Hacbang v Director of Lands

Sofronio Hacbang, Bishop of the Diocese of Samar and Leyte, applicant-appelant, vs. the
director of lands and the municipality of Laoang, oppositors appellee

FACTS:

Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Samar and Leyte applied for the registration of
two parcels of land in Laoang, Samar (Lots 1 and 2). The director of lands opposed the
registration alleging that Lots 1 & 2 are public plazas (named San Miguel and Maria).
The court ordered the registration of Lot 1 with the improvements thereon, except the
eastern part of Lot 1 and whole of Lot 2 declaring said portion public plazas

ISSUE:
Whether Roman Catholic Bishop can have the property registered under their name

RATIO:
Yes “The judgment is reversed and it is ordered that Lot 1 and 2 with the improvements
thereon, except the monument of Rizal, be registered in the name of the applicant and
appellant”

The court traced the history of the Roman Catholic’s possession of the property and
found that based on the evidence Lot 1 and 2 are owned by Roman Catholic Apostolic
Church. For more than half a century, possessed the land together with the church, belfry
and convent which existed first on the Lot 1 and later on in Lot 2 after the fire destroyed
the church. The fact that the catholic cemetery was located on Lot No. 2 and that the
stone posts and pillars were later erected thereon, thereby converting it into a place for
celebration of the way of the cross, conclusively proves that the property belonged to the
church and that the latter’s possession has constantly been under claim of ownership.

The fact that some houses were built on Lot 2 doesn’t mean that church had lost its
ownership thereof or that it’s possession was interrupted inasmuch as acts of possession
of this kind exercised through tolerance or permission do not serve to acquire possessory
title or title of ownership. The court also considered that the government could have built
the municipal hall and school in the said lots but didn’t because it is in conflict with the
possession publicly and continuously exercised by the church and with the circumstance
that it was dedicated to the Church. Moreover, the bringing of action is not just mere
protest and although it lost the suit shows that it exercised its right to prevent an attempt
against its property.