Leonardo Santos v. Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church
| Decision Date | 23 February 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 73,73 |
| Citation | 29 S.Ct. 338,212 U.S. 463,53 L.Ed. 599 |
| Parties | LEONARDO SANTOS, Matias Adriano, Angel Luna, and Teodoro Santos, Plffs. in Err., v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH and Lorenzo Gregorio, Parish Priest of Said Church, in the Municipality of Tambobong, Province of Rizal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Charles F. Consaul, George F. Pollock, and Frank B. Ingersoll for plaintiffs in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
This is an action brought by the defendants in error to recover a chapel. They obtained a judgment which was affirmed by the supreme court of the Philippine Islands, and then was brought here by writ of error. The errors assigned are that the court denied the existence of a cofradia alleged by the answer to own the property, and held that it was not a 'judicial entity,' and that it was not entitled to possession; that the court held that the Roman Catholic Church was entitled to the possession of the property; that it denied a motion for a new trial; and that it ordered the defendants to deliver possession to the plaintiffs. The facts found, so far as material, are that the chapel always was devoted to the ceremonies and worship of the Roman Catholic Church until December, 1902, when it was taken possession of by members of an Aglipayan community, who have kept possession and worshipped there up to the present time; that it was built, and, as we gather, the lot on which it stands acquired, from gifts of the residents of the barrio of Concepcion, where the chapel is, these gifts having been intended to be for the uses of the Roman Catholic Church and for the exclusive benefit of those who professed the Roman Catholic religion; and that many of the benefactors still wish the chapel to be devoted to the former worship, and by the present occupation are deprived of its use.
The finding that the existence of the cofradia is not proved is not open to re-examination here, as only questions of law are brought up. So as to the affirmance of the refusal to grant a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The evidence may have been important, but the reasons for the refusal do not appear, and must be presumed to have been sufficient, as they very well may have been. The only questions open are those raised by the decision that the Roman Catholic Church is entitled to the possession of the property, and they now have been answered by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaChapelle v. Union Pacific Coal Co.
... ... Co., 172 Ala. 313, 54 So. 1002; ... Santos v. Holy Roman Catholic etc. Church, 212 U.S ... ...
-
Mgr Jeremiah Harty v. Municipality of Victoria
...ordinary action at law, and can be brought to this court only by writ of error, as was done in Santos v. Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, 212 U. S. 463, 53 L. ed. 599, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338, and Ker & Co. v. Couden, 223 U. S. 268, 56 L. ed. 432, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. There is a motion to d......
-
Tayabas Land Co v. Manila Co
...We say this only in passing. The case is here on writ of error, and we cannot examine questions of fact. Santos v. Roman Catholic Church, 212 U.S. 463, 29 Sup. Ct. 338, 53 L. Ed. 599; Ling Su Fan v. United States, 218 U.S. 302, 308, 31 Sup. Ct. 21, 54 L. Ed. 1049, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1176; ......