130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of

Churches

ANNOTATION

CIVIL COURTS MAY NOT INTERVENE IN

ECCLESIASTICAL ISSUES OF CHURCHES
By *
JORGE R. COQUIA

_________________

§ 1. Introduction, p. 130
§ 2. Role of Civil Authorities on Religious Matters,
p. 132
§ 3. Due Respect Given to Decisions of Church
Tribunals as Proper Authorities, p. 132
§ 4. When Civil Courts May Intervene, p. 135
§ 5. The Conflict on AglipayÊs Successor, p. 136
§ 6. The Split in the Philippine Independent
Church, p. 138
§ 7. Procedural Rules of the Due Process Must be
Followed, p. 140

_________________

§ 1. Introduction

The Philippine Independent Church (Aglipayan Church)

since its early beginnings has suffered intramural
controversies even among its highest hierarchy prompting
some of its followers to elevate the disputes to the civil
courts. Pursuant to the principle of the separation of the
church and the state, courts have consistently refrained
from assuming jurisdiction

_______________

* Member, Board of Editorial Consultants, Supreme Court Reports

Annotated (SCRA).

131

VOL. 453, MARCH 10, 2005 131

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

on controversies that involve ecclesiastic and religious

matters. The decision of the Supreme Court in
DOMINADOR L. TARUC, WILBERTO DACERA,
NICANOR GALANIDA, RENERIO CANTA, JERRY
CANTA, CORDENCIO CONSIGNA, SUSANO ALCALA,
LEONARDO DIZON, SALVADOR GELSANO and BENITO
LAUGO, petitioners, vs. BISHOP PORFIRIO B. DE LA
CRUZ, REV. FR. RUSTOM FLORANO and DELFIN
BORDAS, respondents, G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005 is
another controversy within the lower ranks of the
Philippine Independent Church that reached the Supreme
Court.
The dispute started with the demand of the petitioners
led by Dominador L. Taruc to transfer Fr. Florano, Parish
Priest of Socorro, Surigao del Sur to another parish because
his family belonged to a rival political party of the said
petitioners. Bishop De la Cruz, head of diocese, found the
reason for the transfer flimsy and denied the petitionersÊ
demand. The rift worsened when petitioners planned to
organize an open mass to be celebrated by a certain Father
Ambong of another diocese during the fiesta of Socorro. In
spite of the pleas of Bishop De la Cruz not to proceed with
their plans, the petitioners and their followers held open
mass, prompting Bishop De la Cruz to excommunicate the
petitioners and expelled them from the church.
The petitioners appealed to the Obispo Maximo of the
Philippine Independent Church, alleging that their
expulsion and excommunication was illegal and without
due process. The Obispo Maximo, without ruling on the
issue of excommunication advised Fr. Florano to
voluntarily leave the parish in order to avoid further
enmity in the town and saying that he does not intervene
in local intramural conflicts.
Bishop De la Cruz was later transferred to another
diocese and was replaced by Bishop Rhee Timbang who
sustained the decision of Bishop De la Cruz finding no
merit in the transfer of Fr. Florano. The petitioner,
nevertheless, continued with their own religious rituals
with Fr. Ambong.

132

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

Petitioners eventually filed a civil case for preliminary

injunction with damages against Bishop De la Cruz and
others before the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City
contending that their excommunication and expulsion was
illegal and without due process. A motion to dismiss the
case for lack of jurisdiction was denied by the Regional
Trial Court, hence, the case was appealed to the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of the
case without prejudice to filing the case with the proper
forum, meaning an ecclesiastical tribunal, as the matter in
issue is outside the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Petitioners forthwith filed this appeal under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court.

§ 2. Role of Civil Authorities on Religious Matters

The proper relationship between civil authority and

churches is vital for the preservation of the principle of
separation of the church and state. Freedom of Religion
and worship cannot be attained if civil authorities are
allowed to invade the domain of the religious society. This
concerns the biblical injunction of Matthew 11, 21,
therefore, „the things that are Caesar are CaesarÊs and to
God the things that are GodÊs.‰ Churches are treated as
voluntary associations whose members are united by
covenant for the worship of God.

§ 3. Due Respect Given to Decisions of Church

Tribunals as Proper Authorities
Generally, matters of discipline, excision, faith, practice of
religion are aspects over which the church is supreme and
which the civil authorities should not look into, they being
outside the realm of secular inquiry. This principle is also
based on the theory that ecclesiastical authorities are
better judges and more competent to pass on religious
matters than civil courts.

133

VOL. 453, MARCH 10, 2005 133

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

The right to organize voluntary religious associations to aid

in the expressions and dissemination of religious doctrines
and to create tribunals for the settlement of controverted
questions of faith within the organization and for the
ecclesiastical government of certain individuals and officers
is unquestioned. The rule is that whatever a question of
discipline or faith or of ecclesiastical rule, custom and law,
has been decided by the highest of these Church
judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the civil
tribunals must accept such application as governing the
case before them. Mr. Justice Miller in Watson vs. Jones (13
Wall. 1878) ably gave a reason for this rule of the
independence of church jurisdiction over its members
within its own sphere in the following words.
„The law knows no heresy and is committed to the
support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect . . . If the
civil courts are to inquire into all these matters, the whole
subject of doctrinal theology, the usages and customs, the
written laws and fundamental organization of every
religious denomination may, and must, be examined into
with minuteness and care, for they would become, in
almost every case, the criteria by which validity of the
ecclesiastical decree would be determined in the civil
court.‰
Church tribunals are better judges of the ecclesiastical
law than civil courts can ever be. When it appears that the
whole controversy has once been submitted by the parties
to the ecclesiastical tribunals which the church itself has
organized for that purpose, the civil courts are justified in
refusing to proceed any further. The decision of the Church
judicature is treated as a bar to the action, and as good
defense in law. To permit an appeal from Church courts to
the civil courts would „allow an appeal from 1
the more
learned tribunal in the law which is less so.‰ This rule was
followed in a number of cases the latest of which should
decide the case, one of which is the

_______________

1 Watson vs. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1978).

134

134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

decision in Serbian Orthodox vs. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 772

(1976) which holds the courts will defer to the decision
made by a hierarchical church even there is a contention
that said churchÊs own law was not applied. The
hierarchical church has final decision-making power no
matter what the opinion of the community or any civil
authority may be [Galich vs. The Catholic Bishop of
Chicago, 75 Ill. App. 3d 538, 394 N.E. 2d. 572 (1970)]
certiorari denied, 445 U.S. 916 (1980). Disagreeing with
said opinion, a writer said that the ruling of the court
rather impede the progress of religious liberty than
promotes it. It has been argued that it opens the door to
religious tyranny. This objection, of course, is mainly based
on the supposition that church relationship is not a matter
of status but one of contract. It therefore rejects the
significance of the church as a supernatural society of all
the faithful united in one body for the true supernatural
worship of God. To attain its supernatural end, the church
cannot, if is true, ignore State laws insofar as they do not
exceed the competence of the state. However, the church is
not a mere private association for the furtherance of
private religious or ethical ends of individuals, under the
sovereign domination of the state. The „higher plane‰
theory itself seems to take perfection of the church as by no
means an arbitrary and liberal concession of the State, but
is a fact that proceeds from the positive will of the Founder
who endowed His Apostles with the authority to govern the
Church freely and independently of all earthly power. Since
it is a juridical society, complete within its own sphere, and
entitled to all the means necessary to attain its end, it has
the right to impose juridical obligations 2upon its members,
who are strictly bound by justice to obey.
Under the authority of the Church to create tribunals to
try its members is included the power to administer, upon
conviction, the proper punishment by way of rebuke,
censure and

_______________

2 Olalia, A Comparative Study of the Christian Constitution of States.

135

VOL. 453, MARCH 10, 2005 135

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

expulsion or excommunication. It is the right and duty of

members of the church to report the ecclesiastical
authorities any misconduct of priests, pastors or members
who is expelled from membership by the Church
authorities, or a priest or minister who is by the latter
deprived of his sacred office, is without remedy is civil
courts. For civil court will not inquire into the correctness
of the decisions of ecclesiastical tribunals. In matters of
faith and morals, and of individual conduct affecting their
relations as members thereof, they are subject to tribunals
established by those bodies to pass upon such questions,
and, if aggrieved by such judicatories, they must seek their
redress within
3
the organization, as provided by its
regulations. Decisions by such tribunals determining
rights and obligations among its members and on issues
within their jurisdictions are likewise recognized as settled
questions 4 duly adjudicated by another competent
authority.

§ 4. When Civil Courts May Intervene

The doctrine of non-interference in ecclesiastical matters

by civil courts is, however, subject to exceptions. Courts
have intervened especially in matters when (1) the
ecclesiastical body has not followed rules and methods
consonant with the
_______________

3 U.S. vs. Cañete, 38 Phil. 253 (1918).

4 Verzosa vs. Fernandez, 55 Phil. 307 (1930); Gonzales vs. Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1 (1929). This principle has been
reiterated in the case of Trinidad vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Manila, 63 Phil., 881 (1934) which will be discussed under the subject
Chaplaincy, infra. Watson vs. Garvin, 54 Mo. 353 (1873); Boyne,
„Religious Societies·Reinstatement of an Expelled Member: XIII Cornell
Law Q. 464 (1928). See however, Note „Determination of Rights in
Church Property‰, VIII Columbia Law Rev. 492 (1908), which asserted
that in reality, the strict adherence to the doctrine expressed by Justice
Miller in the Watson case meant that the property interests of a member
of a religious society were completely under the domination of the
appropriate Church authority and could not be appealed to a secular
authority.

136

136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

regulations of the society, (2) in conflicts where civil or

property rights are involved, and (3) when actions of
religious societies are contrary to the civil laws. The theory
is that at least a reasonable and fair procedure should have
been followed as for example in a case 5
where a question of
membership was duly represented. The Texas Court of
Civil Appeals once held that the fundamental rule of
evidence should be substantially sufficient to warrant the
action of a religious society, and that there was a 6regular,
legal meeting authorized in the religious society. Courts
have also inquired to determine whether a Church
tribunal, which was formed to expel a member, was
organized in conformity with the Church constitution, and
whether a member of such tribunal is disqualified under7
the rules of the Church from sitting as a judge in the case.
According to a Nebraska court, questions of this type are
not sectarian and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Church. Thus, a court dismissed a suit to enjoin an
excommunicated clergyman from entering a religious
building to perform religious duties, and from hindering his
successor in the performance of his duty, it appearing that
the ecclesiastical order of excision was made by a religious
officer who was himself8
disqualified under the rules of the
church to act as judge.

§ 5. The Conflict on AglipayÊs Successor

The protracted conflicts between rival blocs within the

Philippine Independent Church (Iglesia Independiente
Filipina) claiming legitimate succession as Obispo Maximo
after the death of its founder Gregorio Aglipay gave
occasion for the Philippine Supreme Court to rule on cases
when courts may intervene in Church conflicts. The Court
held that

_______________

5 First Baptist Church vs. Ward, 290 S.W. 828 (1927).

6 Stogner vs. Laird, 145 S.W. 644 (1912).
7 Torpey, op. cit., p. 131.
8 Bonacum vs. Murphy, 71 Neb. 463, 104 N.W. 180 (1904).

137

VOL. 453, MARCH 10, 2005 137

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

although civil courts may not intervene where the case

concerned the internal organization of the Church or its
tenets and beliefs they may, however, interfere when the
rules and regulations of the church are not followed.
It appears that upon the death of Bishop Gregorio
Aglipay, the Supreme Head, Mons. Santiago Fonacier, was
elected Obispo Maximo, on October 14, 1940, in accordance
with the Constitution of the Church. The latterÊs successor
should have been elected by the Assemblea Magna of the
Church on September 1, 1943, but due to the circumstances
of the Pacific War, it was agreed on December 16, 1941 by
the bishops then stationed in Manila and neighboring
provinces that Fonacier should hold over as Obispo
Maximo, but owing to a lack of quorum, the bishops
present agreed that Fonacier should continue until
September 1, 1946.
On September 2, 1945, the Consejo Supremo de Obispos
of the Philippine Independent Church convened and
approved the designation of bishops to their respective
bishoprics. This started a conflict which culminated in the
division of the Church into two groups. During that
meeting, Bishop Alejandro Remollino was assigned as
bishop of the diocese of Cavite. Upon learning of this
designation, Bishop Fonacier wrote Remollino enjoining
him from assuming duties of his office and taking
possession of the diocese of Cavite until he (Fonacier) has
approved the appointment as provided for in the
constitution of the Church. Remollino, however, desisted
and added that he was ready to take the matter to the
courts of justice. Because of this attitude, Fonacier ordered
the expulsion of Remollino and also of Bishop Manuel
Aguilar whom Fonacier suspected to be the instigator of
certain acts of insubordination and defamation against
him.
On December 1, 1945, Bishop Manuel Aguilar in turn
filed charges against Fonacier as Supreme Bishop, which
were submitted for consideration at the meeting of the
Council of Bishops, held on January 21, 1946. This body
then decreed the forced resignation of Fonacier which was
approved by the

138

138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

body and later elected Bishop Gerardo Bayaca as Supreme

Bishop to succeed Fonacier. Fonacier, however, when
notified of his removal refused to turn over the funds and
documents and properties of the Church to his successor,
hence, a suit was instituted before the Court of First
Instance of Manila.

§ 6. The Split in the Philippine Independent Church

In September 1947, the Asemblea Magna convened and

elected Mons. Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr. as Obispo Maximo,
while on the same date, at the Manila Hotel, Fonacier and
some of his followers elected Juan Jamias, Jr. and as of
May 22, 1947, had 19 bishops and 252 priests while the
faction under Juan Jamias had 10 bishops and 40 priests.
 It appears that on June 23, 1947, the Secretary of Public
Instruction promulgated an order to the effect that for
administrative purposes, Bishop Isabelo De los Reyes was
recognized as the sole head of the I.F.I. (Iglesia Filipina
Independiente) and the application of priests of said Church
for permits to solemnize marriages would be granted if it
were shown thereon that they recognized Isaeblo De los
Reyes, Jr., as the Obispo Maximo, the successor of Fonacier
to file a petition to compel the Director of the Bureau of
National Library and the Secretary of Education to issue to
Bishops Leopoldo Ruiz and Juan Jamias, as Bishop
Maximo of said Church. This order thereby prompted
Bishop Juan Jamias, as Bishop Maximo, the successor of
Fonacier to file a petition to compel the Director of the
Bureau of National Library and the Secretary of Education
to issue to Bishops Leopoldo Ruiz and Juan Kijano, who
belonged to his faction authorization to solemnize
marriages. Petitioner Jamias also claimed that the order of
the Secretary of Education in recognizing Isabelo De los
Reyes was in effect a prejudgment
9
of a case pending in the
Court of First Instance, involving an issue as to who is the
Bishop Maximo or Supreme Head of the Philippine
Independent

_______________

9 Iglesia Filipina Independiente vs. Santiago Fonacier.

139

VOL. 453, MARCH 10, 2005 139

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

Church. Jamias also alleged that the said order was a

discrimination
10
in favor of the faction of Isabelo De los
Reyes, Jr. Petitioner Jamias further contended that the
members of the faction with the Protestant Episcopal
Church of the United States of America and have
abandoned the tenets, rituals and teachings of the
Philippine Independent Church as originally founded by
Bishop Gregorio Aglipay.
The Supreme Court, however, declined to rule on the
controversy on who is the Obispo Maximo. Since there is
nothing on record to show that the Philippine Independent
Church or its faction headed by petitioner Juan Jamias
have disqualified themselves from continuing to solemnize
marriages, the order of the Secretary of Public Instruction
was set aside.
The issue as to who was the rightful successor as Obispo
Maximo of the Philippine Independent Church was raised
in the case instituted by the Iglesia Filipina Independiente,
represented by its Supreme Bishop Gerardo Bayaca,
against Bishop Santiago Fonacier, seeking to require the
latter to render an accounting of his administration of all
the temporal properties he had in his possession belonging
to the Church on the ground that he had ceased to be the
Supreme Bishop of said Church. Bishop Fonacier, in his
defense, claimed that he had not been properly removed as
Supreme Bishop, and that Bishop Juan Jamias was his
successor who had been elected in accordance with the
constitution of the Church; that he had already rendered
an accounting of his administration to Bishop Juan Jamias,
having turned over all the properties to him. Furthermore,
he also alleged that Bishop Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr. had
formally joined the Protestant Episcopal Church and for
this reason had ceased to be a member of the Iglesia
Filipina Independiente and consequently had no
personality to maintain this suit.
On May 17, 1950, the Court of First Instance of Manila
rendered judgment declaring Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr. as
the

_______________

10 Jamias vs. Rodroguez, 81 Phil. 303 (1948).

140

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

sole legitimate Supreme Bishop of the I.F.I. and ordered

Fonacier to render an accounting of his administration of
the properties and funds of the Church from the time he
began occupying the position of Secretario de Economia
Temporal. The Court of Appeals to which the case was
appealed affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto.
Not satisfied with this decision, Fonacier brought the case
for review before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner Fonacier had contended that the ouster of
Bishops Aguilar and Remollino, was decided by an
ecclesiastical court, hence, a civil court does not have any
jurisdiction to reverse or revise it. In disposing of this
point, the Supreme Court cited the principle that „Where,
however, a decision of an ecclesiastical court plainly
violates the law it professes to administer, or is in conflict
with the laws of the land, it will not be followed by the civil
courts . . . In some instances, not only have the civil courts
assumed the right to inquire into the jurisdiction of
religious tribunals and the regularity of their procedure,
but they have subjected their decisions to the test of
fairness or the test furnished by the constitution and laws
of the Church. Thus, it has been held that the expulsion of
a member without notice or opportunity to be heard is not
conclusive upon the civil courts when a property right is
involved.

§ 7. Procedural Rules of the Due Process Must be

Followed

The Constitution of the Philippine Independent Church

provides that the Obispo Maximo cannot punish anybody
without hearing the accused or not giving him opportunity
to present evidence of his defense, and, in any event
without first securing the opinion of the Judge of the Curia
de Apelaciones. In serious they must to be referred to the
Supreme Council of Bishops. If a bishop is involved, as in
the case of

141

VOL. 453, MARCH 10, 2005 141

Civil Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of
Churches

11
guilt, the accused may appeal to the Curia de Apelaciones.
It appeared, however, that petitioner Bishop Fonacier alone
ousted the two bishops. According to the Supreme Court,
since no procedure was ever adopted in the ouster of
Bishops Aguilar and Remollino, no formal charges were
filed nor hearing ever held, the ouster was
12
contrary to their
constitution and therefore null and void.
 Appellant Fonacier also raised the question of the seven
bishops who were validly consecrated and therefore would
be members of the Supreme Council and the Asembles
General of the Church. As found by the Court of Appeals,
the seven individuals were consecrated by petitioner
without approval of the Supreme Council which was a
violation of its Constitution. In assailing this finding,
petitioner claimed that this was an ecclesiastical matter
which could be revised by the civil courts. Although the
general rule is that civil courts ordinarily leave
ecclesiastical matter to Church authorities, they may,
however, intervene when it is shown, as in this case, that
they have acted outside the scope of their authority, or in a
manner contrary to their organic law and rules.
As to the existence of a valid quorum in a meeting held
on January 21, 1946, the Court of Appeals found that there
were only thirteen legitimate bishops of the Iglesia Filipina
Independiente. Seven out of these thirteen bishops
attended the meeting on January 21, 1946, so there was no
question that there was a quorum and their finding could
not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.

··o0o··

_______________

11 See Reglas Constitutionales Secs. VI, VII and VIII, Cap. III, Parte
II, p. 38.
12 Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 417 (1955).

142

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.