Title
Canete vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-45330
Decision Date
Mar 7, 1989
A dispute over ownership of religious images and funds within a split Cofradia, resolved by civil courts affirming co-owners' rights and property custody.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-45330)

Facts:

  1. Formation of the Cofradia: In the early 1900s, Inocenta de Veyra founded the "Cofradia de Nuestra Senora de Belen," a voluntary religious group in Tanauan, Leyte. She donated religious images (Holy Infant Jesus and Blessed Virgin de Belen) to the Cofradia in 1919 and 1930, respectively.
  2. Custody of Religious Articles: The Cofradia's custom was for the hermana mayor (head of the group) to hold custody of the religious images, vestments, and funds during her term, with the understanding that these would be passed to the next hermana mayor at the end of the year.
  3. Conflict and Split: In 1972, Exaltacion Canete was elected hermana mayor and took custody of the Cofradia's properties. A conflict arose between the parish priest, Fr. Manuel Gomez, and the Bishop, leading to a split in the Cofradia. One faction supported Fr. Gomez and elected Sofia Cavite as hermana mayor, while the other faction supported the new parish priest, Fr. Parilla, and elected Bienvenida Casas.
  4. Legal Action: Respondents, claiming to be members of the Cofradia and co-owners of its properties, filed a case for "Recovery of Personal Properties with Damages" against Canete and Cavite. They sought possession of the religious images and funds.
  5. Trial Court Decision: The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them the true owners of the properties and ordering the petitioners to pay damages and attorney’s fees. The court also allowed immediate execution of the judgment.
  6. Appeal to the Court of Appeals: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision but removed the award of moral damages.

Issue:

  1. Legal Personality of the Cofradia: Whether the Cofradia, as an unregistered organization, had the legal personality to sue or be sued.
  2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: Whether the civil courts had jurisdiction over the dispute involving allegedly ecclesiastical properties.
  3. Ownership of the Images: Whether the religious images were church properties or properties of the Cofradia.
  4. Validity of Fr. Gomez’s Suspension: Whether the trial court erred in addressing the validity of Fr. Gomez’s suspension and the appointment of the new parish priest.
  5. Award of Damages: Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages and attorney’s fees to the respondents.
  6. Execution Pending Appeal: Whether the trial court erred in allowing immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that:

  1. The respondents had the legal personality to sue as co-owners of the properties.
  2. The civil courts had jurisdiction over the dispute as it involved property rights of a religious association, not ecclesiastical matters.
  3. The religious images were properties of the Cofradia, not the church, as they were donated by Inocenta de Veyra to the Cofradia.
  4. The suspension of Fr. Gomez was irrelevant to the case, as the issue was the ownership and possession of the properties.
  5. The award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses was justified, but the award of moral damages was removed.
  6. The immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal was valid.

Ratio:

  1. Legal Personality: The respondents sued in their own capacity as co-owners of the properties, not on behalf of the Cofradia. Thus, the lack of corporate personality of the Cofradia did not bar the suit.
  2. Jurisdiction: The dispute involved property rights of a voluntary religious association, which is within the jurisdiction of civil courts. The case did not involve ecclesiastical issues.
  3. Ownership: The images were donated to the Cofradia by its founder, Inocenta de Veyra, and were not church properties. The Cofradia’s customs and traditions governed the use and custody of the properties.
  4. Schism and Majority Rule: In cases of schism within a religious group, the majority faction has the right to control the use of the group’s properties. The minority faction, by separating, forfeits any claim to the properties.
  5. Damages: The respondents were entitled to attorney’s fees and litigation expenses as they had to go to court to recover the properties. However, moral damages were unwarranted as the alleged sufferings were not substantiated.
  6. Execution Pending Appeal: The trial court did not err in allowing immediate execution, as the properties were already in the custody of the court, and the respondents had posted the required bond.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.