G.R. No.

75042, November 29, 1988

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF LUCENA,
represented by Msgr. Jose T. Sanchez, and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH LIII,
LUCENA CITY, respondents.

FACTS:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court

ordering the registration of title to the parcel of land in, together with whatever
improvements existing thereon, in the name of the ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP of
Lucena and its resolution Dated June 19,1986, denying appellant's "Motion for
Reconsideration for lack of merit."

On February 2, 1979, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena, represented

by Msgr. Jose T. Sanchez, filed an application for confirmation of title to four
(4) parcels of land, situated in Barrio Masin, Municipality of Candelaria,
Quezon Province. The fourth parcels is located in Barrio Bucal (Taguan), same
municipality and province. As basis for the application, the applicant claimed
title to the various properties through either purchase or donation dating as far back as 1928.

Lot 1 was acquired by the Roman Catholic Church thru Rev. Father Raymundo Esquenet by
purchase from the spouses Atanacio Yranso and Maria Coronado on October 20, 1928,

portion of Lot 2 also by purchase thru Rev. Father Raymundo Esquenet from the spouses Benito
Maramot and Venancia Descaller on May 22, 1969,

while the remaining portion of Lot 2 and Lot 3 were already owned and possessed by the Roman
Catholic Church even prior to the survey of the said three lots in 1928.

Records of burial of the Roman Catholic Church of Candelaria, Quezon showed that even as early
as November 1918, Lot 3 has already been utilized by the Roman Catholic Church as its cemetery in
Candelaria, Quezon

These three lots presently constituted the Roman Catholic Church cemetery in Candelaria, Quezon.

Lots 1, 2 and 3 are declared for taxation purposes in the name of the Roman Catholic Church
With respect to Lot 4

This parcel of land situated in the barrio of Bucal (Taguan), Municipality of Candelaria, Province of
Quezon was formerly owned and possessed by the spouses Paulo G. Macasaet, and Gabriela V.
de Macasaet. Said spouses, on February 26, 1941, donated this lot to the Roman Catholic Church
represented by Reverend Father Raymundo Esquenet. It was surveyed for the Roman Catholic
Church on Aug. 16, 1940 as church site and the corresponding survey plan approved on Jan. 15,
1941

The legal requirements of publication and posting were duly complied with, as
was the service of copies of notice of initial hearing on the proper government
officials

In behalf of the Director of Lands and the Director of the Bureau of

Forest Development, the Solicitor General filed an Opposition alleging therein
among others, that the applicant did not have an imperfect title or title in fee simple
to the parcel of land being applied for.

At the initial hearing, only the Provincial Fiscal in representation of the Solicitor
General appeared to interpose personal objection to the application.

Hence, an Order of General Default against the whole world was issued by the
Court a quo except for the Director of Lands and the Director of the Bureau of Forest
Development.

For his part, the Fiscal in a Manifestation, said the State will not adduce
evidence in support of its opposition and will submit the instant case for
decision.

Accordingly, the court ordered the registration of the four parcels

together with the improvements thereon "in the name of the ROMAN
CATHOLICBISHOP OF LUCENA, INC., a religious corporation sole duly registered
and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines."

A reconsideration of the aforequoted Decision was sought by Appellant Republic of

the Philippines (SolGen) on the ground that:

 Article XIV, Section 11 of the New Constitution(1973) disqualifies a private

corporation from acquiring alienable lands for the public domain.
  the application was filed after the effectivity on the New Constitution on
January 17, 1973.

The Motion was denied by the lower court for lack of merit.

Still insisting of the alleged unconstitutionality of the registration (raised first time on
appeal) the Republic appealed the case.

The IAC affirmed the decision of the lower court. A motion for reconsideration
was sought by the Republic, but was denied for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

1. WON the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena, as a corporation sole is qualified

to apply for confirmation of its title to the four (4) parcels of land subject of
this case

2. Whether or not a corporation sole should be treated as an ordinary private

corporation, for purpose of the application of Art. XIV, Sec. 11 of the 1973
Constitution.

HELD:

1. Yes. > In the case of Director of Lands v. IAC, the Court stated that a
determination of the character of the lands at the time of institution of the
registration proceedings must be made. If they were then still part of the public
domain, it must be answered in the negative. If, on the other hand, they were
already private lands, the constitutional prohibition against their acquisition by
private corporation or association obviously does not apply.

In the light of the facts obtaining in this case, the lands subject of this petition was
already private property at the time the application for confirmation of title was filed in
1979.
2. No. The court said that It must be emphasized that the Court is not here saying
that a corporation sole should be treated like an ordinary private corporation.

A corporation sole is a special form of corporation usually associated with

the clergy. Conceived and introduced into the common law by sheer
necessity, this legal creation which was referred to as "that unhappy freak of
English Law" was designed to facilitate the exercise of the functions of
ownership carried on by the clerics for and on behalf of the church which was
regarded as the property owner

A corporation sole consists of one person only, and his successors (who will
always be one at a time), in some particular station, who are incorporated by
law in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particulary
that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In
this sense, the King is a sole corporation; so is a bishop, or deans distinct from
their several chapters

Pertinent to this case is the provision of Sec. 113 Batas Pambansa Blg. 68
which reads as follows:

Sec. 113. Acquisition and alienation of property . — Any corporation sole may
purchase and hold real estate and personal property for its church, charitable,
benevolent or educational purposes, and may receive bequests or gifts for
such purposes. Such corporation may mortgage or sell real property held by it
upon obtaining an order for that purpose from the Court of First Instance of
the province where the property is situated; but before the order is issued,
proof must be made to the satisfaction of the Court that notice of the
application for leave to mortgage or sell has been given by publication or
otherwise in such manner and for such time as said court may have directed,
and that it is to the interest of the corporation that leave to mortgage or sell
should be granted. . The application for leave to mortgage or sell must be
made by petition, duly verified by the chief archbishop, bishop, priest, minister,
rabbi or presiding elder acting as corporation sole, and may be opposed by
any member of the religious denomination, sect or church represented by the
corporation sole: Provided, That in cases where the rules, regulations and
discipline of the religious denomination, sect or church religious society or
order concerned represented by such corporation sole regulate the method of
acquiring, holding, selling and mortgaging real estate and personal property,
such rules, regulations and discipline shall control and the intervention of the
courts shall not be necessary.
There is no doubt that a corporation sole by the nature of its
Incorporation is vested with the right to purchase and hold real estate
and personal property. It need not therefore be treated as an ordinary
private corporation because whether or not it is so treated as such, the
Constitutional provision involved will, nevertheless, be not applicable.

There is therefore no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the appellate

court. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit and the appealed decision
and Resolution of the Intermediate Appellate Court is hereby AFFIRMED.