ROBERT GIBSON, et al., Appellants, v. CHURCH OF CHRIST MISSION IN LIBERIA, INC., Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued June 4, 1975. Decided June 27, 1975. 1. A court cannot order intervention in the first instance, which can be done only on motion served upon all parties affected thereby. 2. Although civil courts will not interfere with the decisions of religious societies on doctrinal matters, civil courts will determine the civil or property rights of a religious society or its members. 3. A bona fide attempt to incorporate according to law is essential to the creation of a corporation de facto. 4. Minority members of a church acting in accord with its ecclesiastical laws and adhering to the faith, constitutes the church as against a majority which have departed from the faith. 5. Membership in a religious society is determined by reference to the rules, Constitution, or bylaws of the society, and by reference to the statutes governing such bodies. In 1965, appellants organized a group of worshippers into a congregation on appellants’ property. In 1966, evangelists of the appellee Church of Christ instructed appellants in the doctrine and teachings of the Church of Christ. In consequence, and after baptism, the congregation and its minister were part of the present body, the minister selling his property to appellee in 1969, retaining possession by virtue of his ministry. However, some years later, deviant practices were noted and in 1972, the appellant minister was dismissed. Ejectment proceedings were instituted by appellee, which prevailed. An appeal was taken from the judgment by the appellants. Appellants’ contention was that title to the property was theirs because their de facto corporation had acquired title. The Supreme Court maintained there was 263 264 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS no evidence of such corporation. The Court also pointed to the valid transfer of title to appellee, in which title vested. The judgment was affirmed. Richard A. Diggs for appellants. Joseph J. F. Cliesson for appellee. MR. JUSTICE HORACE delivered the opinion of the Court. A perusal of the record before us reveals that sometime in 1965, Robert Gibson and his wife, Mary Gibson, organized a group of worshippers on property they had acquired on the Old Road in Sinkor, and held worship service on the veranda of their house. The group of worshippers increased to the point that they had to co:-1struct a small thatch church building on the property as a place of worship. Although co-appellant Robert Gibson in his testimony during the trial stated that prior to his coming to Monrovia he was pastoring a Church of Christ congregation in Kakata, and that the group of worshippers in Sinkor was a Church of Christ congregation, there is no showing in the record that the church or religious society bore the name Church of Christ when it was organized. Robert Gibson, listening to the Sunday radio broadcast of ELBC, was impressed with the “Harvest of Truth” program of the Church of Christ in the United States of America that came on the air each Sunday. He wrote to the Church of Christ in the United States, informing them that he had organized a Church of Christ congregation and requesting assistance for his work in Liberia. After some time he received a letter from Dr. Roosevelt C. Wells of Washington Heights Church of Christ of New York, U.S.A., dated February 14, 1966, expressing joy that a group of worshippers had planted the Church of Christ on Liberian soil. He promised to assist the Li- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 265 berian Church and be its American contact. He also promised that he would come to Monrovia. True to his word, Dr. Wells came to Monrovia in June, 1966, and immediately got in contact with appellants. His first observation was that the method of worship and the teachings and doctrines of the group of worshippers organized by Robert Gibson did not conform with those of the Church of Christ as it existed. He informed his hosts of this, and as will be shown later, they must have agreed with him, for they underwent a course of instruction after which they were all baptized into the real doctrine of the Church of Christ, with Robert Gibson as its minister. Thus, the real Church of Christ was established on the Old Road in Sink r. In order to maintain a watchf 1 eye over this new flock, Evangelist Wells and another a sociate whose interest he had aroused, made several visits to Liberia in 1967, 1968, and 1969. It appears that th two Church of Christ groups in the United States hea ed by Evangelists R. C. Wells and Andrew J. Hairston, began to assist the Church of Christ on Old Road, Sinkor, financially, as well as by recruiting missionary workers, both black and white, to assist in expanding the work in Liberia both spiritually and educationally. It is revealed in the record that although Evangelist Wells had actually established a recognized Church of Christ congregation by instruction and baptism, without his advice or knowledge, Robert and Mary Gibson, with other members of the congregation, in December, 1968, drew up a constitution and bylaws, the first article of said Constitution being set forth. “Article I. Name “This Christian and Religious Body shall be known as : The Church of Christ of Liberia, Old Road, Sinkor, Monrovia.” Because of what will be said later in this opinion it 266 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS would be well to remember this name, for it seems obvious that there was already some design for mischief conceived even at this early stage of the relationship between appellants and Dr. Wells. In 1969, when Evangelist Wells made one of his periodic visits to Liberia to view the work of the Church of Christ, appellants suggested to him that inasmuch as the church was operating on their property, the property should be bought for the church. After some discussion it was agreed that the property be bought for the church and so on October 8, 1969, the following statement was agreed to by the parties thereto. “I, Robert Gibson, agree to sell all my real estate, both realty and all improvements, to the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ for the amount of $1,400.00. I further agree to receive a monthly salary from the Washington Heights Church of Christ in New York (USA) as long as I serve as Minister of the Church and exercise the right to live on the land free of any charge as long as I serve as Minister of the Church. “The Washington Heights Church of Christ (U.S.A.) represented by Roosevelt Wells, Minister, and the Simpson Street Church of Christ (U.S.A.) represented by Andrew J. Hairston, Minister, both guarantee that they will assist the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ. “Witnessed : “[Sgd.] Robert Gibson “[Sgd.] Mary Gibson Roosevelt Wells [Sgd.] D. Caesar Harris” Andrew J. Hairston” The services of the law firm of Morgan, Grimes and Harmon were engaged to conclude the transaction. Again true to their word Evangelists Wells and Hairston remitted to Robert and Mary Gibson through the Morgan, Grimes and Harmon law firm the sum of $1,400.00, in two checks of $700.00 each, who executed in turn a warranty deed in favor of Sinkor Old Road Church of LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 267 Christ and issued the following receipt for the amount received by them. “Received from the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ, Monrovia, Montserrado County, Republic of Liberia, the sum of one thousand four hundred ($1,400.00) dollars, representing purchase price for our property Lot No. 3 (part of Block No. 3) situated in Oldest Congo Town, Mo. Co. This payment is made to us on behalf of the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ by Washington Heights Church of Christ, U.S.A. and Simpson Street Church of Christ, U.S.A check No. 122, $700.00 } check No. 3013 $7oo.00 4o I 400.00 “[Sgd.] ROBERT GIBSON “Monrovia, Liberia [Sgd.] MARY GIBSON” December 2, 1969″ The deed to the property, the receipt and other relevant documents were dispatched to Dr. Wells in New York, U.S.A., by Counsellor D. Caesar Harris of the Morgan, Grimes and Harmon law firm. It appears that not long after this transaction, Robert Gibson began to depart from the teachings and doctrines of the Church of Christ which he and his congregation had accepted when they were taught and baptized by Evangelist Wells in 1966, and he was appointed minister, and to revert to the old form of worship. This was quite distressing to Dr. Wells who, in a series of letters to Robert Gibson, protested his departure from the teachings and doctrines of the Church. To make this point clear, we quote the letter of Dr. Wells to Robert Gibson, dated March 12, 1972: “Mr. Robert Gibson Church of Christ P.O. Box 1579 Monrovia, Liberia “Dear Bro. Gibson : “I received your letter of February 21, 1972, with many regrets. Apparently you did not consider my 268 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS letter of January 19, 1972, of sufficient importance to require an immediate reply, nor did you think the contents of that letter of any doctrinal value. For your response has not been immediate and your letter of February 21, 1972, does not answer any of the questions raised. “This attitude on your part leaves me no alternative but to conclude that you have no intention of responding to my queries or you decided that they are irrelevant to the existing events. It further suggests that you either are not abiding in the doctrine of Christ on these matters and therefore do not care to incriminate yourself, or you seek to avoid commitment. In either case, as I indicated in my letter of January 19, 1972, a failure to answer the question therein would be taken as a yes answer. If that is not the case, why would you leave yourself liable to such a conclusion? If the answer to those questions are yes, you do not constitute the Church of Christ I set up, you do not constitute the Church of Christ of our fellowship, nor do you constitute the Church of Christ revealed in the New Testament. “Bro. Gibson, Liberian freedom of religion is a matter totally removed from these circumstances. You and all others have the right to worship any way you please, any time you please, but not on Church of Christ property. So the question of freedom is not an issue here, the question at issue is whether a church which doctrinally is not the Church of Christ can operate on property specifically designed to accommodate the Church of Christ. “My responsibility is to preach the Gospel of Christ wherever I am and that involves the worship that should be engaged in and how it should be done. The problem seems to be that you want to have a church your way, not the Bible way and that cannot be on Church of Christ property. I am no respecter LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 269 of persons and would and will deal with Center Street, Front Street, or any street in the same manner. “The existence of many churches has no bearing at all on the unwillingness of the Church of Christ to obey the Lord Jesus on all matters. Churches which are not the Churches of Christ have no obligation to obey either the Bible or the Christ, for Christ is not their Lord and the Bible is not their exclusive guide. Such cannot be so for the Church of Christ. Jesus said `My sheep hear my voice.’ ( John to:27) and God said of Jesus, ‘Hear ye him,’ (Matthew 17 :1-4). The problems reflected in this situation are not that which reveals itself in different churches, but one which shows that a Church of Christ begun by a Church of Christ minister, sponsored by another Church of Christ refuses to be guided by.the rules of the Church which started it. “It is a fact that my coming to Liberia was related to having corresponded with you and observing your interest in the Church of Christ. However, you pointed out correctly that a church already existed, but I pointed out that a church which existed was NOT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, and became such only through my preaching and teachings. Your change was necessary to alter your doctrinal position from what it was before I came to what it was after I came, that is why all of you were baptized by me. “You sought my instructions then and obeyed them as an experienced knowledgeable evangelist. Now you imply that you have outgrown your teacher and should not listen to his teachings based on the Bible. Such is regrettable because I cannot remain true to God’s word and allow doctrinal apostasy. I must assume that you have departed from the truth and from the Word of God which I taught, by your failure to answer yes or no to the questions sent you. If that is true, you are not the Church of Christ, for 270 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS all Churches of Christ teach and practice the ‘same things,’ and there is ‘no division’ among them. Therefore, if the church there and the church here is not believing and teaching the same thing, YOU ARE WRONG, since I am the teacher in both situations and since this Church of Christ existed before the one there existed. “My position is unalterable. You must either be the Church of Christ for which the property was purchased or vacate the property. The property was purchased by the Church of Christ in America for the Church of Christ in Liberia. If you feel you cannot be doctrinally the Church of Christ, then you must move. A non-Church of Christ will not be permitted to occupy Church of Christ property. If, however, you want to be the Church of Christ, that is another matter. “Yours in Our Redeemer, EVANGELIST R. C. WELLS.” The officers of the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ also being dissatisfied with their minister’s activities, on August 7, 1972, wrote a letter to Mr. Robert Gibson terminating his services as minister of the church, which Robert Gibson outrightly rejected. This situation created two factions in the congregation, one adhering to the doctrine of the church as taught by Evangelist Wells and accepted by all of them in the beginning, and the other going along with Robert Gibson. This unfortunate situation became so bad that Evangelists Wells and Hairston had to come to Liberia in an effort to solve the problem, but the adamant attitude of Gibson made a solution impossible. It should be mentioned that as a result of the efforts of Evangelists Wells and Hairston, several other congregations of the Church of Christ have been established in Liberia, and several schools built, one of which was built on the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ property. In LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 271 order to consolidate the work of the Church of Christ in Liberia, petition was made to the national Legislature to incorporate the Church of Christ in Liberia. As a result, an Act entitled “An Act to Incorporate the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia,” was passed and approved February 8, 1973, which, after naming the incorporators, stated “and all others who now and may hereafter become officers and members is hereby constituted a body politic and corporate under the name and style of ‘The Church of Christ in Liberia.’ ” Under the authority of this Act the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia promulgated a constitution and bylaws which were adopted on March 22, 1973. When all efforts at reconciliation between the two factions in the Sinkor Old Road Church failed, at the regular annual meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia held in December, 1973, it was decided that “because of the importance of doctrinal value, and because of the refusal of Mi. Gibson to carry out the teaching, practice, and doctrine of the Church despite several warnings, Mr. Robert Gibson be relieved of his post as Minister of the Church of Christ Sinkor Old Road.” Consequent upon that decision, the following letter was addressed to Mr. Paul K. Williams, Corporate Representative of the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia by Evangelists Wells and Hairston : “A directive to: “January 14, 1975 Mr. Paul K. Williams Corporate Representative Post Office Box 1579 Monrovia, Liberia “Re : Property at Old Sinkor Road “As Minister of the two churches responsible for the funds with which the above property was purchased for use by the Church of Christ and as officers of the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia, Incorporated, it has become our obvious and solemn duty to 272 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS lead the mission in a direction that would be in accord with the principles and teachings and directions subscribed to by the Churches of Christ responsible for the establishing, founding, and organizing of the Church of Christ in the Country of Liberia. The Washington Heights Church of Christ through its Evangelist Dr. R. C. Wells was responsible for the commencement and sponsoring of the Church of Christ in Liberia. I, R. C. Wells, made it most clear in the very beginning that the organization of the Church of Christ does not endorse or use mechanical instrumental music in worship. However, the group presently occupying the property in Sinkor which was purchased by the two churches sponsoring us is not following the principles of Churches of Christ. Specifically, that errant group’s departure has to do with the following: “i. The introduction and use of mechanical instruments of music into the worship services. “2. The improper use of women in the public worship services of the church through : (i) Choirs. (2) Leadership positions. (3) Unscriptural speaking roles. “3. Organizational unscripturalness through (r) Unqualified elders. (2) Unqualified deacons. “Because of the listed innovations and others not named herein, such being a known part of the activities at the Old Road Sinkor Church of Christ where Robert Gibson is Minister, the sponsoring Churches are, through the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia, Incorporated, insisting that the group led by Robert Gibson who is presently occupying the property named above, vacate the said property within thirty (3o) days from receipt of this instrument. It is LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 273 further directed that a copy of this directive be delivered to Robert Gibson or his representative and that a copy of the same be posted on the door of the ‘church building by our Corporate Representative, Paul K. Williams, or by one duly appointed by him to act in his behalf. “It is further directed that Mr. Morris Gbessage, presently the Minister of the loyal Church of Christ in Sinkor, and that body of people meeting with him, be authorized to use the property for church purposes until and so long as such group remains faithful to the teachings of the Church of Christ. “Sincerely, “DR. ROOSEVELT C. WELLS “DR. ANDREW J. HAIRSTON.” Prior to this, Mr. Paul K. Williams, Secretary/Treasurer General of the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia had, by regular power of attorney which was duly probated and registered, been authorized to act from time to time for and in behalf of Dr. Wells, President of the Board of Trustees in all corporate matters during his absence from Liberia. When Mr. Gibson refused to accept the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia, legal assistance was sought from Counsellor Joseph J. F. Chesson to evict him from the premises of the Church of Christ property on the Old Road, Sinkor. On January 29, appellee, by and through Counsellor Chesson, instituted an action of ejectment against appellants Robert Gibson and Mary Gibson, setting forth in the main that the property being occupied by appellants was the property of the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia and was being unlawfully withheld from that organization by appellants, and proferting all relevant documents in support of his claim. Appellants, through their counsel, Counsellor Joseph Williamson of the 274 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Mississippi law and accounting firm, filed a nine-count answer to the said complaint, the main points of which may be summarized as follows: ( ) That defendants had pursuant to the Associations Law of Liberia formed and constituted themselves as a de facto corporation by the name of Church of Christ Old Road Sinkor. (2) That the property in question had been purchased from Robert and Mary Gibson in the name of the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ and being a separate and distinct body from plaintiff’s corporation, defendants were the bona fide trustees and/or owners of the said property. (3) That plaintiff only became a corporation ten months prior to the institution of its action, whereas the property in question had been purchased in December, 1969. (4) That they are the minister and officials of Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ, the owner of the property. (5) That they deny categorically occupying any of plaintiffs’ property. (6) That the complaint should be dismissed because Paul K. Williams had failed to make profert of his purported power of attorney on the authority of which the action of ejectment had been instituted. (7) That as prima facie evidence of the ownership, title and possession of the property being lodged in codefendant Robert Gibson, profert was being made of a letter dated February 14, 1966, evidencing prior ownership. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows: “I rejoice to know that you are working for the Master Jesus and have bought land to build a building, I sincerely hope this venture is a successful one, and that your ultimate aims in this respect will be successful. I am taking the serious steps to help you in this commendable Christian endeavor. We LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 275 wish to see your ventures materialize so you may look for some assistance from us.” It must be remembered that the property to which the letter referred was the identical parcel of property purchased by Evangelists Wells and Hairston for the Church of Christ on the Old Road in Sinkor. How the principle of prior possession fits into the picture we find difficult, if not impossible, to see. To the answer of defendants, plaintiff filed a ten-count reply which, among other things, (t) attacked defendant’s failure to make profert or offer any document showing the existence of a de facto corporation; that the constitution and bylaws they did make profert of showed that the name of the body was “Church of Christ of Liberia, Old Road, Sinkor, Monrovia” and not Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ; (2) that the names in the answer with respect to the same organization were confusing, such as “Church of Christ Old Road Sinkor,” “Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ,” and “Old Road Sinkor Church of Christ,” since each of the names could be a distinct entity; (3) that no documentary evidence was attached to their answer showing title in defendants ; (4) that the answer was inconsistent, contradictory and confusing in respect to whom defendants were claiming title to be vested in; (5) that defendants had improperly raised the issue of plaintiff’s capacity to sue, because if they intended to do so it should have been done by a specific negative averment, and not by merely attacking the failure to profert plaintiffs power of attorney. Pleadings rested with the filing of a reply, on May 13, 1975. We think it proper to mention here that contention over names such as Old Road Sinkor Church of Christ, Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ, Church of Christ Mission in Liberia, is a useless exercise in semantics. What we are concerned with is the organization or religious society itself, not where it is located, since Old Road, Sinkor, is merely the location of the property. It 276 is LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS not a part of the institution as such. Moreover, the very name of the religious society as pointed out before upholds this view, for the name in the constitution and bylaws on which defendants rely clearly is “Church of Christ of Liberia.” We observe in the record before us that an intervenor’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint was filed on April 16, 1974, in which certain persons intervened as representatives of Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ in the capacities of deacons and elders of said institution. These persons claimed, as defendants had in their answer, that they comprise a de facto corporation. They also claimed in their intervenors’ answer that plaintiff and those he claimed to represent had become dissatisfied with the method of worship in the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ and withdrawn their membership and, therefore, the purported resolution removing Robert Gibson as minister of Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ was ultra vires. Plaintiff in his reply to intervenors’ answer attacked it on four main points, namely: ( ) that the purported intervenors had violated the law on intervention because no application had been made to intervene; (2) that according to the very constitution and bylaws on which interventors relied, it is clear that their duties are “to assist the minister and/or pastor of each local church in promoting the spiritual life of the church and in all matters that shall tend to promote evangelism and ‘Christian discipleship’ ” and, therefore, they had no legal right to intervene in a matter touching the property rights of the church ; (3) that defendants had declared in their answer that they constituted a de facto corporation and the property is owned by them; and (4) that the filing of an intervenors’ answer more than two months after pleadings had rested in the ejectment case, and when said case had been assigned for hearing on the issues of law, was palpably contrary to the intent of the law on intervention. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 277 We were puzzled as to how the intervenors had entered the ejectment case until we read the trial judge’s ruling on the issues of law. “In disposition of the injunction proceedings growing out of this action of ejectment this court in order to do complete and substantial justice to all parties concerned ordered the Church of Christ of Old Road to intervene in this action if they so desire either as party plaintiff or defendant. Accordingly the elders and deacons of the Church of Christ, Old Road, Sinkor, filed an intervenors’ answer intervening as defendants in this action, denying the right of plaintiff to institute and maintain this action for reasons stated in said answer. The plaintiff filed a reply in which it was contended in counts i through 5 that this court impliedly has no authority to order a party to intervene or join in the pending action. Counts 6 and 7 of the reply are mere argumentation and do not meet the proper requisites of pleadings.” We have been unable to find any statutory authority for a court to order intervention, for the first sentence in the section on intervention in our Civil Procedure Law states : “Upon timely application any person shall (or may) be allowed to intervene in an action.” Rev. Code 1 :5.61, 5.62. Section 5.63 therof also addresses itself to intervention: “A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon all parties affected thereby. The motion shall state the grounds theref or and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” It was, therefore, error on the part of the trial judge to have ordered any party desiring to do so to intervene. Intervention under our statute must be done by an application in the form of a motion by a party wishing to do so and not otherwise. Issues of law having been disposed of, a jury trial was held and a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff. 278 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS A motion for a new trial was duly filed, resisted and denied and final judgment was rendered on May 21, 1974, confirming the verdict of the jury, evicting defendants from the subject property. An appeal was announced and all the jurisdictional steps having been taken and completed, this case is now before us for review and final determination on a fifteen-count bill of exceptions. In their appearance before us counsel for both sides argued mostly on the important issues involved in the case rather than the many counts of the bill of exceptions, because, we presume, the bill of exceptions embraces mainly exceptions to the ruling of the court on questions propounded to witnesses testifying during the trial. We do not feel it necessary, therefore, to meticulously review the fifteen counts of the bill of exceptions, but will give consideration to the salient points which in our opinion are: i. Who are the real owners of the subject property, in contemplation of law? 2. By whom was the property in question purchased and for what purpose? 3. The legal status of the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ vis-a-vis the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia. 4. The extent of civil jurisdiction over matters involving doctrinal disputes where property rights are concerned. We shall deal with these points in reverse order. Our main concern in this matter is to determine the right to ownership of the property in question and not question the decision of the religious organization with respect to the removal of the minister on doctrinal grounds, except insofar as that decision affects civil or property rights, for it has been held that the decision of a religious society is conclusive on the courts without regard to their regularity. But just as it has been held that civil courts will not interfere with the decisions of religious societies on doctrinal matters, it has been equally LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 279 held that the civil courts will exercise jurisdiction to determine the civil or property rights of a religious society or its members. “Civil courts will not interfere in religious societies with reference to their ecclesiastical practices. Thus, so long as no civil or property rights are invaded, a church member has no right to invoke the supervisory power of a civil court in a matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It has been explained that ecclesiastical matters include, generally, creeds and proper modes of exercising one’s belief. “So long as a professed creed is not subversive of the peace and good order of society, it is not within the province of any department of the government to settle differences in creeds or determine what ought or ought not to be a fundamental of religious belief; courts will not, therefore, investigate and pass upon questions concerning ecclesiastical matters unless it is necessary to do so for the purpose of determining questions of civil or property rights. The Church, however, has no control over any civil right or duty ; thus, it has been said that since the organic law of a church constitutes a contract between the parties to it, the civil courts have jurisdiction to protect members against an invasion of their contract. “In view of the doctrine of the separation of church and state, and the guarantees of religious freedom, the courts are reluctant to adjudicate matters affecting religious societies. While the civil courts have no jurisdiction over, and no concern with, purely ecclesiastical questions and controversies, they do have jurisdiction as to civil, contract, and property rights even though such rights are involved in, or arise from, a church controversy. Civil courts have no jurisdiction over a church or its members, as such, or over its officers or tribunals, except where temporal rights are involved, and will not interfere in the internal affairs 280 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS of a religious organization except for the protection of civil or property rights; but the civil and property rights of religious societies may be the subject of litigation in a civil court, and the courts have jurisdiction to determine controverted claims to the title, use, or possession of church property. “The courts will intervene to prevent the diversion of church property, and will determine whether church property is being devoted to doctrines radically opposed to the distinctive doctrines and practices of the society; but there is a limitation beyond which the courts do not go in passing on questions peculiar to the church and only incidental to individual property interests ; and it has been held that a court will not determine whether or not a donation of property has been diverted to an improper purpose where the action is between contending factions within the church and not by the grantor to enforce the conditions of his deed. Any use of a religious corporation’s property not in violation of its duties as trustee for the members of the society has been held not to be subject to control by the courts. “The courts will not interfere with factional differences in a religious society unless property rights are affected, not even then, it has been held, if the basis of the schism is due merely to a disparate interpretation of doctrine; and it has been held that in order to warrant interference by the courts in a factional dispute, it must clearly appear that the majority of governing body of the society intends to make a gratuitous transfer of the property of the society to another denomination, or to disavow and depart from its characteristic, distinctive doctrines and practices, and devote the use of the property to doctrines radically opposed thereto. However, it has also been held that where there is a division in a congregation, it is the duty of the courts to determine in which faction LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 281 title to the church property vests. In a proper case, the courts may enforce a church decision.” 76 C.J.S., Religious Societies, � 86. From the foregoing as it relates to the facts in this case, it is clear that the civil courts have jurisdiction to determine ownership of the property in question. The next point of consideration is the legal status of the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ vis-a-vis the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia. In consideration of this point let us remember that Robert Gibson, one of the appellants, prior to his knowing Evangelist Roosevelt Wells, had established a congregation of worshippers which he called the Church of Christ. � However, when Dr. Wells visited the congregation he discovered that their worship did not conform to the Church of Christ worship and so he undertook to teach them the doctrines of the Church of Christ, which they accepted and were baptized in. So it can be seen that the real Church of Christ on the Old Road, Sinkor, was established when Robert Gibson and his congregation were baptized in the doctrines of the Church of Christ as expounded by Evangelist Wells in 1966. The evidence at the trial shows that there was conformity to the doctrines of the Church of Christ as taught by Dr. Wells and accepted by Gibson and his congregation for a few years, for it was at the end of 1969 that the property owned by the Gibsons on which the Church was operating was offered to Dr. Wells and was later purchased. As a result of the establishment of the Church of Christ on the Old Road, Sinkor, and the assistance received from the U.S.A. by the efforts of Evangelists Roosevelt C. Wells and Andrew J. Hairston, other Church of Christ congregations were established in Monrovia and other parts of Liberia. When the decision was made to consolidate the work of the Church of Christ in Liberia into a corporate entity, as was done by virtue of the Act of the Legislature already hereinabove referred to, it is our understanding 282 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS that all Church of Christ congregations existing at the time and those to be thereafter established were members of the corporate body establised by the said Act under the name and style of “Church of Christ Mission in Liberia.” It is true that prior to the incorporation of the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia an altercation had arisen in the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ with respect to the minister’s departure from the doctrine of the Church, and those adhering to the doctrine had, through their officers, terminated his services with the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ by letter dated August 5, 1972. In our view the factional controversy did not affect the status of the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ as a Church of Christ. When later all Church of Christ Churches were incorporated into a body politic, the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ was included, and, therefore, the confirmation of the minister’s removal by the corporate body was to all intents and purposes legal. Appellants have contended that prior to the establishment of the corporate body known as the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia, they were a de facto corporation and an independent autonomous congregation and, therefore, the congregation known as the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia could not interfere with their activities. But is this correct? We do not think so, because the Church of Christ Mission in Liberia is not a congregation but many congregations, including Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ. Let us examine some law on the point. First as to a de facto corporation. “It is ordinarily essential to the existence of a de facto corporation that there be ( r) a valid law under which a corporation with the powers assumed might be incorporated; (2) a bona fide attempt to organize a corporation under such law [emphasis supplied] ; (3) and an actual exercise of corporate powers. There cannot be a corporation de facto when there cannot be one de jure ; that is, a law authorizing the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 283 formation of a corporation such as that attempted to be created is essential to even a de facto existence. “A bona fide attempt to incorporate according to law is essential to the creation of a corporation de facto. The mere existence of a law under which a corporation may be formed is sufficient to support a claim of the de facto existence if no attempt has been made to comply with the requirements thereof [emphasis supplied]. Although there may be an estoppel in such case under certain circumstances, there is no corporation, either de jure or de facto.” i8 AM. JUR., 2d, Corporations, � 51, 52. “Incorporation of a church society cannot be presumed merely because the statute prescribes a mode by which such societies may incorporate; nor is an actual absence of incorporation cured by a statute which provides that whenever a religious society shall have exercised the franchises and privileges of a corporation for Jo successive years it shall be presumed to have been legally organized according to law. “The general principles and the various requisites which govern the existence of de facto corporations generally, are applicable to religious corporations. Therefore, where an attempt in good faith is made to comply with a statute which authorizes the formation of such corporation, and where articles are drawn and signed in form as the statute requires, except as to the acknowledgment, and they are recorded [emphasis supplied], the corporation is organized, and the right to exercise a corporate franchise is asserted for several years, a religious corporation de facto is created, the right of which to corporate functions and attributes is complete against all the world except the state.” 66 AM. JuR., Religious Societies, � 6. “Before a corporation can have a de facto existence, it must have been possible for it to be a corporation de jure, and in order to establish a de facto status, it must 284 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS show a charter or law under which a corporation might lawfully be created, a colorable and bona fide attempt to organize a corporation thereunder, and the exercise of corporate functions by the organization so formed. Proof of existence of a de facto corporation is not sufficient, if there is an absence of evidence of any attempt to incorporation or [emphasis supplied] even though there is evidence of use of corporate functions, if there is no evidence of a charter or law under which a corporation could be created.” 76 C.J.S., Religious Societies, � to. From the foregoing citations we can safely conclude that appellants could not be considered as a de facto corporation, since indeed there is no showing that any attempt had been made to incorporate. Appellants have relied on Holder v. Dunbar, [1947] LRSC 26; 17 LLR 719 (1947), as their authority for asserting their rights to the claim of a de facto corporation. We do not see the analogy between that case and this. In the first place the suit was brought in the reported case by persons not members of the church, against the church exercising a right over property owned by the church. In this case it is a controversy between members of the same church as to property rights. Secondly, in the reported case the legal status of the church was challenged because it had acquired property as a de facto corporation even though suit was brought against it when it had acquired de jure corporate status. In this case there is no showing that appellants had ever attempted to incorporate. We now come to consider by whom was the property bought and for what purpose. What we have hereinabove stated has to some extent clarified this point. It is obvious from the receipt set forth above that the property was paid for by the Washington Heights Church of Christ and the Simpson Street Church of Christ in the U.S.A. on behalf of the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ; and from the statement agreed to by and between LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 285 Robert Gibson and Evangelists Wells and Hairston, already quoted in this opinion, Robert Gibson was to live on the land “free of charge” as long as he “served as Minister of the Church.” Appellee has not contended that appellants are not members of Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ, but rather that because co-appellant Robert Gibson departed from the doctrines of the church, he was removed as minister of the church. Consequently, in keeping with the statement agreed to and signed by him that he could live on the property as long as he served as minister, he should vacate the premises. Appellants have contended not only that ownership of the property vested in them because they were a de facto corporation, but also because of prior possession, title and ownership vested in them. This contention is strange indeed. Appellants’ behavior in parting with title to the property, agreeing to live on it as long as co – appellant Robert Gibson served as minister, and then asserting ownership, show lack of integrity. And it must be remembered that it was not long after they had alienated this property to the church that Robert Gibson departed from the teachings and doctrines of the Church of Christ that he had been baptized in, and reverted to his old form of worship. This really is more than strange behavior. We hold that the property was bought for the Church of Christ situated on Old Road, Sinkor. Now, lastly, who are the owners of the property? The answer to that question has been partly answered by what we have already said. Obviously, the owners of the property are the members of the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ adhering to the teachings and doctrines of the Church of Christ. “While it is true that in the case of independent religious societies such church or congregation is a self-governing unit, a majority thereof is supreme only so long as it remains true to its fundamental faith, 286 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS immemorial customs, usages, and practice. It has been held that the majority of each independent or congregational society, however regular its action or procedures may be, may not, as against a faithful minority, divert the property of the society to another denomination, or to the support of doctrines radically and fundamentally opposed to the characteristic doctrines of the society even though the property is subject to no express trust, and that civil courts will exercise jurisdiction in a controversy of that nature; it has also been held that the minority members of a church acting in harmony with its ecclesiastical laws and adhering to the faith constitute the church, as against a majority which have departed from the faith. Thus, in consonance with this principle, it has been held that the majority present at a church meeting cannot convey the church property to another religious denomination against the protest of the minority, although no express trust was established by those donating the funds with which the property was purchased.” 66 AM. JUR., 2d, Religious Societies, � 42. “It has been held that the civil courts are not concerned with mere schisms stemming from disputations over matters of religious doctrine, not only because such questions are essentially ecclesiastical rather than judicial but also because of the separation between the church and the state, hence, even when property rights are involved, the rival factions may be remitted to their remedy within the denomination if its form of government is such as to permit an appeal to higher ecclesiastical authority. However, it has also been held that the situation is different in the case of selfgoverning congregational churches, for here the courts do not hesitate to assume jurisdiction when a schism affects property rights, for in this form of church government each local congregation is independent and autonomous and there is no recourse, within the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 287 denomination. Where factional differences occur in an ecclesiastical body, the rule of the civil court in dealing with the property rights is to give effect to the will of that part of the organization acting in harmony with the ecclesiastical laws, usages, customs, and principles which were accepted among them before the dispute arose.” 66 AM. JUR., 2d Religious Societies, � 51. “Who are members of a religious society must, as a general rule, be determined by reference to the rules, constitution, or bylaws of the society, and by reference to the statutes governing such bodies. The essence of the relation of membership in a religious society is held to be the agreement of the parties, including financial support in some form where the statute requires, and generally a profession of faith, adherence to the doctrines of the church, and submission to its government are required.” 76 C.J.S., Religious Societies, � ii. “As a general rule, the rights and obligations of members of a religious society are governed by the laws of that society. Every person entering into a religious society impliedly, if not expressly, covenants to conform to its rules and to submit to its authority and discipline, and he has no right to insist on the exercise of his rights as a member where such insistence amounts to an invasion and destruction of property rights of the society and of other members thereof.” 76 C.J.S., Religious Societies, � 12. We have carefully reviewed the record certified to us in this case, and we are convinced and do hold that ownership to the subject property vests in the Church of Christ, and that co-appellant Robert Gibson having been relieved of his duties as minister of the Sinkor Old Road Church of Christ by the local officers and members of that church adhering to the teachings and doctrines of the church, as well as the board of trustees of the Church 288 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS of Christ Mission in Liberia, should be evicted and ousted from the premises in accord with his assenting that he would be permitted to live on the premises as long as he was minister of the church. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court and the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to send a mandate to the court below to resume jurisdiction and enforce its judgment, with costs against appellants. And it is so ordered.