separation of church and state, the second paragraph of article 38 of the Civil Code, in so far as it refers to the church (Willard, Notes on the Spanish Civil Code), as well as the Convenio Ley of June 24, 1867, cannot be considered in force in these Islands after the Treaty of Paris.
The defendant-appellee Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, as representative of the church in these Islands, being the owner of the properties in question at the time of the change of sovereignty by virtue of the Treaty of Paris, which guarantees his ownership, and the second paragraph of article 38 of the Civil Code, as regards the church, as well as the Convenio Ley of June 24, 1867, having been abrogated as a consequence of said change of sovereignty, the herein plaintiffs-appellants are not entitled to revindicate said properties or commute their income.
The fourth question to be decided is whether or not said plaintiffs are entitled to demand an accounting of the income of the properties under consideration.
Having arrived at the conclusion that the chaplaincy established with said properties is collative and was created with all the requisites and formalities prescribed by the canon laws and in accordance with the will of the founder; and that the naked ownership of said properties is vested in the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church or the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, the administration of the same and the right to receive the income belonging to the chaplains canonically instituted, said chaplains alone are entitled to demand an accounting of the fruits thereof.
Furthermore, according to the stipulation of facts, the defendant Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila received the income of the chaplaincy during the vacancy thereof from December 12, 1914, when the last chaplain Rosauro Trinidad died, and said income was used by him to redeem the charges and defray analogous pious works. The decree of foundation of the collative chaplaincy under consideration provides that the chaplain shall “with the income thereof, attend to all repairs necessary for the preservation of said properties in good condition” (Exhibit A, folio 9). This provision is in accordance with canon 1481 of the new Code of Canon Laws adopted in 1918, which provides as follows:
“After all kinds of expenses have been deducted and the provisions of canon 472, No. 1, (regarding allowance for the temporary incumbent) complied with, one-half of the income of the vacant benefice shall be added to the endowment of said benefice and the other half used for the repair of the church, unless there is a contrary custom of using all for the common good of the diocese.”
If, according to the stipulation of facts, the income received by the defendant-appellee during the vacancy of the chaplaincy was used by him to redeem the charges and to defray analogous pious works, he is under no obligation to render any account of said income.
This on the one hand. On the other, the herein plaintiffs-appellants not being chaplains of the chaplaincy in question, they are not entitled and have no juridical personality to ask for such accounting.
For the foregoing considerations, this court is of the opinion and so holds: (1) That when the testatrix, in a will directing the establishment of chaplaincies on certain properties described therein, places the fulfillment thereof at the disposal of her executor and desires her nearest relatives to be nominated and preferred, and her said executor, by virtue of such power, asks the competent ecclesiastical authority for the establishment of collative chaplaincies, the intention of the testatrix is to have chaplaincies of such nature established, and the provision contained in her said will to the effect that in the absence of her own relatives others may be appointed to administer them but without the right of ownership or possession, neither conflicts with said intention nor implies the desire to found laical chaplaincies; (2) that the naked ownership of the properties constituting the endowment of a collative chaplaincy belongs to the ecclesiastical authority within whose jurisdiction such properties are found, the possession and administration of the same and the right to receive the income thereof for the purposes stated in the decree of foundation belonging to the chaplain canonically instituted, and in case of vacancy said administration and possession are transferred to the competent ecclesiastical authority while the vacancy exists; (3) that the ecclesiastical authority administering said properties during the vacancy is empowered to apply the income thereof to the purposes intended and in the manner prescribed by canon 1481 of the Code of Canon Laws adopted in 1918, and (4) that both the second paragraph of article 38 of the Civil Code, providing that the church shall be governed in the acquisition and possession of property of all kinds by any agreement which may have been entered into between the two powers, and the Convenio Ley of June 24, 1867, have been abrogated as a consequence of the change of sovereignty, being inconsistent with the principle of separation of church and state.
Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs to the appellants. So ordered.
Abad Santos and Diaz, JJ., concur. Street, J., concurs in the result.