Alonso v. Villamor (G.R. No. L-2352, July 26, 1910)
Who are the parties in this case and what is the case title and citation?
Show Answer
The case is styled Eladio Alonso, plaintiff-appellee, v. Tomas Villamor, et al., defendants-appellants, and is reported as G.R. No. L-2352, decided July 26, 1910, by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, en banc. The plaintiff at trial was Padre Eladio Alonso, the priest in charge of the church at issue; the defendants were members of the municipal board of the municipality of Placer, among them Tomas Villamor. On appeal the Court ultimately ordered that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church be substituted as the real party plaintiff in place of Padre Alonso. The decision was written by Justice Moreland, with Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Johnson and Trent concurring.
What was the nature of the action filed by the plaintiff?
Show Answer
The plaintiff brought an action to recover from the defendants (members of the municipal board) two categories of relief: (1) the value of certain articles that had been taken from a Roman Catholic church located in the municipality of Placer, and (2) the rental value of the church and its appurtenances, including the cemetery, for the period from December 11, 1901 until April 1904. In short, this was an action for conversion/trespass to property and for damages measured by the value of items taken plus the fair rental value of the premises for the period of the alleged unlawful occupation.
What judgment did the trial court render and how was the award itemized?
Show Answer
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P1,581, with interest at 6% from the date of the judgment. The total award was itemized into two parts: P741 for the value of the articles taken from the church, and P840 representing the rental value of the premises during the time of the defendants' occupation. The appellate review sustained both the findings of possession/taking and those valuations as correct and proper.
Who were the defendants and what official capacity did they hold at the time of the events?
Show Answer
The defendants were members of the municipal board of the municipality of Placer. On December 11, 1901, they acted in their official capacity in communicating with Padre Alonso and later, on December 13, 1901, in taking possession of the church, its appurtenances and the personal property within it. Their actions were performed as municipal officers carrying out an asserted municipal or provincial order regarding control and revenues of certain religious properties.
What did the letter dated December 11, 1901 from the municipal board to Padre Alonso state?
Show Answer
The municipal board sent Padre Alonso a written communication dated December 11, 1901. In that letter they advised that they had received an order from the provincial fiscal dated December 5, which stated that cemeteries, convents and other buildings erected on town land at the town's expense belong to the town and therefore must be administered by the municipality, which must collect revenues therefrom. The letter further asserted that the image of St. Vicente in the church, being donated to the people, was the property of the people and that alms given to it must be turned into the municipal treasury. The municipal board requested Padre Alonso to deliver the key to the alms box for that image so that they could comply with the provincial fiscal's order.
On what date did the municipal defendants take possession of the church and its contents, and what did Padre Alonso do in response?
Show Answer
The defendants took possession of the church and its appurtenances, together with all personal property contained in the church, on December 13, 1901. Padre Eladio Alonso, as the priest in charge, protested the occupation and seizure, but his protests were disregarded and he was summarily removed from possession of the church, its appurtenances and contents. These facts form the core of the plaintiff's claim that the defendants committed an unlawful taking and occupation.
What was the central defense asserted by the defendants concerning ownership of the church and its contents?
Show Answer
The defendants' primary defense was that the church, its appurtenances including the convent and cemetery, and the movable articles within the church were not the property of the Roman Catholic Church but were owned by the municipality. Their claim of municipal ownership rested on the allegation that the land and buildings had been erected or repaired with funds voluntarily contributed by the people of the municipality, and that the articles inside the church had likewise been purchased with funds raised by the people. The defendants relied on doctrines derived from Spanish law—asserting that under those principles the uses and benefits might belong to the community or municipality—though that claim was litigated and rejected by the Court.
What prior litigation concerning the same church property did the Court reference, and what was the outcome of that earlier case?
Show Answer
The Court referenced an earlier case captioned "The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church against the municipality of Placer," decided on September 23, 1908 and reported at 11 Phil. Rep., 315. In that prior litigation the same question of ownership—whether the church and its appurtenances belonged to the Roman Catholic Church or to the municipality because they had been constructed or supported by contributions from the people—was raised. The Supreme Court in that earlier case held that the property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church and rejected the municipality's claim of ownership. The current Court treated that prior decision as directly applicable and persuasive to the facts at bar.
How did the Supreme Court rule in the present case regarding ownership of the property taken by the defendants?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court ruled that the property at the time of the defendants' taking was the property of the Roman Catholic Church. It held that the seizure of the property and occupation of the church and its appurtenances by the municipal defendants were wrongful and illegal. In reaching this conclusion the Court relied on its careful examination of the record and on the precedent of the earlier 1908 case which had concluded that, under the governing law and upon the facts presented, the church property belonged to the Church rather than to the municipality.
What did the Court say about the evidence and the trial court’s valuation of the items taken and of the rent?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's determinations as to both the value of the articles taken and the rental value of the church during the period of occupation. The Court stated it was convinced, after careful examination of the record and evidence, that the trial court's conclusions on these valuations were correct and proper. Although counsel for the defendants argued on appeal that the values had not been proven by competent evidence, the Supreme Court noted that no such objection to the admissibility of the evidence was raised at trial; therefore, the defendants could not raise the objection for the first time on appeal. The appellate court declined to consider the belated objection and accepted the trial court's findings of fact on valuation.
What procedural objection did the defendants raise on appeal concerning the plaintiff’s capacity to sue?
Show Answer
On appeal the defendants argued that the action should not have been prosecuted in the name of Padre Eladio Alonso because he was not the real party in interest; rather, the true party in interest was the bishop of the diocese or the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church itself. The defendants contended that, under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest and that Padre Alonso personally had no interest in the cause of action. This challenge to the plaintiff’s capacity was the main procedural point raised on appeal.
What does Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as cited in the opinion, require?
Show Answer
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as cited by the Court, requires that every civil action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. The Court acknowledged that Padre Alonso personally had no proprietary interest in the disputed property and that the bishop of the diocese or the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church was the true party in interest. Thus, strictly speaking, the action should have been brought in the name of the institution or the bishop rather than in the priest’s name.
What is the substance of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure as quoted in the opinion?
Show Answer
Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure—the general amendment provision—empowers the court, in furtherance of justice and on such terms as it deems proper, to allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding at any stage of the action. The section specifically authorizes adding or striking out party names, correcting mistakes in names or inadequate descriptions, and generally permitting corrections so that the merits of the controversy may be determined without undue regard to technicalities. It requires that orders under this section be made upon motion filed in court with notice to the adverse party and an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court cited this section as a basis for its power to cure defects in the designation of the party plaintiff.
What does Section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as quoted, provide about reversals for technical errors?
Show Answer
Section 503, as quoted in the opinion, provides that no judgment shall be reversed on formal or technical grounds, or for such error as has not prejudiced the real rights of the excepting party. This serves as a safeguard against overturning judgments for mere procedural defects when substantive rights are unaffected. The Court invoked this provision to support the view that an error in the naming of the plaintiff—where the substance and interests were plainly evident—should not defeat the merits of the action.
How did the Supreme Court apply Sections 110 and 503 to the facts of this case?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court held that under Sections 110 and 503 it had both the power and the duty to amend the pleadings and proceedings by substituting the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church for Padre Alonso as party plaintiff. Section 110 allowed the court, in furtherance of justice, to allow an amendment that would add or correct the name of a party so the actual merits could be determined without technical impediments. Section 503 barred reversal for purely technical errors that do not prejudice substantive rights. Applying these provisions, the Court concluded that the defect in the plaintiff’s name was formal only, and that substituting the real party in interest merely made the form correspond to the substance that had been obvious throughout the litigation. The Court therefore ordered the amendment and affirmed the judgment as so amended.
What factual basis did the Court identify for concluding the error was merely formal and not substantial?
Show Answer
The Court pointed out that throughout the complaint and the entire record Padre Alonso consistently asserted that he was prosecuting the action not for himself but for the bishop of the diocese; he explicitly said he sought to act for the bishop and for the welfare of the Church. His pleadings and conduct made clear that his own personal rights were not at stake and that he was representing the Church's interest. Because the substance of whose rights were in controversy was plainly presented from the outset, the Court considered the mistake in naming to be merely a defect of form—an inaccurate label—rather than a substitution of opposing parties or a surprise affecting the adversary’s preparation. Therefore, correcting the name to match the substance did not alter the essential character of the litigation.
How did the Court treat the argument that substituting the real party in interest would amount to changing the party and thus be improper?
Show Answer
The Court rejected the notion that substituting the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church for Padre Alonso constituted a material change in identity that would be improper. It reasoned that in truth there was no change of the substantive party because Padre Alonso had acted as the Church's representative throughout; his identity and the institution's identity were essentially the same for purposes of the litigation. The Court characterized the substitution as correcting the form to express the already evident substance. Since no one had been deceived and the interests being litigated remained the same, the amendment was not a substitution of one distinct litigant for another but a formal correction that made the record conform to reality.
Did the Court find any prejudice to the defendants from the correction of the plaintiff’s name? Explain.
Show Answer
No, the Court found no prejudice to the defendants from the correction. It emphasized that the complaint, defense, testimony, witnesses and evidence would be identical on a retrial, and thus no party would be misled about whose rights were being asserted. The Court reasoned that the essence of prejudice is harm to substantive rights or legitimate preparation or strategy in the case, and none of that occurred because the defendants knew from the outset whose interest was truly at stake. The mere fact that the name on the pleadings was not the technically correct legal owner did not cause any substantive injury to the defendants' ability to defend themselves.
What did the Court say would occur if it instead required a new trial to correct the misnaming?
Show Answer
The Court observed that ordering a new trial to correct the plaintiff's name would serve no practical purpose: the retrial would present the same complaint (but filed in the correct name), the same answer, the same defenses, the same witnesses, and the same evidence. The only difference between the old and a hypothetical new trial would be the name of the plaintiff. Because the retrial would not change any substantive aspects of the case, the Court considered such a requirement wasteful and unjustified. It framed formalism that would force such a needless retrial as contrary to the aims of the law: to secure justice expeditiously and without unnecessary technical obstacles.
How did the Court characterize the role and purpose of pleadings and procedural forms in litigation?
Show Answer
The Court articulated a philosophy that pleadings and procedural forms are means to an end—the end being the fair and efficient administration of justice. They are designed to facilitate the court's resolution of disputes and not to impede it. When forms lose their role as aids and become obstacles to justice, the Court said they deserve scant consideration. The Court stressed that courts should not allow technicalities of form to defeat substantive rights or to permit litigants to win or lose based on procedural pitfalls alone. This rationale underpinned the decision to correct the record and avoid reversal on a purely formal defect.
What final order did the Supreme Court enter in respect of the plaintiff’s capacity and the judgment below?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court ordered that the process, pleadings, proceedings and decision in the case be amended by substituting the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in the place and stead of Eladio Alonso as party plaintiff. The Court directed that the complaint be considered as though originally filed by the Catholic Church, that the answer be treated correspondingly, and that the decision of the court below be considered as rendered in favor of the Church. As amended, the decision of the lower court was affirmed. The Court did not make any special finding as to the costs.
Did the Court make any special finding about costs in its judgment?
Show Answer
No. The Court explicitly stated that it affirmed the decision of the court below "without special finding as to the costs." That means the Supreme Court did not disturb or specially allocate costs as part of its order beyond affirming the judgment as amended; it left the matter of costs as addressed by the lower court or simply made no particular ruling altering them.
Which Justices concurred in the decision?
Show Answer
The opinion indicates that Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Johnson and Trent concurred with Justice Moreland's opinion. Thus the decision was rendered by the Court en banc with concurrence of those Justices listed in the opinion.
What prior authorities and cases did the Court cite to support its disposition on the amendment/substitution issue?
Show Answer
In support of the proposition that courts should allow amendments to correct party names and should not permit technicalities to defeat substantive justice, the Court cited numerous precedents from American and other state courts. Among the cases referenced were McKeighan v. Hopkins (19 Neb.), Dixon v. Dixon (19 Ia.), Sanger v. Newton (134 Mass.), Phipps & Co. v. Hurlburt (70 Fed. Rep.), Union Bank v. Mott (19 How. Pr.), Wood v. Circuit Judge (84 Mich.), and others. The opinion listed a series of cases to demonstrate the "best judicial thought" favoring liberal amendment doctrines. The Court also relied on earlier Philippine decisions directly bearing on Church ownership—specifically Barlin v. Ramirez (7 Phil. Rep., 41) and the Municipality of Ponce v. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in Porto Rico (28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 737)—and its own prior ruling in The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church v. Municipality of Placer (11 Phil. Rep., 315).
What broader legal principle about “real party in interest” and form vs. substance can you extract from the Court’s reasoning?
Show Answer
The Court's reasoning establishes that while the requirement to sue in the name of the real party in interest is an important procedural rule (Section 114), it must be balanced against the purpose of procedural rules to serve substantive justice. When the substance of who holds the right being litigated is plain from the record—when a nominal plaintiff has consistently acted as a representative of the true owner—the defect in form (wrongly named plaintiff) should be corrected rather than used to frustrate the litigation. Section 110 authorizes such corrections in furtherance of justice, and Section 503 bars reversal for mere technicalities that do not prejudice the opposing party. The underlying principle is that courts should prefer amendments that reflect substance and avoid procedural devices that merely obstruct a fair adjudication on the merits.
How did the Court address the defendants’ belated objection about the admissibility or competence of the valuation evidence?
Show Answer
The Court refused to consider the defendants' argument on appeal that the value of the articles and rent had not been proven by competent evidence because no objection to the admissibility or competence of that evidence had been made at the trial level. The Court applied the procedural rule that objections to evidence not raised at trial cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal. Because the defendants failed to timely object, the trial court's findings on valuation stood, and the appellate court deemed the trial court's valuation conclusions correct and proper after its own review of the record.
What does the decision say about the nature of litigation—should it be a contest over technicalities or the merits?
Show Answer
The decision takes a firm stand that litigation should be a contest focused on the merits and not a game of technicalities. The Court admonishes that allowing a case to be won by "a rapier's thrust" of technical nicety runs counter to justice. Pleadings and forms are described as mere methods for expressing substance; they exist to facilitate the administration of justice. When form defeats substance, the Court said, the administration of justice is at fault. This view underlies the Court's willingness to correct the misnaming of the plaintiff and to prevent litigants from obtaining an unfair advantage through procedural trickery when no substantive prejudice has resulted.
Why was it important for the Court to analyze whether any party had been misled by the misnaming?
Show Answer
Assessing whether any party had been misled was critical because Sections 110 and 503 allow amendments and bar reversal in the absence of prejudice. If the defendants had been unaware of whose interest was being litigated and had prepared their defense accordingly, the misnaming could have caused substantive prejudice, supporting a requirement for amendment with specific protections or even a new trial. But the record showed that the defendants were fully aware from the outset that Padre Alonso was litigating as representative of the bishop and Church; as a result no one was deceived. Demonstrating the absence of actual prejudice enabled the Court to treat the error as formal and to remedy it without the drastic remedy of reversing or ordering a retrial.
In light of the decision, what was the legal status of the articles taken and the church at the time of the municipal occupation?
Show Answer
The Court concluded that at the time of the municipal occupation and seizure, the articles taken and the church property were the property of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore the taking and occupation by the municipal defendants were wrongful and illegal. This legal status supported the award of damages for conversion and for the rental value during the period of occupation.
How did the Court’s amendment affect the practical enforcement of the judgment?
Show Answer
By substituting the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church as the plaintiff, the Court aligned the record with the true proprietary interests, thereby ensuring that enforcement of the judgment would be against the defendants and for the benefit of the proper party—the Church. This correction avoids potential technical challenges to the execution or recognition of the judgment by making explicit who holds the legal entitlement to the award. Practically, it strengthened the enforceability and doctrinal correctness of the judgment without requiring a new trial.
What lesson does the Court convey to litigants regarding asserting procedural technicalities on appeal?
Show Answer
The Court conveys the lesson that seeking reversal on appeal for pure procedural technicalities, when those defects do not prejudice substantive rights or affect the merits, is not favored. Courts are expected to look beyond form to the real controversy and to apply remedies (like amendment) that secure justice without needless retrials. Litigants should not rely on procedural niceties to undo an otherwise just outcome; instead, the focus should be on the substantial rights and evidence. The Court’s language indicates a disapproval of strategies that emphasize form over substance to obtain advantage.
Would the Court’s approach permit amendment in every case where the nominal plaintiff is acting for another? Explain based on the opinion.
Show Answer
The Court's approach would not automatically permit amendment in every such case; rather, it permits amendment where the substance is clear, no prejudice results, and the correction serves the interests of justice. The opinion emphasizes that the amendment is appropriate where the nominal plaintiff has consistently asserted that he acts for the real party in interest and where the record reflects that everyone understood whose rights were at stake. If there had been concealment, surprise, or prejudice arising from the misnaming, then the Court implied it might not allow the substitution without additional remedial steps or perhaps might require further proceedings. Thus, the permissibility of amendment under the Court’s reasoning depends on context, knowledge of the parties, fairness, and lack of prejudice.
How does this case illustrate the interplay between substantive rights (ownership) and procedural requirements (party naming)?
Show Answer
This case shows that substantive rights—here, ownership of church property and entitlement to damages for unlawful taking—cannot be defeated by mere procedural errors such as misnaming the plaintiff, provided the substantive interests were ever clear and the other side was not prejudiced. Procedural rules exist to protect and vindicate substantive rights, not to become ends in themselves. The Court balanced the statutory requirement to sue in the name of the real party in interest against the statutory tools allowing amendment and protecting against reversal for technical errors, concluding that correcting the procedural defect was the appropriate way to vindicate the substantive claim without wasting judicial resources or allowing injustice through a formality.
What practical advice to counsel can you derive about preserving objections to evidence from the Court’s treatment of the valuation testimony?
Show Answer
The Court’s treatment underscores the imperative for counsel to make timely objections at trial to preserve appellate review on issues of admissibility or competence of evidence. Here, the defendants raised for the first time on appeal an objection that the valuations were not proven by competent evidence, but because they had not objected at trial, the appellate court declined to consider the point. Practically, defense counsel must timely object on the record to contested evidence and must ensure that objections are specific and preserved so that they may be reviewed later. Failure to do so risks forfeiting potentially meritorious appellate arguments.
Explain how the Court’s reliance on its earlier decision in the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church v. Municipality of Placer shaped the outcome.
Show Answer
The Court relied on the direct precedential value of its earlier decision in The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church v. Municipality of Placer to resolve the ownership question. Because the prior decision had adjudicated substantially the same factual and legal issues and concluded that the church property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, the Court in the present case had a binding or at least highly persuasive authority to reject the municipality's ownership claim. That prior ruling permitted the Court to find without hesitation that the municipal defendants' seizure and occupation were wrongful, and thus it supported affirmance of the damages awarded by the trial court.
If you were the plaintiff’s counsel, how would you have avoided the misnaming problem at the outset of the case, based on the Court’s discussion?
Show Answer
To avoid the misnaming problem, plaintiff's counsel should have filed the complaint in the name of the real party in interest—the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church—or at least ensured that the complaint clearly alleged and documented the plaintiff's representative capacity with appropriate written authorization from the bishop or the ecclesiastical authority. Pleadings should identify the legal capacity in which the nominal plaintiff sues (e.g., as agent, trustee, or representative) and include any necessary corporate or institutional names. Additionally, counsel should have attached or referenced written proof of authority to sue on behalf of the Church to eliminate any doubt. Doing so would have prevented the technical objection and avoided the need to rely on an appellate amendment.
Does the Court’s opinion indicate any limits on the courts’ power to amend pleadings under Section 110? If so, what are they?
Show Answer
Yes. While the Court championed a liberal application of Section 110 to permit amendments in furtherance of justice, it emphasized that such amendments should be on terms as the court deems proper and must be ordered upon motion with notice to the adverse party and an opportunity to be heard. The underlying limitation is that amendments should not prejudice the substantive rights of adversaries nor be used to conceal identity or mislead. The Court suggested that where formal defects obscure the substance or where prejudice results, amendment might not be appropriate without additional protections. Thus, the power to amend is broad but not unlimited; it must be exercised with regard for fairness and procedural safeguards.
How did the Court reconcile the statutory requirement that actions be in the name of the real party in interest with its decision to allow the nominal plaintiff’s suit to stand and be amended?
Show Answer
The Court reconciled these by distinguishing between the substantive requirement (actions must be prosecuted by the real party in interest) and the remedy for failure to comply strictly with that requirement. It invoked Section 110 to permit correction of the misnomer and Section 503 to bar reversal for such a defect when it did not prejudice substantive rights. The Court found that while Padre Alonso was not the real party in interest, he had consistently acted as the Church's representative, was not asserting personal rights, and had clearly put the defendants on notice of the real party involved. Therefore the Court corrected the formal defect by substituting the true party in the record, thereby honoring the statutory command that the real party prosecute the action while avoiding pointless retrial and ensuring that the substantive rights were vindicated.
What is the ratio decidendi — the court’s binding reasoning — of this decision?
Show Answer
The ratio decidendi of the case is twofold: First, on the factual record and in light of prior precedent, the court held that the disputed church property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church and that the municipal defendants’ seizure and occupation were wrongful, justifying damages for conversion and for rental value. Second, procedurally, the court held that where a nominal plaintiff has consistently acted as representative of the true party in interest and where no prejudice to the defendant results, courts should, under Section 110 and Section 503, permit amendment to substitute the real party in interest rather than reverse or order a new trial on account of a mere misnaming. Hence, form should not defeat substance when correcting the form advances justice without harming any party's rights.
Identify and discuss two practical implications of this decision for future litigations concerning property taken by municipal authorities.
Show Answer
First, the decision signals to municipal authorities that seizures predicated on contested claims of municipal ownership over church property are risky: if prior adjudication or the evidence shows the property to be owned by a church, a seizure is likely to be held wrongful and expose the municipality to liability for conversion and rental value. Municipal officers should ensure clear legal authority before taking possession of church property to avoid damages. Second, from the litigation standpoint, the decision demonstrates that when a local official acts under a purported administrative or prosecutorial order to seize church property, courts will scrutinize ownership claims and will not allow formal defects in how the injured party is named to defeat substantive recovery. Plaintiffs and their counsel should therefore ensure proper authority to sue is on the record, and defendants should not rely on procedural technicalities to escape liability when they were fully aware of the substantive controversy they were litigating.
What are some cautionary takeaways for lawyers representing institutional plaintiffs from the Court’s treatment of representative suits?
Show Answer
Lawyers representing institutional plaintiffs should take care to: (1) bring actions in the correct institutional name when the institution is the real party in interest, or at a minimum explicitly plead the nominal plaintiff's representative capacity and show written authorization; (2) preserve the record of authority to avoid later procedural challenges; (3) anticipate and neutralize technical defenses by making the record clear that the nominal plaintiff sues on behalf of the institution; and (4) understand that while courts may cure misnaming where substance is clear and no prejudice results, reliance on such judicial generosity is risky. The Court's treatment underscores that clear pleading practices safeguard the client's substantive rights and prevent unnecessary disputes over form.
Conclude with a concise synthesis: why was this appeal denied and what was the ultimate legal effect?
Show Answer
The appeal was denied because the Supreme Court found the defendants' actions in seizing and occupying the church property unlawful—property that, on the evidence and consistent with earlier precedent, belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. The trial court’s factual findings on value and rent were affirmed because no timely objection to the evidence had been made at trial. Although the plaintiff had been nominally misnamed—Padre Eladio Alonso rather than the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church—the Court exercised its power under Sections 110 and 503 to amend the record, substituting the Church as the real party in interest because the error was formal, the substance was clear throughout, and no prejudice resulted. The ultimate legal effect was affirmation of the judgment in favor of the Church (as amended), awarding P1,581 plus interest for the value of the articles taken and for rent during the unlawful occupation.