G.R. No. 45330 March 7, 1989
Exaltacion Cañete, Sofia Cavite and Father Manuel V. Gomez, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Generosa V. Mazo, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over the ownership and possession of religious images and funds of the Cofradia de Nuestra Señora de Belen, a voluntary religious association in Tanauan, Leyte. The images of the Holy Infant Jesus and the Blessed Virgin (de Belen) were donated to the Cofradia by its founder, Inocenta de Veyra, in 1919 and 1930, respectively. Customarily, the elected hermana mayor holds these properties in trust, turning them over to the successor at year’s end. In 1972, petitioner Exaltacion Cañete was hermana mayor. A schism later occurred within the Cofradia due to a conflict between parish priests, splitting the members into two factions. Each faction elected a different hermana mayor for 1973.
The respondents, claiming to be Cofradia members and co-owners of its properties, filed an action for recovery of personal properties against petitioners Cañete and Sofia Cavite (the hermana mayor elected by the faction loyal to suspended priest Fr. Gomez). They later included Fr. Gomez as a defendant. The petitioners argued that the civil courts had no jurisdiction, as the images were ecclesiastical properties, and that the unregistered Cofradia lacked legal personality to sue.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the civil court had jurisdiction over the dispute concerning the religious images and funds; (2) whether the members of the unregistered Cofradia had the legal capacity to sue; and (3) which faction was entitled to possession of the association’s properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, upholding the jurisdiction of the civil courts and the respondents’ right to possession. The Court ruled that the dispute involved the property rights of a voluntary religious association, not purely ecclesiastical matters. The properties were donated to the Cofradia itself, not to the church, making them subject to civil law principles governing voluntary associations. On the capacity to sue, the Court held that the members could sue in their own names as co-owners of the properties, as the action was essentially to recover possession on behalf of the association.
Applying the principle from Watson v. Jones, as cited in Fonacier v. CA, the Court ruled that in a schism within a congregational-type organization, the majority faction controls the use and possession of the association’s property. The respondents represented the majority of the Cofradia members. Therefore, as the rightful majority, they were entitled to the possession of the images and funds. The Court found no reversible error in the factual conclusions of the lower courts, emphasizing that it is not a trier of facts. The award of attorney’s fees was sustained, but the moral damages were correctly deleted by the appellate court.