ROMAN CATHOLIC vs. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION

7. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVAO, INC., petitioner, vs. THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO CITY, respondents.

G.R. No. L-8451. December 20, 1957. FELIX, J.:

Topic: Classification of Corporation as to number of members, Corporation Sole

FACTS: Mateo Rodis sold his parcel of land located in Davao City to the herein petitioner, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. on Oct. 4, 1954. Herein petitioner is a corporation sole organized and existing in accordance with Philippine Laws, with Msgr. Clovis Thibault, a Canadian citizen, as actual incumbent.

Upon presentation of the deed of sale to the Register of Deeds of Davao for registration, the latter required herein petitioner to submit an affidavit declaring that 60 percent of the members thereof were Filipino citizens.

Petitioner claimed that a corporation sole has only one incorporator and the owner of the land would be the Catholic population of Davao and not the corporation sole or the congregation.

The Register of Deeds referred the matter to The Land Registration Commissioner for resolution. The Commissioner resolved, after proper hearing, that the herein petitioner corporation was not qualified to acquire private lands in the Philippines in the absence of that at least 60 per centum of the capital, property, or assets of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc., was actually owned or controlled by Filipino citizens, there being no question that the present incumbent of the corporation sole was a Canadian citizen. This is pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 and 5 of Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution.

After the motion to reconsider said resolution was denied, an action for mandamus was instituted with the Supreme Court by said corporation sole, alleging that under the Corporation Law the deed of sale is actually in favor of the Catholic Church which is qualified to acquire private agricultural lands for the establishment and maintenance of places of worship, and prayed that judgment be rendered reversing and setting aside the resolution of the Land Registration Commissioner in question.

ISSUE: Whether or not corporations sole is qualified to acquire lands in the Philippines in view of the provisions of section 1 and 5 of Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution.

HELD: The framers of the Constitution had not in mind the corporations sole nor intended to apply them the provisions of section 1 and 5 of said Article XIII when they passed and approved the same.

The Corporation Law and the Canon Law are explicit in their provisions that a corporation sole or "ordinary" is not the owner of the properties that he may acquire but merely the administrator thereof.

It has been shown that:

(1) the corporation sole, unlike the ordinary corporations which are formed by no less than 5 incorporators, is composed of only one person, usually the head or bishop of the diocese, a unit which is not subject to expansion for the purpose of determining any percentage whatsoever;

(2) (2) the corporation sole is only the administrator and not the owner of the temporalities (Secular properties) located in the territory comprised by said corporation sole;

(3) (3) such temporalities are administered for and on behalf of the faithful residing in the diocese or territory of the corporation sole; and

(4) (4) the latter, as such, has no nationality and the citizenship of the incumbent Ordinary has nothing to do with the operation, management or administration of the corporation sole, nor effects the citizenship of the faithful connected with their respective dioceses or corporation sole, but if any nationality is to be accorded to a corporation sole, it is to be judged from the nationality of the majority of the faithfuls thereof.

The framers of the Constitution intended said provisions (Sections 1 and 5 of Article XIII) as barrier for foreigners or corporations financed by such foreigners to acquire, exploit and develop our natural resources, saving these undeveloped wealth for our people to clear and enrich when they are already prepared and capable of doing so. But that is not the case of corporations sole in the Philippines, for they are mere administrators of the "temporalities" or properties titled in their name and for the benefit of the members of their respective religion composed of an overwhelming majority of Filipinos.

Decision of the Land Registration Commission is reversed.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

GOCHAN vs. YOUNG

ARNOLD HALL vs. PICCIO

PEO-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC AND ELAMPARO