Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura
Sententia definitiva of 23.02.1974, Prot. N. 3334/72 CA

Petitioner	Rev. Parochus X
Respondent	S. Congregatio pro Clericis
Diocese	Clavaren.
Object	Subtractionis aedificiorum paroecialium
coram	Tabera
Publication	P.V. Pinto, Diritto amministrativo canonico, 430-432 P.V. Pinto, La giustizia amministrativa, 300-304
Download
Content	Constat de violatione legis sive in procedendo sive in decernendo.
Sources  ? Legenda   Canons of the Code 1983 All the canons that are found in the in iure and in the in facto part of the decisions are reported in the sources. The canons that constitute the main object of the decision or on which the decision sets out a principle of interpretation are reported in bold. The canons of the 1983 Code are shown in italics: - if they do not appear in the text of the decision but if the decision deals with them; - if they correspond to canons of the 1917 Code, of which the decision (prior to 1983) deals. Other sources All the sources that are found in the in iure and in the in facto part of the decisions are reported.	[CIC1917] 464 § 2; 1529
Legal Summary	1. Errores sive in procedendo sive in decernendo obiective et in facto, seu in ipso actu administrativo considerandi sunt, scilicet in elementis essentialibus quibus actus administrativus componitur et vim iuridicam obtinet, non autem intentionem Superioris, quamvis optimam, inspiciendo, qui vel iure utitur non congruo vel legem applicat non aptam. 2. Ordinarius, servatis quidem de iure servandis, beneficium paroeciale dismembrare potest, bonaque eius pro congrua parte transferre; at Ordinarius, utiles et secundos effectus quaerens, instrumenta incongruentia usurpans, falsam viam carpit, errando ergo, bona quidem fide, in procedendo et in decernendo. 3. Pia domus de qua in can. 464, § 2, id est pia domus quam Ordinarius a cura parochi subducere legitime possit, non habetur si exemptio de qua non sit in favorem personarum inibi habitantes, immo eodem decreto exemptionis in usum detur non in finem religionis vel caritatis sed rusticationis causa. 1. Errors, whether in procedendo or in decernendo, are to be considered objectively and in fact, that is, in the administrative act itself — namely, in the essential elements of which the administrative act is composed and by which it obtains juridical force — not, however, by examining the intention of the Superior, however excellent, who either makes use of a right that is not appropriate or applies a law that is not apt. 2. The Ordinary — with due observance, of course, of what must be observed by law — can dismember a parochial benefice and transfer its goods in due proportion; but the Ordinary who, seeking useful and favorable results, employs inappropriate instruments, takes a false path, thus erring — in good faith, to be sure — in procedendo and in decernendo. 3. There is no pious house of which can. 464, § 2 speaks — that is, a pious house that the Ordinary may lawfully withdraw from the care of the pastor — if the exemption in question is not in favor of the persons dwelling there; indeed, if by the same decree of exemption the house is given over for use not for a purpose of religion or charity but for the sake of vacationing.   Italian