G.R. No. L-45459 March 13, 1937GREGORIO AGLIPAY, petitioner,
vs.JUAN RUIZ, respondent.Vicente Sotto for petitioner.Ofce of the
Solicitor-General Tuason for respondent.LAUREL, J.:The petitioner,
Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent
Church, sees the issuance from this court of a !rit of prohi"ition
to prevent the respondent #irector of Posts from issuing and
selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty$third
International %ucharistic Congress.In May, &'(), the #irector
of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he !ould order the
issues of postage stampscommemorating the cele"ration in the City
of Manila of the Thirty$third international %ucharistic Congress,
organi*ed "y the +oman Catholic Church. The petitioner, in the
ful,llment of !hat he considers to "e a civic duty, re-uested
.icente Sotto, %s-., mem"er of the Philippine /ar, to denounce the
matter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest
of the petitioner0s attorney, the respondent pu"licly announced
having sent to the 1nited States the designs of the postage stamps
for printing as follo!s23In the center is chalice, !ith grape vine
and stals of !heat as "order design. The stamps are "lue, green,
"ro!n, cardinal red, violet and orange, & inch "y &,4'5
inches. The denominations are for 6, ), &), 64, () and 74
centavos.3 The said stamps !ere actually issued and sold though the
greater part thereof, to this day, remains unsold. The furthersale
of the stamps is sought to "e prevented "y the petitioner
herein.The Solicitor$General contends that the !rit of prohi"ition
is not the proper legal remedy in the instant case, although he
admits that the !rit may properly restrain ministerial functions.
8hile, generally, prohi"ition as an e9traordinary legal !rit !ill
not issue to restrain or control the performance of other than
:udicial or -uasi$:udicial functions ;74 C. .In the case at "ar, it
appears that the respondent #irector of Posts issued the postage
stamps in -uestion under the provisions of Act @o. 5476 of the
Philippine Jegislature. This Act is as follo!s2@o. 5476. L A@ ACT
APP+IP+IATI@G TH% S1M IA SIKTM THI1SA@# P%SIS A@# MAFI@G TH% SAM%
A.AIJA/J%I1T IA A@M A1@#S I@ TH% I@S1JA+ T+%AS1+M @IT ITH%+8IS%
APP+IP+IAT%# AI+ TH% CIST IA PJAT%S A@# P+I@TI@G IA PISTAG% STAMPS
8ITH @%8 #%SIG@S, A@# AI+ ITH%+ P1+PIS%S.Be it enacted by the
Senate and House of epresentatives of the Philippines in
!e"islature asse#bled and by the authority of the sa#e2S%CTII@
&. The sum of si9ty thousand pesos is here"y appropriated and
made immediately availa"le out of any funds in the Insular Treasury
not other!ise appropriated, for the costs of plates and printing of
postage stamps !ith ne! designs, and other e9penses incident
thereto.S%C. 6. The #irector of Posts, !ith the approval of the
Secretary of Pu"lic 8ors and Communications, is here"y authori*ed
to dispose of the !hole or any portion of the amount herein
appropriated in the manner indicated and as often as may "e deemed
advantageous to the Government.S%C. (. This amount or any portion
thereof not other!ise e9pended shall not revert to the
Treasury.S%C. 5. This act shall tae eHect on its approval.Approved,
Ae"ruary 6&, &'((.It !ill "e seen that the Act appropriates
the sum of si9ty thousand pesos for the costs of plates and
printing of postage stamps !ith ne! designs and other e9penses
incident thereto, and authori*es the #irector of Posts, !ith the
approval of the Secretary of Pu"lic 8ors and Communications, to
dispose of the amount appropriated in the manner indicated and 3as
often as may "e deemed advantageous to the Government3. The
printing and issuance of the postage stamps in -uestion appears to
have "een approved "y authority of the President of the Philippines
in a letter dated Septem"er&, &'(), made part of the
respondent0s memorandum as %9hi"it A. The respondent alleges that
the Government of thePhilippines !ould suHer losses if the !rit
prayed for is granted. He estimates the revenue to "e derived from
the sale of the postage stamps in -uestion at
P&,)&=,&D.&4 and states that there still remain to
"e sold stamps !orth P&,546,6D'.46.Act @o. 5476 contemplates no
religious purpose in vie!. 8hat it gives the #irector of Posts is
the discretionary po!er to determine !hen the issuance of special
postage stamps !ould "e 3advantageous to the Government.3 If
course, the phrase 3advantageous to the Government3 does not
authori*e the violation of the Constitution. It does not authori*e
the appropriation, use or application of pu"lic money or property
for the use, "ene,t or support of a particular sect or church. In
the present case, ho!ever, the issuance of the postage stamps in
-uestion "y the #irector of Posts and the Secretary of Pu"lic 8ors
and Communications !as not inspired "y any sectarian denomination.
The stamps !ere not issue and sold for the "ene,t of the +oman
Catholic Church. @or !ere money derived from the sale ofthe stamps
given to that church. In the contrary, it appears from the latter
of the #irector of Posts of .8hen the case !as set for hearing,
plaintiH proved, among other things, that it has "een in e9istence
in the Philippinessince &='', and that its parent society is in
@e! Mor, 1nited States of AmericaE that its, contiguous real
properties located at Isaac Peral are e9empt from real estate
ta9esE and that it !as never re-uired to pay any municipal license
fee or ta9 "efore the !ar, nor does the American /i"le Society in
the 1nited States pay any license fee or sales ta9 for the sale of
"i"le therein. PlaintiH further tried to esta"lish that it never
made any pro,t from the sale of its "i"les, !hich are disposed of
for as lo! as one third of the cost, and that in order to maintain
its operating cost it o"tains su"stantial remittances from its @e!
Mor o?ce and voluntary contri"utions and gifts from certain
churches, "oth in the 1nited States and in the Philippines, !hich
are interested in its missionary !or. +egarding plaintiH0s
contention of lac of pro,t in the sale of "i"les, defendant retorts
that the admissions of plaintiH$appellant0s lone !itness !ho
testi,ed on cross$e9amination that "i"les "earing the price of D4
cents each from plaintiH$appellant0s @e! Mor o?ce are sold here "y
plaintiH$appellant at P&.(4 eachE those "earing the price of
O5.74 each are sold here at P&4 eachE those "earing the price
of OD each are sold here at P&7 eachE and those "earing the
price of O&& each are sold here at P66 each, clearly sho!
that plaintiH0s contention that it never maes any pro,t from the
sale of its "i"le, is evidently untena"le.After hearing the Court
rendered :udgment, the last part of !hich is as follo!s2As may "e
seen from the repealed section ;m$6> of the +evised
Administrative Code and the repealing portions;o> of section
&= of +epu"lic Act @o. 54', although they seemingly diHer in
the !ay the legislative intent is e9pressed, yet their meaning is
practically the same for the purpose of ta9ing the merchandise
mentioned in said legal provisions, and that the ta9es to "e levied
"y said ordinances is in the nature of percentage graduated ta9es
;Sec. ( of Irdinance @o. (444, as amended, and Sec. &, Group 6,
of Irdinance @o. 676', as amended "y Irdinance @o. (()5>.I@ .I%8
IA TH% AI+%GII@G CI@SI#%+ATII@S, this Court is of the opinion and
so holds that this case should "e dismissed, as it is here"y
dismissed, for lac of merits, !ith costs against the plaintiH.@ot
satis,ed !ith this verdict plaintiH too up the matter to the Court
of Appeals !hich certi,ed the case to 1s for the reason that the
errors assigned to the lo!er Court involved only -uestions of
la!.Appellant contends that the lo!er Court erred2&. In holding
that Irdinances @os. 676' and (444, as respectively amended, are
not unconstitutionalE6. In holding that su"section m$6 of Section
6555 of the +evised Administrative Code under !hich Irdinances @os.
67'6 and (444 !ere promulgated, !as not repealed "y Section &=
of +epu"lic Act @o. 54'E(. In not holding that an ordinance
providing for ta9es "ased on gross sales or receipts, in order to
"e valid under the ne! Charter of the City of Manila, must ,rst "e
approved "y the President of the PhilippinesE and5. In holding
that, as the sales made "y the plaintiH$appellant have assumed
commercial proportions, it cannotescape from the operation of said
municipal ordinances under the cloa of religious privilege.The
issues. L As may "e seen from the proceeding statement of the case,
the issues involved in the present controversy may "e reduced to
the follo!ing2 ;&> !hether or not the ordinances of the City
of Manila, @os. (444, as amended, and 676', (46= and (()5, are
constitutional and validE and ;6> !hether the provisions of said
ordinances are applica"le or not to the case at "ar.Section &,
su"section ;D> of Article III of the Constitution of the
+epu"lic of the Philippines, provides that2;D> @o la! shall "e
made respecting an esta"lishment of religion, or prohi"iting the
free e9ercise thereof, and the free e9ercise and en:oyment of
religious profession and !orship, !ithout discrimination or
preference, shallforever "e allo!ed. @o religion test shall "e
re-uired for the e9ercise of civil or political rights.Predicated
on this constitutional mandate, plaintiH$appellant contends that
Irdinances @os. 676' and (444, as respectively amended, are
unconstitutional and illegal in so far as its society is concerned,
"ecause they provide for religious censorship and restrain the free
e9ercise and en:oyment of its religious profession, to !it2 the
distri"ution and sale of "i"les and other religious literature to
the people of the Philippines./efore entering into a discussion of
the constitutional aspect of the case, 8e shall ,rst consider the
provisions of the -uestioned ordinances in relation to their
application to the sale of "i"les, etc. "y appellant. The records,
sho! that "y letter of May 6', &'7( ;Anne9 A>, the City
Treasurer re-uired plaintiH to secure a Mayor0s permit in
connection !ith the society0s alleged "usiness of distri"uting and
selling "i"les, etc. and to pay permit dues in the sum of P(7 for
the period covered in this litigation, plus the sum of P(7 for
compromise on account of plaintiH0s failure to secure the permit
re-uired "y Irdinance @o. (444 of the City of Manila, as amended.
This Irdinance is of general application and not particularly
directed against institutions lie the plaintiH, and it does not
contain any provisions !hatever prescri"ing religious censorship
nor restraining the free e9ercise and en:oyment of any religious
profession. Section & of Irdinance @o. (444 reads as
follo!s2S%C. &. P%+MITS @%C%SSA+M. L It shall "e unla!ful for
any person or entity to conduct or engage in any of the "usinesses,
trades, or occupations enu#erated in Section - of this Ordinance or
other businesses. trades. or occupations for +hich a per#it is
re/uired for the proper supervision and enforce#ent of e0istin"
la+s and ordinances "overnin" the sanitation. security. and +elfare
of the public and the health of the e#ployees en"a"ed in the
business speci1ed in said section - hereof. 8ITHI1T AI+ST HA.I@G
I/TAI@%# A P%+MIT TH%+%AI+ A+IM TH% MAMI+ A@# TH% @%C%SSA+M JIC%@S%
A+IM TH% CITM T+%AS1+%+.The "usiness, trade or occupation of the
plaintiH involved in this case is not particularly mentioned in
Section ( of the Irdinance, and the record does not sho! that a
permit is re-uired therefor under e9isting la!s and ordinances for
the proper supervision and enforcement of their provisions
governing the sanitation, security and !elfare of the pu"lic andthe
health of the employees engaged in the "usiness of the plaintiH.
Ho!ever, sections ( of Irdinance (444 contains item @o. D', !hich
reads as follo!s2D'. All other "usinesses, trades or occupations
not mentioned in this Irdinance, e9cept those upon !hich the City
is not empo!ered to license or to ta9 P7.44Therefore, the necessity
of the permit is made to depend upon the po!er of the City to
license or ta9 said "usiness, trade or occupation.As to the license
fees that the Treasurer of the City of Manila re-uired the society
to pay from the 5th -uarter of &'57 to the &st -uarter of
&'7( in the sum of P7,=6&.57, including the sum of P74 as
compromise, Irdinance @o. 676', as amended "y Irdinances @os. 6DD',
6=6& and (46= prescri"es the follo!ing2S%C. &. A%%S. L
Su":ect to the provisions of section 7D= of the +evised Irdinances
of the City of Manila, as amended, there shall "e paid to the City
Treasurer for engaging in any of the "usinesses or occupations
"elo! enumerated, -uarterly, license fees "ased on gross sales or
receipts reali*ed during the preceding -uarter in accordance !ith
the rates herein prescri"ed2 P+I.I#%#, HI8%.%+, That a person
engaged in any "usinesses or occupation for the ,rst time shall pay
the initial license fee "ased on the pro"a"le gross sales or
receipts for the ,rst -uarter "eginning from the date of the
opening of the "usiness as indicated herein for the corresponding
"usiness or occupation.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9G+I1P 6. L +etail dealers
in ne! ;not yet used> merchandise, !hich dealers are not yet
su":ect to the payment of any municipal ta9, such as ;&>
retail dealers in "eneral #erchandiseE ;6> retail dealers
e9clusively engaged in the sale of . . . "oos, including
stationery.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9As may "e seen, the license fees
re-uired to "e paid -uarterly in Section & of said Irdinance
@o. 676', as amended, are not imposed directly upon any religious
institution "ut upon those engaged in any of the "usiness or
occupations therein enumerated, such as retail 3dealers in general
merchandise3 !hich, it is alleged, cover the "usiness or occupation
of selling "i"les, "oos, etc.Chapter )4 of the +evised
Administrative Code !hich includes section 6555, su"section
;m$6> of said legal "ody, as amended "y Act @o. ()7', approved
on Dece#ber 2. 3454, empo!ers the Municipal /oard of the City of
Manila2;M$6> To ta9 and ,9 the license fee on ;a> dealers in
ne! automo"iles or accessories or "oth, and ;"> retail dealers
in ne! ;not yet used> merchandise, !hich dealers are not yet
su":ect to the payment of any municipal ta9.Aor the purpose of
ta9ation, these retail dealers shall "e classi,ed as ;&>
retail dealers in general merchandise, and ;6> retail dealers
e9clusively engaged in the sale of ;a> te9tiles . . . ;e>
"oos, including stationery, paper and o?ce supplies, . . .2
P+I.I#%#, HI8%.%+, That the co#bined total ta0 of any debtor or
#anufacturer. or both. enu#erated under these subsections 6#-37 and
6#-57. +hether dealin" in one or all of the articles #entioned
herein. SH'!! )OT B& 8) &9$&SS O% %8V& H:)D&D
P&SOS P& ')):;.and appellee0s counsel maintains that City
Irdinances @os. 676' and (444, as amended, !ere enacted in virtue
of thepo!er that said Act @o. ())' conferred upon the City of
Manila. Appellant, ho!ever, contends that said ordinances are
longer in force and eHect as the la! under !hich they !ere
promulgated has "een e9pressly repealed "y Section &46 of
+epu"lic Act @o. 54' passed on (une 32. 34 of the ne! seemingly
diHer in the !ay the legislative intent !as e9pressed, yet their
meaning is practically the same for the purpose of ta9ing the
merchandise mentioned in "oth legal provisions and, conse-uently,
Irdinances @os. 676' and (444, as amended, are to "e considered as
still in full force and eHect uninterruptedly up to the
present.Iften the legislature, instead of simply amending the
pre$e9isting statute, !ill repeal the old statute in its entirety
and "y the same enactment re$enact all or certain portions of the
pree9isting la!. If course, the pro"lem created "y this sort of
legislative action involves mainly the eHect of the repeal upon
rights and lia"ilities !hich accrued under the original statute.
Are those rights and lia"ilities destroyed or preservedP The
authorities are divided as to the eHect of simultaneous repeals and
re$enactments. Some adhere to the vie! that the rights and
lia"ilities accrued under the repealed act are destroyed, since the
statutes from !hich they sprang are actually terminated, even
though for only a very short period of time. Others. and they see#
to be in the #a=ority. refuse to accept this vie+ of the situation.
and conse/uently #aintain that all ri"hts an liabilities +hich have
accrued under the ori"inal statute are preserved and #ay be
enforced. since the re-enact#ent neutrali>es the repeal.
therefore. continuin" the la+ in force +ithout interruption.
;Cra!ford$Statutory Construction, Sec. (66>.Appellant0s counsel
states that section &= ;o> of +epu"lic Act @o, 54'
introduces a ne! and !ider concept of ta9ation and is diHerent from
the provisions of Section 6555;m$6> that the former cannot "e
considered as a su"stantial re$enactment of the provisions of the
latter. 8e have -uoted a"ove the provisions of section 6555;m$6>
of the +evised Administrative Code and 8e shall no! copy hereunder
the provisions of Section &=, su"division ;o> of +epu"lic
Act @o. 54', !hich reads as follo!s2;o> To ta9 and ,9 the
license fee on dealers in general merchandise, including importers
and indentors, e9cept those dealers !ho may "e e9pressly su":ect to
the payment of some other municipal ta9 under the provisions of
this section.#ealers in general merchandise shall "e classi,ed as
;a> !holesale dealers and ;b> retail dealers. Aor purposes of
the ta9 on retail dealers, general merchandise shall "e classi,ed
into four main classes2 namely ;&> lu9ury articles, ;6>
semi$lu9ury articles, ;(> essential commodities, and ;5>
miscellaneous articles. A separate license shall "e prescri"ed for
each class "ut !here commodities of diHerent classes are sold in
the same esta"lishment, it shall not "e compulsory for the o!ner to
secure more than one license if he pays the higher or highest rate
of ta9 prescri"ed "y ordinance. 8holesale dealers shall pay the
license ta9 as such, as may "e provided "y ordinance.Aor purposes
of this section, the term 3General merchandise3 shall include
poultry and livestoc, agricultural products, ,sh and other allied
products.The only essential diHerence that 8e ,nd "et!een these t!o
provisions that may have any "earing on the case at "ar,is that,
!hile su"section ;m$6> prescri"es that the com"ined total ta9 of
any dealer or manufacturer, or "oth, enumerated under su"sections
;m$&> and ;m$6>, !hether dealing in one or all of the
articles mentioned therein,shall not be in e0cess of P?@@ per
annu#, the corresponding section &=, su"section ;o> of
+epu"lic Act @o. 54', does not contain any limitation as to the
amount of ta9 or license fee that the retail dealer has to pay per
annum. Hence, and in accordance !ith the !eight of the authorities
a"ove referred to that maintain that 3all rights and lia"ilities
!hich have accrued under the original statute are preserved and may
"e enforced, since the reenactment neutrali*es the repeal,
therefore continuing the la! in force !ithout interruption3, 8e
hold that the -uestioned ordinances of the City of Manila are still
in force and eHect.PlaintiH, ho!ever, argues that the -uestioned
ordinances, to "e valid, must ,rst "e approved "y the President of
the Philippines as per section &=, su"section ;ii> of
+epu"lic Act @o. 54', !hich reads as follo!s2;ii> To ta9,
license and regulate any "usiness, trade or occupation "eing
conducted !ithin the City of Manila,notother+ise enu#erated in the
precedin" subsections. includin" percenta"e ta0es based on "ross
sales or receipts. sub=ect to the approval of the P&S8D&)T.
e0cept a#use#ent ta0es."ut this re-uirement of the President0s
approval !as not contained in section 6555 of the former Charter of
the City of Manila under !hich Irdinance @o. 676' !as promulgated.
Any!ay, as stated "y appellee0s counsel, the "usiness of 3retail
dealers in general merchandise3 is e9pressly enumerated in
su"section ;o>, section &= of +epu"lic Act @o. 54'E hence,
an ordinance prescri"ing a municipal ta9 on said "usiness does not
have to "e approved "y the President to "e eHective, as it is not
among those referred to in said su"section ;ii>. Moreover, the
-uestioned ordinances are still in force, having "een promulgated
"y the Municipal /oard of the City of Manila under the authority
granted to it "y la!.The -uestion that no! remains to "e determined
is !hether said ordinances are inapplica"le, invalid or
unconstitutional if applied to the alleged "usiness of distri"ution
and sale of "i"les to the people of the Philippines "y areligious
corporation lie the American /i"le Society, plaintiH herein.8ith
regard to Irdinance @o. 676', as amended "y Irdinances @os. 6DD',
6=6& and (46=, appellant contends that it is unconstitutional
and illegal "ecause it restrains the free e9ercise and en:oyment of
the religious profession and !orship of appellant.Article III,
section &, clause ;D> of the Constitution of the Philippines
afore-uoted, guarantees the freedom of religious profession and
!orship. 3+eligion has "een spoen of as a profession of faith to an
active po!er that "inds and elevates man to its Creator3 ;Aglipay
vs. +ui*, )5 Phil., 64&>.It has reference to one0s vie!s of
his relations to His Creator and to the o"ligations they impose of
reverence to His "eing and character, and o"edience to His 8ill
;#avis vs. /eason, &(( 1.S., (56>. The constitutional
guaranty of the free e9ercise and en:oyment of religious profession
and !orship carries !ith it the right to disseminate religious
information. Any restraints of such right can only "e :usti,ed lie
other restraints of freedom of e9pression on the grounds that there
is a clear and present danger of any su"stantive evil !hich the
State has the right to prevent3. ;TaQada and Aernando on the
Constitution of the Philippines, .ol. &, 5th ed., p. 6'D>.
In the case at "ar the license fee herein involved is imposed upon
appellant for its distri"ution and sale of "i"les and other
religious literature2In the case of ;urdocA vs. Pennsylvania, it
!as held that an ordinance re-uiring that a license "e o"tained
"efore a person could canvass or solicit orders for goods,
paintings, pictures, !ares or merchandise cannot "e made to apply
to mem"ers of . In the former case the Supreme Court e9pressed the
opinion that the right to en:oy freedom of the press and religion
occupies a preferred position as against the constitutional right
of property o!ners.38hen !e "alance the constitutional rights of
o!ners of property against those of the people to en:oy freedom of
press and religion, as !e must here, !e remain mindful of the fact
that the latter occupy a preferred position. . . . In our vie! the
circumstance that the property rights to the premises !here the
deprivation of property here involved, too place, !ere held "y
others than the pu"lic, is not su?cient to :ustify the State0s
permitting a corporation to govern a community of citi*ens so as to
restrict their fundamental li"erties and the enforcement of such
restraint "y the application of a State statute.3 ;TaQada and
Aernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, .ol. &, 5th
ed., p. (45$(4)>.Section 6D of Common!ealth Act @o. 5)),
other!ise no!n as the @ational Internal +evenue Code, provides2S%C.
6D. %K%MPTII@S A+IM TAK I@ CI+PI+ATII@S. L The follo!ing
organi*ations shall not "e ta9ed under this Title in respect to
income received "y them as such L;e> Corporations or
associations organi*ed and operated e9clusively for reli"ious,
charita"le, . . . or educationalpurposes, . . .2 Provided, ho!ever,
That the income of !hatever ind and character from any of its
properties, real or personal, or from any activity conducted for
pro,t, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall "e
lia"le to the ta9 imposed under this CodeEAppellant0s counsel
claims that the Collector of Internal +evenue has e9empted the
plaintiH from this ta9 and says thatsuch e9emption clearly
indicates that the act of distri"uting and selling "i"les, etc. is
purely religious and does not fall under the a"ove legal
provisions.It may "e true that in the case at "ar the price ased
for the "i"les and other religious pamphlets !as in some instances
a little "it higher than the actual cost of the same "ut this
cannot mean that appellant !as engaged in the "usiness or
occupation of selling said 3merchandise3 for pro,t. Aor this reason
8e "elieve that the provisions of City of Manila Irdinance @o.
676', as amended, cannot "e applied to appellant, for in doing so
it !ould impair its free e9ercise and en:oyment of its religious
profession and !orship as !ell as its rights of dissemination of
religious "eliefs.8ith respect to Irdinance @o. (444, as amended,
!hich re-uires the o"tention the Mayor0s permit "efore any person
can engage in any of the "usinesses, trades or occupations
enumerated therein, 8e do not ,nd that it imposes any charge upon
the en:oyment of a right granted "y the Constitution, nor ta9 the
e9ercise of religious practices. In the case of $ole#an vs. $ity of
Grifn, &=' S.%. 56D, this point !as elucidated as follo!s2An
ordinance "y the City of Gri?n, declaring that the practice of
distri"uting either "y hand or other!ise, circulars, hand"oos,
advertising, or literature of any ind, !hether said articles are
"eing delivered free, or !hether same are "eing sold !ithin the
city limits of the City of Gri?n, !ithout ,rst o"taining !ritten
permission from the city manager of the City of Gri?n, shall "e
deemed a nuisance and punisha"le as an oHense against the City of
Gri?n, does not deprive defendant of his constitutional ri"ht of
the free e0ercise and en=oy#ent of reli"ious profession and
+orship. even thou"h it prohibits hi# fro# introducin" and carryin"
out a sche#e or purpose +hich he sees 1t to clai# as a part of his
reli"ious syste#.It seems clear, therefore, that Irdinance @o. (444
cannot "e considered unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiH
Society. /ut as Irdinance @o. 676' of the City of Manila, as
amended, is not applica"le to plaintiH$appellant and
defendant$appellee is po!erless to license or ta9 the "usiness of
plaintiH Society involved herein for, as stated "efore, it !ould
impair plaintiH0s right to the free e9ercise and en:oyment of its
religious profession and !orship, as !ell as its rights of
dissemination of religious "eliefs, 8e ,nd that Irdinance @o. (444,
as amended is also inapplica"le to said "usiness, trade or
occupation of the plaintiH.8herefore, and on the strength of the
foregoing considerations, 8e here"y reverse the decision appealed
from, sentencing defendant return to plaintiH the sum of
P7,='&.57 unduly collected from it. 8ithout pronouncement as to
costs. It is so ordered.G.R. No. L-5917 Ja*+ar, -.,
1955%AN&IAGO A. 'ONA#IER, petitioner, vs.#OUR& O' APPEAL%
a*/ I%A$ELO 0E LO% REYE%, Jr., respondents.'le=o ;abana" for
petitioner.$laro ;. ecto for the respondents.%erdinand &.
;arcos as a#icus curiae.$AU&I%&A ANGELO, J.)This case !as
instituted in the Court of Airst Instance of Manila "y the Iglesia
Ailipina Independiente, represented "y its Supreme /ishop Gerardo
M. /ayaca, against /ishop Santiago A. Aonacier seeing to re-uire
the latter to render an accounting of his administration of all the
temporal properties he has in his possession "elonging to said
church and torecover the same from him on the ground that he had
ceased to "e the Supreme /ishop of said religious organi*ation.
/ishop Isa"elo de los +eyes, !as not put into eHect immediately and
that the, appellant, agreed to consider the matter closed after
receiving from Aguilar and +emollino a letter of apology !hich the
latter promised to !rite. In other !ords, there !as an
understanding that if no letter of apology !as !ritten "y /ishops
Aguilar and +emollino. %9hi"its ( and 5 !ill "ecome operative.
Appellant also contends that having "een informed "y /ishop #e los
+eyes, !ere neither "ishops nor parish priests, nor presidents of
local committees. This issue !as also resolved "ythe Court of
Appeals in the a?rmative sense. The ,nding of the court on this
matter is as follo!s2.Pursuant to the +eglas Constitucionales the
Asem"lea Magna is composed of all the "ishops, and one parish
priest delegate and one layman delegate from each diocese.
Accordingly, the total num"ers of the mem"ers allo!ed to attend the
Asem"lea Magna is e-ual to the num"er of the dioceses multiplied "y
three. To ,nd out ho! many delegates should "e present in the
session of the Asem"lea Magna on of the meeting of the Asem"lea
Magna, formed "y the faction of the appellant, on Septem"er &,
&'5) only ,fteen dioceses !ere listed. The total num"er of
mem"ers or delegates allo!ed to attend the Asem"lea Magna on . The
ne! chaplain, Angel Gon*ale*, undertoo to pursue such studies as
are indispensa"le to the ecclesiastical profession, for the "etter
performance of his spiritual duties, and, for this purpose, entered
the San Carlos SeminaryE "ut, after a stay therein of ,fteen days,
he left the institution on Septem"er 6&, &'4', !ithout
prior authori*ation of his superiors. In the follo!ing day he
informed the Arch"ishop of Manila of his departure, stating that,
o!ing to his !ea constitution, he could not live on the food
furnished him in the said seminary2 and at the same time re-uesting
that the administrator of the chaplaincy "e ordered to proceed !ith
a general settlement of accountsE that they pay him 3the
accumulated interestE3 and that the -uestion of the chaplaincy "e
su"mitted to the head ecclesiastical authority for such action in
the premises as the same might deem proper ;%9hi"it 6>.Granting
the petition a"ove referred to, the Arch"ishop ordered the
administrators of the 3I"ras Pias de la Sagrada Mitra3 to eHect a
,nal settlement of the accounts of the chaplaincy !ith relation to
the plaintiH and, !hen it had "een made, the said administrators
delivered to Gon*ale*, on @ovem"er &7, &'&4, the sum of
P&6,744 in full satisfaction forthe revenues of the "ene,ce
en:oyed "y him ;%9hi"it (>E and, in accordance !ith the decree
transcri"ed in the document %9hi"it C ;p. 6&, record> the
Arch"ishop of Manila declared the chaplaincy founded "y Petronila
de Gu*man, of !hich the plaintiH !as chaplain, to "e un,lled on and
after #ecem"er ), &'&4.The plaintiH0s claim amounts to a
prayer that the defendants "e compelled to restore and deliver to
him the net revenue o"tained from the property su":ect to the
chaplaincy from the 64th of A@G%J GI@VAJ%V.In spite of this receipt
and of those !hich for si9 years !ere annually a?9ed at the end of
the accounts of the years from &'4& to &'4) in the "oo
%9hi"it /, the plaintiH no! contends the said accounts should "e
revised in order that he may recover the amounts due !hich he did
not collect and !hich he should have collected, as he alleges,
!hile he held the chaplaincy in -uestion.8hen consent is given to a
contract through error, the la! declares that it shall "e void,
!henever the error aHects thesu"stance of the thing that may "e the
su":ect matter of the contract, or those conditions thereof !hich
!ere the principal reason for e9ecutionE "ut !hen the error is
merely one of account, it shall only give rise to its correction.
;Arts. &6)7, &6)), Civ. Code.>The plaintiH !ho !ent on
receiving sums, as "alances of accounts during the years from
&'4& to &'4) inclusive, did not prove, nor even try to
prove, that, in signing the receipts in each of the said accounts,
he did so under compulsion or "y reason of any violence or
intimidation, or that the nature and amount of the sums de"ited
against him in these accounts !ere erroneous and pre:udicial to his
interests. In the contrary, he received the said amounts !ithout
any protest or reservation, giving the impression that in so doing
correct and detailed accounts !ere presented to him to his entire
satisfaction, for !hich reason he approved them.The only case !here
the la! allo!s the revision of approved accounts, !ithout the
reasons aforementioned for their correction appearing, is !here
there has "een simply as error of account, and no such error has
"een proven "y the plaintiH. Therefore, it is neither la!ful nor
:ust that, !ithout proof of the e9istence of any of the reasons
speci,ed "y la!, he may demand a rendition of accounts already
approved "y him, for, as the supreme court of Spain held in its
decision of Ae"ruary D, &='72The consent of the parties
interested to a settlement of accounts, !hen there is perfect
agreement !ith respect to the nature and amount of the items
de"ited, necessarily implies their assent to the resultant "alance
and a simple error in the sum cannot vitiate the contract.The
plaintiH did not prove, nor try to prove, that he did not give his
assent to the de"it items and the amounts thereof, in the accounts
of the "oo %9hi"it /, !hen these accounts !ere presented to him. It
necessarily follo!s then, that, !hen he signed the receipt
attesting his collection of the respective "alances in the said
accounts, he gave his approval to them as rendered and, in the
a"sence of proof that he acted under an erroneous "elief in giving
his consent, it must "e understood that the accounts rendered for
the years &'4& to &'4), inclusive, !ere approved, and
it !ould "e improper to revise and correct them.@either may a
revision "e demanded of the accounts for the years &'4D to
&'&4, inclusive, during !hich period no entries !ere made
in the account$"oo, %9hi"it /, of the said chaplaincy, inasmuch as
the plaintiH approved the settlement, presented "y the
administrator, up to #ecem"er (&, &'&4, sho!ing a
"alance in plaintiH0s favor of P&6,744!hich he accepted 3as the
li-uidated "alance and in full satisfaction of all revenues that
!ere due or might "e due himfrom the chaplaincy of #oQa Petronila
de Gu*man, from the &=th of Icto"er, &'4&, to the
(&st of #ecem"er3 of the year &'&4, as set forth in
%9hi"it C, and did not then record his disagreement or protest !ith
reference to the accountsrendered disclosing the amount of the
"alance he admits having received.A settlement presupposes a
"alancing of accounts after due e9amination of the items !hich
compose them and, although the truth is the record does not
disclose that any document !as dra!n up containing a statement of
such accounts from the &st of .+esolutions @os. 7 and ) !ere
su"mitted to a ple"iscite and !ere duly rati,ed "y the "arangay
general assem"ly on March 6), &'D). T!o hundred seventy$t!o
voters rati,ed the t!o resolutions ;%9h. 6 and 7>.Aunds !ere
raised "y means of solicitations4 and cash donations of the
"arangay residents and those of the neigh"oring places of .alencia.
8ith those funds, the !aiting shed !as constructed and the !ooden
image of San .icente Aerrer !as ac-uired in Ce"u City "y the
"arangay council for four hundred pesos ;%9h. A$l, ( and 5>.In
April 7, &'D), the image !as temporarily placed in the altar of
the Catholic church of /arangay .alencia so that thedevotees could
!orship the saint during the mass for the ,esta.A controversy arose
after the mass !hen the parish priest, Aather Sergio Marilao IsmeQa
refused to return that image to the "arangay council on the prete9t
that it !as the property of the church "ecause church funds !ere
used for its ac-uisition.Several days after the ,esta or on April
&&, &'D), on the occasion of his sermon during a mass,
Aather IsmeQa allegedly uttered defamatory remars against the
"arangay captain, Manuel C. .eloso, apparently in connection !ith
the disputed image. That incident provoed .eloso to ,le against
Aather IsmeQa in the city court of Irmoc City a charge for grave
oral defamation.Aather IsmeQa retaliated "y ,ling administrative
complaints against .eloso !ith the city mayor0s o?ce and the
#epartment of Jocal Government and Community #evelopment on the
grounds of immorality, grave a"use of authority, acts un"ecoming a
pu"lic o?cial and ignorance of the la!.Mean!hile, the image of San
.icente Aerrer remained in the Catholic church of .alencia. /ecause
Aather IsmeQa did not accede to the re-uest of Ca"atingan to have
custody of the image and 3maliciously ignored3 the council0s
+esolution @o. ), the council enacted on May &6, &'D)
+esolution @o. &4, authori*ing the hiring of a la!yer to ,le a
replevin case against Aather IsmeQa for the recovery of the image
;%9h. C or =>. In .The replevin case !as ,led in the city court
of Irmoc City against Aather IsmeQa and /ishop Cipriano 1rgel ;%9h.
A>. After the "arangay council had posted a cash "ond of eight
hundred pesos, Aather IsmeQa turned over the image to the council
;p. &4, +ollo>. ln his ans!er to the complaint for replevin,
he assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions ;%9h.
A$&>.Jater, he and three other persons, Andres Garces, a
mem"er of the Aglipayan Church, and t!o Catholic laymen,
