ANDRES GARCES, Reverend Father SERGIO MARILAO OSMEA, NICETAS DAGAR and

JESUS EDULLANTES, petitioners,

vs.
Hon. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO
Facts:
Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc Citywere passed:a.
Resolution No. 5- Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration every fifth of April.
This provided for the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction
of a waiting shed. Funds for the said projects will be obtained through the selling of
tickets and cash donations. Resolution No. 6- The chairman or hermano mayor of the
fiesta would be the caretaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and that the image
would remain in his residence for one year and until the election of his successor. The
image would be made available to the Catholic Church during the celebration of the
saints feast day.These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters, and said projects
were implemented. The image was temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church
of the barangay. However, after a mass, Father Sergio Marilao Osmea refused to return
the image to the barangay council, as it was the churchs property since church funds
were used in its acquisition. Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring
a lawyer for the replevin case against the priest for the recovery of the image. Resolution
No. 12 appointed barangay Captain Veloso, as a representative to the case. The priest, in
his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. The priest with Andres
Garces, a member of the Aglipayan Church, contends that Sec. 8 Article IV1 and Sec
18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated.
Issue:
Whether any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violated
Held:
No. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over the custody of the image. The
image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta and neither
for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or beliefs of
the barrio residents. Any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint
(such as the acquisition) is not illegal. Practically, the image was placed in a laymans
custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the
image in connection with prayers and novena. It was the councils funds that were used
to buy the image, therefore it is their property. Right of the determination of custody is
their right, and even if they decided to give it to the Church, there is no violation of the
Constitution, since private funds were used. Not every government activity which
involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of
the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedom of
worship and banning the use of public money or property.