Case Digest (G.R. No. L-53487)
Facts:
Andres Garces, Reverend Father Sergio Marilao Osmena, Nicetas Dagar and Jesus Edullantes v. Hon. Numeriano G. Estenzo et al., G.R. No. 53487, May 25, 1981, Supreme Court En Banc, Aquino, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners challenged four resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City that governed the revival of the barrio fiesta for San Vicente Ferrer, the designation of committees, the acquisition of a wooden image of the patron saint, and the appointment of a lay custodian for the image. On March 23, 1976 the barangay council adopted Resolution No. 5 to revive the fiesta and to undertake two projects: acquire the image and construct a waiting shed, to be funded by tickets and donations. On March 26, 1976 the council adopted Resolution No. 6 designating Councilman Tomas Cabatingan (hermano mayor) as caretaker of the image, to keep it at his residence until his successor's election, and to make the image available to the Catholic parish during the feast.
The two resolutions were submitted to and ratified by the barangay general assembly on March 26, 1976; 272 voters approved them. Funds raised by solicitations and donations paid for the waiting shed and for the wooden image purchased in Cebu for P400. On April 5, 1976 the image was temporarily placed on the church altar for the fiesta mass. Thereafter, parish priest Father Sergio M. Osmena refused to return the image, asserting it was church property because church members had contributed; the image remained in the church.
A verbal spar over the image led to a grave oral defamation charge by Barangay Captain Manuel C. Veloso against Father Osmena; Osmena filed administrative complaints against Veloso. Because Father Osmena did not comply with Resolution No. 6, the council passed Resolution No. 10 (May 12, 1976) authorizing a lawyer to file a replevin action and Resolution No. 12 (June 14, 1976) appointing Veloso as its representative. The barangay filed replevin in the City Court of Ormoc against Father Osmena and Bishop Cipriano Urgel; after a bond was posted, Father Osmena turned the image over to the council but in his answer he attacked the constitutionality of the barangay resolutions.
Father Osmena together with Garces, Dagar and Edullantes thereafter filed in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 1680-0) a complaint to annul the challenged resolutions. The CFI dismissed their petition, upholding the resolutions. The petitioners appealed under Republic Act No. 5440 to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered q...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the absence of the barangay youth chairman (ex‑officio member) at the March 23 and 26, 1976 sessions render Resolutions Nos. 5 and 6 void?
- Did Resolutions Nos. 5 and 6 (and the related actions) violate the constitutional prohibitions on establishment of religion and on the use of public funds or property to support a religion?
- Did the barangay council have ownership of the wooden image and the authority to determine its custody and to recover possession (including by enacting Res...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)