G.R. No. 5013 - Harty vs. Municipality of Victoria

The plaintiff/appellee is Mgr. Jeremiah J. Harty, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, represented by his legal administrator responsible for the Church's properties and rights.
The defendant/appellant is the Municipality of Victoria, Province of Tarlac.
On January 17, 1908, a written complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac by the representative of Mgr. Harty on behalf of the Church.

The complaint alleged that the parish of the town of Victoria had owned a parcel of land known as the plaza of the church for over sixty years.
The plaintiff contended that the parish had continuously possessed the said land until 1901 when the defendant allegedly seized it unlawfully and forcibly.
A detailed description of the metes and bounds of the land was provided for the purposes of establishing the property boundaries.

The defendant, through its attorney, filed a general denial of the allegations, particularly denying facts numbered 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the complaint.
It was argued that the plaza was established upon the creation of the sitio Canarum in 1855 when the barrio was converted into the civil town of Victoria.
The defense asserted that the parish of Tarlac was organized only years later, and thus, could not have had title to the land from the time of the town’s founding.
The defendant claimed that the seizure was justified, and, in turn, sought judgment absolving it from the alleged claims with an award of costs and damages against the plaintiff.

Both parties presented evidence and exhibited documents, though the plaintiff objected to one document and it was made part of the record.
On June 15, 1908, the trial court rendered a judgment favoring the parish of Victoria by holding that it had a superior right to the land, and ordered the defendant to vacate the premises and pay costs.
The defendant moved for a new trial on grounds that the judgment was contrary to the weight of the evidence and filed bills of exceptions.

The motion for a new trial was overruled and the defendant, while objecting, had to comply with an order to furnish a bond of P1,000 to ensure compliance with the judgment.
The case’s pivotal issue centered on determining who is the rightful owner and proprietor of the parcel of land surrounding the parish church, known as the public plaza.

Historical evidence showed that Victoria was originally a barrio known as Canarum, converted into a town in 1855 with laid-out streets and a public plaza where the church and parish house were centrally located.
It is indicated that the space was intended as a public plaza, used freely by the townspeople for public performances, religious processions, and communal activities.
Evidence suggested that although a donation had been made by Vicente Tanedo for the land where the church and parish house were built, there is no proof that such donation covered the entire area constituting the plaza.
Customary practices under the old Laws of the Indies showed that towns reserved land for public plazas and communal uses, not as private property of the Church or its parish.

Whether the parish of Victoria, representing the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, acquired and possessed valid title to the public plaza surrounding the church.
Whether the land in question, acquired over sixty years ago and used by the Church, was properly held as private property or constituted a public plaza by virtue of its historical and communal use.

Whether the land was a private donation to the Church or if it, by custom and law, was a public plaza intended for the use of the townspeople.
The implications of the historical practice of setting aside a part of the town as a public plaza during the establishment of new towns under the old Laws of the Indies.

The interpretation and application of Article 339 of the Civil Code, which enumerates property of public ownership.
The interpretation of Article 344 of the Civil Code concerning property for public use in towns, including plazas, roads, and other public constructions.
Whether these provisions preclude the possibility that a parcel of land, continuously used by the public, might be subject to private ownership claims.