The section of reversion, literally copied above, will have its desired effect fully, in the case under consultation (unless permission is given to reconstitute the private institution in regard to the ruling of the writ of 1611), with entire independence of the academical institutions of the state. The disagreement [disyuntiva] would be between this and the reversion of the properties. Therefore, it is sufficient to call to mind the succinct but faithful review which has been made of the cardinal fundamentals of the foundation, in order to have proved that the reorganization of education, which the ministry of the colonies, laying aside all consideration of the community [i.e., of the Dominicans], might order, would wound and destroy in an essential manner, the will of the founders. If that should happen, the province of Santísimo Rosario and the Dominican religious of the province, would not only have the right to recover the properties, and give them the pious application assigned by the section, but also would not have the power to refrain from it, and consent that such properties remain applied to the needs of the teaching institution reorganized by the government. The patrons of a charitable fund, or any other permanent foundation, can never convert the authority of such contrary to the observance and purity of the institution confided to their care. The acts of the patrons, contrary to the foundation, possess the vice of nullity. The lawyers undersigned have no exact and minute information of the vicissitudes which the college-university has experienced from 1611 to the present day. Comparing alone the royal decree of October 29, 1875, which reorganized the instruction of the said college with the writ of its primitive foundation, it appears that some rulings of the former are at variance with the latter: for example, article 3, which declares that the orders, plans, programs, and regulations, which emanate from the ministry and in that case from the governor-general, are obligatory for the organization and rule of education; article 6, and the following ones which allowed entrance to secular professors and defined their emoluments and fees; article 11, which reserved to the ministry the power of fixing the fees of matriculation, degrees, titles, and certificates; and article 13, which obliged the rector to render an annual account to the royal vice-patron of the emoluments and expenses of the university, the order supplying the deficit resulting. But we are not consulting as to the greater or less legal stability of the present condition of the institution or if we were treating of it, it would not be within our province to disavow that in other things of great importance, the government still respected the fundamentals of the foundation, and that the concessions which were made in 1875 in exchange for obtaining by entreaty the abolition of the decrees of November 6, 1870, [169] appeared practically corroborated