G.R. No.

L-5013             March 11, 1909

JEREMIAH J. HARTY, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIA, Province of Tarlac, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

A parcel of land which was known as the plaza of the church of Victoria is the subject of a written
complaint filed by Mgr. Jeremiah J. Harty. The plaintiff claims that the land which the church acquired
more than sixty years ago must be possessed by the same and that defendant must vacate the premises
and pay the costs of the action.

The defendant answered the complaint and stated that the plaza described in the complaint was
founded when the sitio denominated Canarum, a barrio of the town of Tarlac, was converted into a civil
town in 1855; that the parish of Tarlac was established many years after the civil town, and that
therefore, it neither had then, nor has now any title to the  plaza claimed.

On June 15, 1908 the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the parish of Victoria of the Roman
Catholic Apostolic Church stating that the parish has a better right to possess the land.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the parish of Victoria has a better right to possess the land.

HELD:

No, the parish of Victoria does not have a better right to possess the land since at the very beginning,
the parcel of land that surrounds the church and the parish house was known as a public plaza and that
all the residents of the town were able to use it. As stated in Article 339 of the Civil Code, “Property of
public ownership is:

1. That destined to the public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports, and bridges
constructed by the State, and banks, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character.”

The town plaza, being of public use, constitutes the character of being a property of public ownership.

It is also assumed that the previous owner of the land Vicente Tanedo donated the land for religious
purposes and upon donation, waived his right thereto for the benefit of the townspeople.

Thus, the decision of the court was reversed, declaring the defendant Municipality of Victoria having the
better right to possess the land.