G.R. No. 46745 ; January 13, 1941
ANGEL GONZALEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Angel Gonzalez, filed an action to compel the defendant, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, to appoint him as chaplain of the collative chaplaincy founded by the late Petronila de Guzman or, alternatively, to restore and deliver to him the chaplaincy’s endowment consisting of a property on Rosario Street in Manila, to render an accounting of the rents produced by the property since December 6, 1910, and to pay the resulting balance with legal interest. He appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing his two causes of action, without costs.
In her will dated March 13, 1816, Petronila de Guzman founded a collative chaplaincy. Its endowment, according to the will, was a strong-material house built on a lot on Rosario Street (now identified as Nos. 210 and 214, and in the cadastral survey as Lot No. 4, Block No. 2021). The founder willed that chaplains be appointed from specified persons in a designated order, and that the appointed chaplain would cause 60 annual masses to be celebrated for the souls of the founder, her parents, and siblings. After the founder’s death, her testamentary executor formally offered the chaplaincy, and on May 12, 1820, the Metropolitan Archbishop accepted the foundation and spiritualized the endowment. Successive chaplains were appointed: Esteban de Guzman (1838), Vicente de Guzman (1839), and finally, the plaintiff Angel Gonzalez on June 20, 1901. Gonzalez served as chaplain until December 6, 1910, though he enjoyed the benefits of the chaplaincy until December 31 of that year. From January 1, 1911, the chaplaincy position remained vacant. The Archbishop applied the rents from the property to the purposes designated by the founder: celebrating masses, pious donations, payment of land tax and fire insurance for the property, and other administrative expenses.
On August 25, 1932, Gonzalez requested in a sworn writing to be appointed chaplain. The Archbishop denied the request, citing that Gonzalez lacked the qualifications required by the Codex Juris Canonici (effective 1918), which required that an aspirant to a collative chaplaincy be presented by the designated patron, be a cleric studying in a Seminary for the priesthood (having received the “first tonsure”), and that Gonzalez was incapable because he had been excommunicated ipso facto from the Roman Catholic Church for having sued the Archbishop in civil courts in previous cases instead of appealing to ecclesiastical authorities.
During trial, the plaintiff presented documentary evidence (Exhibits A to F). The defendant presented no evidence but moved for dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove his causes of action. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the case.

ISSUE

1. Whether the endowment of the chaplaincy consists only of the strong-material house or includes the lot on which it is built.
2. Whether the lower court erred in granting the defendant’s oral motion for dismissal.
3. Whether the plaintiff has a right to be appointed chaplain or to recover the endowment and an accounting of its rents.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
1. On the Composition of the Endowment: The Court held that the endowment consists of both the strong-material house and the lot on which it is built. While the founder in one clause mentioned the house’s construction cost excluded the lot’s value, in another clause she used the word “finca” (urban property) to refer to the chaplaincy’s endowment. The consistent conduct of the plaintiff, his relatives, and previous chaplains also demonstrated that the true intention of the founder was to erect the chaplaincy on the entire property, house and lot.
2. On the Motion for Dismissal: The Court held that the oral motion for dismissal was valid and the lower court did not err in granting it. When a civil case is called for hearing and the plaintiff has already presented his evidence (consisting of documents duly identified and admitted), the defendant’s lawyer may orally move for dismissal on the ground of failure to prove the causes of action, even in the absence of the plaintiff or his counsel. The court may then render a final decision stating its findings of fact and law.
3. On the Plaintiff’s Rights: The Court ruled that the plaintiff has no right to be appointed chaplain. The founder’s will established a collative chaplaincy under the patronage of the President of the Colegio de San Juan de Letran. The right of presentation belonged to this patron, not to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove he possessed the canonical qualifications required by the Codex Juris Canonici, which governs such ecclesiastical appointments. His excommunication for suing ecclesiastical superiors in civil courts also rendered him incapable of holding the office.
4. On the Reversion of the Endowment: The Court held that the plaintiff has no right to recover the endowment property. Upon the vacancy of the chaplaincy and the lack of a qualified successor according to the founder’s will, the full dominion over the endowment reverted to the Church, represented by the defendant Archbishop. The Spanish Law of Disentail of October 11, 1820, was held inapplicable to such ecclesiastical foundations in the Philippines under the Royal Decree of October 31, 1863.
5. On the Accounting of Rents: The Court declared the plaintiff has no right to an accounting of the rents since the chaplaincy became vacant. Not being the chaplain, and the endowment having reverted to the Church, the defendant Archbishop, as administrator, was authorized under the Codex Juris Canonici to apply the rents to the celebration of masses, pious works, and ordinary administrative expenses.
The appealed decision was confirmed, with costs against the appellant.