G.R. No. 4694
THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF ROSARIO, Province of Batangas, defendant-appellee.
September 18, 1909

FACTS:
The Catholic Archbishop of Manila (plaintiff-appellant), as the corporation sole and administrator of the temporalities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, filed a complaint against the Municipality of Rosario, Province of Batangas (defendant-appellee), seeking to recover possession of a rural estate. The plaintiff alleged that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church owned the land and had been in possession from time immemorial. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant municipality appropriated the land nearly seven years prior, depriving the Church of its fruits, which were intended for the maintenance of the parish curate.

The defendant municipality denied the Church’s ownership, asserting that the land was its own property. It claimed to have granted the usufruct of the land to the parish curate for his maintenance, but this right had lapsed because no curate had been stationed in the municipality for the past seven years.

The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff failed to show title and possession. The lower court noted that laymen had administered the lands for a long period, and eventually returned them to the municipality due to the unsettled conditions of the country, after curates were unable to administer them.

The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the evidence showed the Church, through its representatives (parish priests), had been in possession of the land from time immemorial until the insurrection. Evidence presented indicated that parish priests had been in continuous possession and control of the land for an immemorial period. However, they were forced to leave the municipality due to the insurrection, thereby losing actual possession. During their enforced absence, a tenant, who had been representing the priest, delivered the land to the municipality, evidently believing it would be protected.

ISSUE:
Can the Municipality of Rosario, having obtained possession of the land under the circumstances of the parish priest’s enforced absence due to an insurrection, lawfully continue to keep the Catholic Archbishop of Manila out of possession of the property, when the period of prescription has not yet run?

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, holding that The Catholic Archbishop of Manila is entitled to the possession of the property.

The Court found that the plaintiff, through its representatives (parish priests), had been in possession and control of the land “from time immemorial.” The parish priests were compelled to abandon actual possession due to the insurrection, and the defendant municipality subsequently acquired possession during this enforced absence.

The Supreme Court ruled that no person or entity should be permitted to forcibly take possession of another’s property by intimidation and then retain that possession against the person driven out, provided the latter seeks to enforce their right within the period prescribed by law. The Court clarified that in an action to recover a right (possession) lost by force and intimidation, the question of absolute ownership is not of primary importance. The right to be repossessed of the property, under such conditions, depends not on whether one or the other is the owner, but rather on the prior lawful possession and the unlawful deprivation thereof.

The Court emphasized that every possessor of property is entitled to be respected in his possession and to be protected therein or restored thereto by the means established by law when deprived by force or intimidation. Without deciding the question of absolute ownership, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff, having been in immemorial possession and having been driven out by forces beyond its control, is entitled to the restitution of possession.