Garces v Estenzo 104 SCRA 510 (1981) (Case Digest)

Facts: Two resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City were passed:
a. Resolution No. 5- Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration every fifth of
April. This provided for the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer 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
caretaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and that the image would remain in his
residence for one year and until the election of his successor. The image would be
made available to the Catholic Church during the celebration of the saints feast
day.
These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters, and said projects were
implemented. 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
return the image to the barangay council, as it was the churchs property since
church funds were used in its acquisition.
Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the
replevin 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 his
answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. The priest with 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 violated.
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 barrio
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 patron saint(such as the acquisition) is not illegal. 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, therefore it is their
property. Right of the determination of custody is their right, 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 the
constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedom of
worship and banning the use of public money or property.

(Full context)