GARCES v.

ESTENZO
G.R. L-53487 | May 25, 1981
Establishment Clause

Case Summary: This case is about the constitutionality of four resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia,
Ormoc City, regarding the acquisition of the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be used in the celebration of
his annual feast day. A controversy arose after the mass when the parish priest, Father Sergio Marilao Osmeña
refused to return that image to the Barangay Council on the pretext that it was the property of the church because
church funds were used for its acquisition. The questioned resolutions do not directly or indirectly establish any
religion, nor abridge religious liberty, nor appropriate public money or property for the benefit of any sect, priest or
clergyman.

Doctrine/Principle: Establishment Clause prohibits government from inhibiting religious belief with rewards for
religious beliefs and practices.
Petitioner: ANDRES GARCES, Reverend Father SERGIO MARILAO OSMEÑA, NICETAS DAGAR and JESUS
EDULLANTES

Respondent: Hon. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Ormoc
City Branch V, BARANGAY COUNCIL of Valencia, Ormoc City, Barangay Captain MANUEL C. VELOSO,
Councilmen GAUDENCIO LAVEZARES, TOMAS CABATINGAN and MAXIMINO NAVARRO, Barangay Secretary
CONCHITA MARAYA and Barangay Treasurer LUCENA BALTAZAR

Facts: Pursuant to Resolution No. 5 of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City, a wooden image of San
Vicente Ferrer was acquired by the Barangay Council with funds raised by means of solicitations and cash, duly
ratified by the barangay assembly in a plebiscite, reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration of the feast day
of the saint. As per Resolution No. 6, the image was brought to the Catholic parish church during the saint's feast
day which also designated the Hermano Mayor as the custodian of the image. After the fiesta, however, petitioner
parish priest, Father Sergio Marilao Osmeña, refused to return custody of the image to the council on the pretext
that it was the property of the church because church funds were used for its acquisition until after the latter, by
resolution, filed a replevin case against the priest and posted the required bond. Thereafter, the parish priest and his
co-petitioners filed an action for annulment of the council's resolutions relating to the subject image contending that
when they were adopted, the Barangay Council was not duly constituted because the chairman of the Kabataang
Barangay was not allowed to participate; and that they contravened the constitutional provisions on separation of
church and state, freedom of religion and the use of public money to favor any sect or church.

Issue/s: Whether any Freedom of Religion clause in the Constitution violated. NO.

Ruling: 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.