GARCES VS.

ESTENZO
[104 SCRA 510; G.R. L-53487; 25 MAY 1981]
Facts: Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City were pass
ed:
a. Resolution No. 5- Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration every
fifth of April. This provided for the acquisition of the image ofSan Vicente Fer
rer and the construction of a waiting shed. Funds for the said projects will be
obtained through the selling of tickets and cash donations.
b. Resolution No. 6- The chairman or hermano mayor of the fiesta would be the ca
retaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and that the image would remain in hi
s residence for one year and until the election of his successor. The image woul
d be made available to the Catholic Church during the celebration of the saints f
east day.
These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters, and said projects were imple
mented. The image was temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of
the barangay. However, after a mass, Father Sergio Marilao Osmea refused to retur
n the image to the barangaycouncil, as it was the churchs property since church f
unds were used in its acquisition.
Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the re
plevin case against the priest for the recovery of the image. Resolution No. 12
appointed Brgy. Captain Veloso as a representative to the case. The priest, in h
is answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. The priest wit
h Andres Garces, a member of the Aglipayan Church, contends that Sec. 8 Article
IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated.
Issue: Whether or Not any freedom of religion clause in the Constitution violate
d.
Held: No. 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 bar
rio 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 patronsaint(such as the acquisition) is not illega
l. Practically, the image was placed in a laymans 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 councils funds that were used to buy the image, t
herefore it is their property. Right of the determination of custody is their ri
ght, 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 theconstitutional provisions regarding separation of church and
state, freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property.