GARCES VS. ESTENZO [104 SCRA 510; G.R.

L-53487; 25 MAY 1981]

Facts: Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City were 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.
b. 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 saint’s 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 Osmeña refused to return
the image to the barangay council, as it was the church’s 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 Brgy.
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 or Not 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 not 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
layman’s 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 council’s 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.