01/01/2026
WHISPERS FROM THE | LLAW |
Return of the land on which the Dalaguete MANRO building stands to the Archdiocese of Cebu
[DISCLAIMER: No cyber libel intended. The purpose of this exposition is not to malign anyone but to publish the truth so that none is withheld from the people of Dalaguete. While Ronald Allan Cesante has now descended to the level of ordinary citizen, the issues discussed here are matters that occurred when he was a public official, whose acts affected the public. The public therefore has the right to know in order to understand.]
The condemnation on social media of the mayor of Dalaguete, Cebu, the Honorable Bembie Tambis by some quarters for returning to the Archdiocese of Cebu the land on which the MANRO building stands is misplaced, legally unsound, and unfair, especially when viewed against the full factual and legal background of how the property was acquired, donated, and used.
Mayor Bembie Tambis did not give away public property. Rather, she acted to correct a long-standing legal defect and restore ownership to the Archdiocese of Cebu that, under the law and equity, never validly lost it.
Correcting a legal defect is the right thing to do and is never disadvantageous to government.
This property is located along Fr. Sarmiento St., Dalaguete Cebu, and has the following specifications:
Tax Dec No. : 21-00794
Area: 2,562 sqm, more or less
ARP No. 2100100032, and bears previous Lot No. 31-A
Boundaries:
North: Lot Nos. 8 and 5
East: Seashore
South: Sarmiento St.
West: Cad 10; Bearing Cad Lot No. 4
Records show that this church property was purchased from the San Guillermo de Aquitania Parish in Dalaguete, Cebu, by the 1993 Dalaguete Fiesta Executive Committee (1993 FEC).
In 1999, six years after the purchase, a different Fiesta Executive Committee organized that year donated the same property to the Dalaguete LGU. Let's call this group the 1999 FEC.
This donation is irregular and even anomalous on the following grounds:
A. FIESTA COMMITTEE: NO PERSONALITY TO DONATE
1. NO JURIDICAL PERSONALITY.
Fiesta Executive Committees are not SEC registered, and therefore do not have separate juridical personality. The Corporation Code does not govern unregistered groups.
Under Philippine laws, in the absence of registration, the purchased property is owned by the individual members of the group, governed by Articles 484-501 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
2. NO PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Under Articles 484-501 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, each co-owner exercises the bundle of rights over the property pro indiviso based on their respective personal contributions.
No such personal contributions were made by the members of the 1993 FEC for the purchase of the property. Fiesta funds were used instead.
I maintain that the purchase of the property using fiesta funds was technical malversation because fiesta funds are not intended to purchase property. Fiesta funds are disposable funds, not disposable assets.
Granting without admitting that the purchase was not technical malversation, the 1993 FEC held the purchased property in trust for the people they were representing, that is, the parishioners and the other constituents of the Dalaguete LGU.
Thus, none of the members owned the property. They held it in trust for the parishioners and constituents who contributed to the fiesta fund.
3. VIOLATION OF DONATIVE INTENT
The purchase of the church property by the 1993 FEC was illegal because it was violative of the intention of the donors who contributed hard-earned money for the successful celebration to honor their patron saint, San Guillermo de Aquitania.
Ditto to the funds raised through sale of memorabilia. Proceeds of such sale were not earmarked for property purchase but for a successful fiesta celebration.
In spending fiesta funds to purchase church property, the 1993 FEC violated the purpose of the funds.
4. ALIEN TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH FIESTA COMMITTEES ARE CREATED.
Fiesta Committees are created by virtue of Section 18 of R.A. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991.
It allows LGUs to “establish an organization that shall be responsible for the efficient and effective implementation of their development plans, programs, objectives and priorities; ###”.
One such program is the celebration of the town fiesta, which, although rooted in religious tradition, does not violate the principle of separation between church and state.
This is because fiesta celebrations do not only offer opportunities for social interaction and family reunions but also showcase local culture and heritage.
Above all, fiestas boost local economies through tourism and promotion of local products.
Thus, the 1993 FEC was not created to purchase real properties. The purpose was to execute plans for an efficient and effective fiesta celebration.
The purchased property had nothing to do with the successful celebration of the fiesta. It was not even used in successive town fiestas as it was eventually donated to the LGU for the er****on of the Municipal Agricultural and Natural Resources Office.
If ever it was used for the successive fiesta celebrations, such use was not indispensable to a successful fiesta celebration.
5. VIOLATIVE OF THE INTENT OF THE FIESTA FUNDS.
Under the circumstances surrounding the creation of fiesta committees, the purchase of the church property by the 1993 FEC was in violation of the purpose of the fiesta funds.
The funds intended for a successful fiesta celebration was funneled without authority from the donors to the purchase of a church property which will later be donated to the Dalaguete LGU, with apparent influence from the incumbent local chief executive at that time the donation to LGU was made.
6. ANOMALOUS SIMULTAENOUS REPRESENTATION.
Undue influence was apparent in the donation of the church property to the Dalaguete LGU.
a. Undue influence is evident in the fact that signatories of the deed of donation both for donor and donee were represented by one and the same person, Ronald Allan Cesante.
In the donation papers, Ronald Allan Cesante who was both the mayor of the Dalaguete LGU and Executive President of the 1999 FEC signed on behalf of both donor and donee.
b. The legal concepts of donor and donee require distinct parties. While there is no law explicitly prohibiting one and the same person to stand as representative of both distinct parties, one and the same person acting in both capacities creates conflict of interest and can lead to anomalies.
c. Ronald Allan Cesante was not just a plain representative of both parties. He wielded power over the Donor 1999 FEC being its executive president, and wielded even more power over the Donee Dalaguete LGU being its Local Chief Executive.
Therefore he had power to influence the Sanggunian to accept the donation even if due diligence would easily show that the donation was irregular.
He also wielded power over the members of the 1999 FEC to donate the property to the LGU because he was the President of the 1999 FEC.
At this juncture I am tempted to ask: how come none, other than Ronald Allan Cesante, from the 1999 Fiesta Committee stood on behalf of the 1999 FEC in the signing of the deed of donation to represent the Donor?
Could it be that that members of the 1999 FEC already understood that the donation was irregular. One does not even need to do an in-depth investigation into the background of the 1999 FEC to understand that these are highly educated people who could easily smell the proverbial rat.
These facts made Cesante’s simultaneous representations anomalous. It is akin to self-dealing director prohibited under Corporation laws.
d. Donation is an act of liberality.
There is no liberality when a person with personal interest throws his weight into the transaction.
Cesante was the Executive President of the Donor and he was the Local Chief Executive of the Donee institution.
He flaunted both powers and capacities by signing the Deed of Donation both as representative of donor and donee. The least he could have done was to ask other persons to represent one party in the signing of the donation document.
e. Cesante’s conflict of interest becomes all the more glaring if we factor in the fact that he was also instrumental in the purchase of the property from the Catholic Church in 1993.
In other words, he was instrumental in the purchase of the property and his vote was instrumental in the donation of the property to the LGU where he held the highest position as Local Chief Executive. A neophyte law student can easily spot the conflict of interest.
7. TECHNICAL MALVERSATION. Because the purchase was alien to the purposes of the creation of a Fiesta Committee, the 1993 Fiesta Executive Committee needed explicit authority from the people to funnel funds for other purpose not aligned with the established aim of holding a successful fiesta.
The 1993 FEC did not have that permission from donors to buy the church property. The purchase was akin to technical malversation in the language of government.
Justice demands that the purchase money must be restored to the Fiesta Fund so that committees appointed year by year will not start from scratch with zero funds.
8. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
It is hereby proposed that the Dalaguete LGU return the church property to the Archdiocese of Cebu, with the RCAC returning the purchase price to the fiesta executive committee without interest.
If interest should be charged, it should be shouldered by the Dalaguete LGU, which is directly benefiting from the use of the property since 1993 up to the present.
9. IRREGULAR SALE OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY BY CHURCH AUTHORITIES.
The sale of the church property on the part of the seller was irregular because of the following reasons:
a. The late Ricardo Cardinal Vidal who was the incumbent Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cebu (RCAC) when the purchase was made was misled into signing the deed of sale over the church property.
He acted solely on the basis of the recommendation of the parish priest who was also member of the 1993 FEC.
This alone shows conflict of interest on the part of the parish priest since his recommendation was decisive of the approval of the Cardinal.
There are supposed to be Church-established safety nets in the disposal of Church properties.
Local Ordinaries (Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinal heading a diocese or archdiocese) are prohibited from acting alone in most of his administrative dealings such as disposing of church properties.
Canon 1291 – 1294 lay down requisites for a valid disposition of church properties.
First and foremost, a just cause is required, namely, grave necessity and pastoral advantage to the church.
Was there a grave necessity to sell the land to the 1993 Fiesta Committee? None. In fact it was just lying there until 1999 when it was time to donate it to the LGU.
Was there a pastoral advantage to the Archdiocese of Cebu? None. In fact the San Guilliermo de Acquitania Parish of Dalaguete lost a very important parcel of land, since the land is located along Fr. Sarmiento St., across the Cadinal Rosales Hospital.
There is the requirement of consultation.
In most of his administrative acts, canonically established groups are supposed to assist the Local Ordinary, namely, the finance council, the administrative board, and the board of consultors. In extraordinary alienations, the approval of the Holy See is even required.
Did Cardinal Vidal make any consultations from these groups? No he did not. Msgr. Cayetano Gelbolingo who had been sitting in important positions in the Archdiocese of Cebu is still alive and can testify to this.
There is no evidence that the late Cardinal used these safety nets by submitting the matter to his Board of Consultors or his Administrative Board.
b. Under Philippine laws, the Corporation Sole (the incumbent head of the Diocese/Archdiocese) does not have absolute power to dispose real properties of the Church because he holds the property in trust for its members. (The Roman Catholic Administrator of Davao, Inc. v. LRC, G.R. No. L-8451. Decision Date: Dec 19, 1957).
On this basis, Cardinal Vidal did not have the absolute authority to dispose of the church property because he held this in trust for the people of Dalaguete.
Safety nets are in place, which unfortunately were not observed.
c. In fact, Section 111 of the Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines provides that church members (parishioners) can go to Court if the sitting Archbishop mismanages the property of the parish/diocese/archdiocese in defiance of established rules of the Diocese/Archdiocese.
The disposal of the subject church property was not afforded the church-established safety nets.
B. HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION TO EXPAND THE ARGUMENTS.
Granting without admitting that the members of the 1993 Fiesta Executive Committee contributed personal money for the purchase of the Church property, which is really most unlikely, the donation is still invalid and illegal for the following reasons:
1. The property purchase by the 1993 FEC made on its own behalf is considered the property of each and every member pro indiviso. In other words, the members of the 1993 FEC became co-owners of the church property. They are as follows:
Mayor Conrada O. Almagro – President
Rev. Fr. Vicente S. Dayao – Vice President
Mr. Ceferino Batoctoy – VP for Social Affairs
Mrs. Asuncion Buenconsejo – VP for Religious Affairs
Mr. Restituto Rojo – Treasurer
Hon. Ronald Allan Cesante – VP for General Services Hon. Onofre Uy – VP for Finance
Mrs. Rosario Navarrete – Secretary
Mr. Ernesto Navarrete –Auditor
Mr. Jose A. Canton – Mass Media
2. How was the property purchased by the 1993 FEC transferred to the 1999 FEC? No conveyancing was executed. Therefore the property never passed to the ownership of the 1999 FEC.
The 1993 FEC neither donated nor sold the church property to the 1999 FEC. This means that only those fiesta executive committee members of 1993 who were re-appointed to the 1999 FEC can be considered as co- owners of the Church property, namely:
Mayor Ronald Allan Cesante,
Vice Mayor Conrada Almagro,
Mrs. Rosario Navarrete, and
Mr. Ceferino Batoctoy
3. Granting without admitting that the four (4) persons above-enumerated, namely, Cesante, Almagro, Navarrete, and Batoctoy consented to the donation of the church property to the Dalaguete LGU in 1999, the donation is invalid because they only constituted the minority of the ten (10) hypothetical co-owners of the property comprising the 1993 FEC.
4. Another glaring irregularity that taints the donation with illegality is the fact that the 1999 donation was executed with one and the same person Ronald Allan Cesante representing both donor and donee.
He happened to be the Mayor of Dalaguete at that time when the donation was made. He was also the Executive President of the donor, the 1999 FEC.
Although he was co-owner of 1/10th of the church property in this hypothetical scenario we have created for purposes of discussion, he “usurped” the rights of the other co-owners who were not members of the 1999 FEC.
Worse, he benefitted from the act because the whole property was made available for the full enjoyment of his administration as Mayor of Dalaguete.
PROPOSAL OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF CEBU
1. The Sangguniang bayan of Dalaguete will pass a resolution authorizing the Mayor to return the church property to the RCAC.
This should be backed up by an ordinance which contains the following explicit provisions: declaration of the donation as invalid and returning the property to the RCAC; appropriation of funds to shoulder the interest if interest should be charged; grant of authority to the mayor to enter into contract of lease with the RCAC over the property where the MANRO building stands, should the LGU decide to operate MANRO at the same location.
2. The RCAC will return the purchase money, which amount shall be infused into the fiesta funds so that the new fiesta committee will not start from scratch with zero funds.
3. If interest should be charged, the Dalaguete LGU shoulders the interest, having directly benefited from the use of the property since 1993.
4. If the LGU wishes to lease the same property for the continued operation of MANRO on the same site, the LGU sends a “letter of intent to lease” to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cebu.
