G.R. No. 25254 , November 22, 1926
MONS. ALFREDO VERZOSA, ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC BISHOP OF LIPA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

DOCTRINE:
A court of equity has jurisdiction to compel a trustee to properly perform his trust and, if necessary, to remove him from office. The ecclesiastical superior (the Bishop) of the parish priest, who is the ex-officio Rector of a religious brotherhood, has a sufficient legal interest to maintain an action to enforce the terms of a trust governing the brotherhood’s funds, especially when the trust instrument itself imposes a duty of supervision on such superior.

FACTS

1. On February 20, 1807, a religious brotherhood named “La Archicofradia del Santisimo Sacramento” was organized in Pagsanjan, Laguna, to fund annual fiestas and masses. It received royal approval via a cedula on July 23, 1819.
2. On August 10, 1807, the founders raised a fund of P1,128.86. The administration of this fund was entrusted as a trust to the Directorate (the Executive Board) of the brotherhood, not as the brotherhood’s own property. The trust terms specified lending the money at interest and using the income for specific religious and educational purposes.
3. The royal cedula of 1819 outlined the brotherhood’s governance. The parish priest served as the ex-officio Rector of its Board. The cedula also charged the Archbishop of Manila (the plaintiff Bishop’s predecessor for the area) with the duty to ensure the exact and punctual fulfillment of the brotherhood’s rules.
4. Mons. Alfredo Verzosa, as the Roman Catholic Apostolic Bishop of Lipa (the diocese including Pagsanjan), filed a complaint against the defendants, who constituted the majority of the brotherhood’s Board of Directors. He alleged that they were misusing the brotherhood’s properties and funds contrary to the trust’s purposes and sought an accounting.
5. The defendants demurred to the complaint (both original and amended), arguing that: (1) the plaintiff had no right to sue, (2) the facts did not state a cause of action, and (3) the court lacked jurisdiction.
6. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case after the plaintiff elected not to amend further. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

Was the trial court correct in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked the right to sue, the facts did not constitute a cause of action, and the court lacked jurisdiction?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and overruled the demurrer.

RATIONALE:
1. Jurisdiction and Cause of Action: The Court held that the allegations in the complaintspecifically that the defendants, as trustees, were employing the brotherhood’s funds in contravention of the trust’s purposeswere sufficient to invoke the court’s equitable jurisdiction. Courts of equity undeniably have the power to compel trustees to properly execute their trusts and to account for their administration.
2. Right of the Plaintiff to Sue: The Court found that the plaintiff Bishop had a clear legal interest to bring the suit. As the ecclesiastical superior of the parish priest (who, under the cedula, was the ex-officio Rector of the brotherhood), the Bishop had a direct interest in ensuring the trust was properly administered. This interest was bolstered by the duty imposed by the royal cedula on his predecessor (the Archbishop of Manila) to enforce compliance with the brotherhood’s rules.
3. The demurrer was general, challenging the complaint on all three grounds broadly. The Supreme Court concluded that none of these grounds were well-founded. The complaint adequately stated a cause for equitable relief, the plaintiff was a proper party, and the court had jurisdiction.
4. Consequently, the demurrer should have been overruled, and the defendants should be required to file their answer to the complaint.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The demurrer to the amended complaint is overruled. The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to require the defendants to answer the complaint. No costs are awarded.