1 Carino Vs Insular Government
1 Carino Vs Insular Government
1 Carino Vs Insular Government
Land Titles and Deeds – Regalian Doctrine – Statute of Limitations Court of Land Registration for a title to a parcel of land consisting of 40
1) hectares, 1 are, and 13 centares in the town of Baguio, Province of
Facts: An Igorot applied for the registration of a certain land. He and his
Benguet. This was heard with a petition for a title for a portion of the
ancestors had held the land as owners for more than 50 years, which he
inherited under Igorot customs. There was no document of title issued land.
for the land when he applied for registration. The government contends The Insular Government opposed the granting of these petitions,
that the land in question belonged to the state. Under the Spanish Law, because they alleged that the whole parcel of land is public property of
all lands belonged to the Spanish Crown except those with permit the Government and that the same was never acquired in any manner
private titles. Moreover, there is no prescription against the Crown. or through any title of egresion from the State.
Issue: WON the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown under According to Carino, in 1884, he erected and utilized as a domicile a
the Regalian Doctrine.
house on the property situated to the north of that property now in
Held: No. Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted
title to his land. question. They said that during the year 1893 Cariño sold said house to
The United States Supreme Court, through Justice Holmes declared: one Cristobal Ramos, who in turn sold the same to Donaldson Sim.
“It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far as Carino abandoned the house and lived on the land in question.
testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under The court of land registration ruled against their favor. They also ruled
a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in that the land was "used for pasture and sowing," and belongs to the
the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have class called public land.
been public land.”
Issue: Is Carino the rightful possessor of the land?
There is an existence of native title to land, or ownership of land by
Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since time Held: No, petition denied.
immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown, as Ratio:
an exception to the theory of jura regalia. Under the express provisions of law, a parcel of land being of common
origin, presumptively belonged to the State during its sovereignty, and,
2) in order to perfect the legitimate acquisition of such land by private
FACTS:
persons, it was necessary that the possession of the same pass from the
Carino is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, where the land
State.
lies filed for writ of error because the CFI and SC dismissed his
petition for application There was no proof of title of egresion of this land from the domain of
For more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, the Spanish Government.
1899, he and his ancestors had held the land as recognized The possessory information was not the one authorized in substitution
owners by the Igorots. (grandfather maintain fences for for the one in adjustment of the royal decree of February 13, 1894. This
holding cattle>father had cultivated parts and used parts for was due to:
pasturing cattle>he used it for pasture) 1. the land has been in an uninterrupted state of cultivation during a
1893-1894 & 1896-1897: he made an application but with no period of six years last past; or that the same has been possessed
avail without interruption during a period of twelve years and has been in a
1901: petition alleging ownership under the mortgage law state of cultivation up to the date of the information and during the
and the lands were registered to him but process only
three years immediately preceding such information; or that such land
established possessory title
had been possessed openly without interruption during a period of
Even if the applicant have title, he cannot have it registered,
because the Philippine Commission's Act No. 926, of 1903, thirty or more years, notwithstanding the land had not been cultivated
excepts the Province of Benguet among others from its Or such land had been possessed openly without interruption during a
operation period of thirty or more years, notwithstanding the land had not been
cultivated
ISSUE: W/N Carino has ownership and is entitled to registration. 2. Under Spanish law, there was a period of one year allowable to verify
HELD: YES. Petition Granted.
the possessory information. After the expiration of this period of the
Land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not
right of the cultivators and persons in possession to obtain gratuitous
always, public land.
title thereto lapses and the land together with full possession reverts to
Spanish Law: "Where such possessors shall not be able to
produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show the state, or, as the case may be, to the community, and the said
that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription." For possessors and cultivators or their assigns would simply have rights
cultivated land, 20 years, uninterrupted, is enough. For under universal or general title of average in the event that the land is
uncultivated, 30. sold within a period of five years immediately following the
Applicant's possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at cancellation. The possessors not included under this chapter can only
any such proceedings against him or his father ever was acquire by time the ownership and title to unappropriated or royal
made.
lands in accordance with common law.
Every native who had not a paper title is not a trespasser. In accordance with the preceding provisions, the right that remained to
There must be a presumption against the government when a
Cariño, if it be certain that he was the true possessor of the land in
private individual claims property as his or her own. It went
so far as to say that the lands will be deemed private absent question, was the right of average in case the Government or State
contrary proof. could have sold the same within the period of five years immediately
following for example, if the denouncement of purchase had been
3)
carried out by Felipe Zafra or any other person, from the record of the While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a
case deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has
The right of possession in accordance with civil law remained at all always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper
administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did
times subordinate to the Spanish administrative law, inasmuch as it
the State remained the absolute owner.
could only be of force when pertaining to royal transferable or
alienable lands even until after February 13, 1894.
G.R. No. 2869 March 25, 1907 MATEO CARIÑO, petitioner-
3. The advent of American sovereignty necessarily brought a new appellant, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, respondent-appellee.
method of dealing with lands and particularly as to the classification Coudert Brothers for appellant.
and manner of transfer and acquisition of royal or common lands then Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee. ARELLANO, C.J.:
appropriated, which were thenceforth merely called public lands, the
alienation of which was reserved to the Government, in accordance Mateo Cariño, the appellant herein, on the 23d of February, 1904, filed
with the Organic Act of 1902 and other laws like Act No. 648, herein his petition in the Court of Land Registration praying that there be
mentioned by the petitioner. granted to him title to a parcel of land consisting of 40 hectares, 1 are,
Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, as a basis for obtaining the and 13 centares, and situated in the town of Baguio, Province of
Benguet, together with a house erected thereon and constructed of
right of ownership. "The petitioners claim the title under the period of
wood and roofed with rimo, and bounded as follows: On the north, in
prescription of ten years established by that act, as well as by reason of lines running 1,048 metes and 20 decimeters with the lands of Sepa
his occupancy and use from time immemorial. But said act admits such Cariño, H. Phelps Whitmarsh, and Calsi; on the east, in lines running
prescription for the purpose of obtaining title and ownership to lands 991 meters and 50 decimeters with the land of Kuidno, Esteban
not exceeding more that 16 hectares in extent." Under Sec. 6 of said Gonzales, and of the Civil Government; on the south, in lines of 115
act. The land claimed by Cariño is 40 hectares in extent, if we take into meters and 60 decimeters, with the lands of Talaca; and on the west, in
lines running 982 meters and 20 decimeters, with the lands of Sisco
consideration his petition, or an extension of 28 hectares, therefore it
Cariño and Mayengmeng.
follows that the judgment denying the petition herein and now
appealed from was strictly in accordance with the law invoked.
By order of the court the hearing of this petition, No. 561, and that of
And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory information, Antonio Rebollo and Vicente Valpiedad filed under No. 834, were heard
one part of same, according to the testimony of Cariño, belongs to together for the reason that the latter petition claimed a small portion
Vicente Valpiedad, the extent of which is not determined. From all of of land included in the parcel set out in the former petition.
which it follows that the precise extent has not been determined in the
trial of this case on which judgment might be based in the event that The Insular Government opposed the granting of these petitions,
the judgment and title be declared in favor of the petitioner, Mateo alleging that the whole parcel of land is public property of the
Cariño. And we should not lose sight of the fact that, considering the Government and that the same was never acquired in any manner or
intention of Congress in granting ownership and title to 16 hectares, through any title of egresion from the State.
that Mateo Cariño and his children have already exceeded such amount
After trial, and the hearing of documentary and oral proof, the court of
in various acquirements of lands, all of which is shown in different cases
Land Registration rendered its judgment in these terms:
decided by the said Court of Land Registration.
Therefore the court finds that Cariño and his predecessors have not
4) possessed exclusively and adversely any part of the said property prior
FACTS:On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cariňo went to the Court of Land to the date on which Cariño constructed the house now there — that is
Registration to petition his inscription as the owner of a 146 hectare to say, for the years 1897 and 1898, and Cariño held possession for
land he’s been possessing in the then municipality of Baguio. Mateo some years afterwards of but a part of the property to which he claims
only presented possessory information and no other documentation. title. Both petitions are dismissed and the property in question is
The State opposed the petition averring that the land is part of the US adjudged to be public land. (Bill of exceptions, p. 15.)
military reservation. The CLR ruled in favor of Mateo. The State
appealed. Mateo lost. Mateo averred that a grant should be given to
The conclusions arrived at the set forth in definite terms in the decision
him by reason of immemorial use and occupation as in the previous
of the court below are the following:
case Cansino vs Valdez & Tiglao vs Government.
3. Under the express provisions of law, a parcel of land, being of 7. The advent of the new sovereignty necessarily brought a new
common origin, presumptively belonged to the State during its method of dealing with lands and particularly as to the classification
sovereignty, and, in order to perfect the legitimate acquisition of such and manner of transfer and acquisition of royal or common lands then
land by private persons, it was necessary that the possession of the appropriated, which were thenceforth merely called public lands, the
same pass from the State. And there is no evidence or proof of title of alienation of which was reserved to the Government, in accordance
egresion of this land from the domain of the Spanish Government, nor with section 12 and 13 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902,1 and in
is there any possessory information equivalent to title by composicion conformity with other laws enacted under this act of Congress by the
or under agreement. 4, The possessory information filed herein is not Philippine Commission prescribing rules for the execution thereof, one
the title to property authorized in substitution for that of adjustment by of which is Act No. 648,2 herein mentioned by the petitioner, in
the royal decree of February 13, 1894, this being the last law or legal connection with Act No. 627,3 which appears to be the law upon which
disposition of the former sovereignty applicable to the present subject- the petition herein is founded.
matter of common lands: First, for the reason that the land referred to
herein is not covered nor does it come within any one of the three 8. Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, in accordance with the
conditions required by article 19 of the said royal decree, to wit, that provisions contained in Act No. 190, as a basis for obtaining the right of
the land has been in an uninterrupted state of cultivation during a ownership. "The petitioners claims title under the period of
period of six years last past; or that the same has been possessed prescription of ten years established by that act, as well as by reason of
without interruption during a period of twelve years and has been in a his occupancy and use thereof from time immemorial." (Allegation 1.)
state of cultivation up to the date of the information and during the But said act admits such prescription for the purpose of obtaining title
three years immediately preceding such information; or that such land and ownership to lands "not exceeding more that sixteen hectares in
had been possessed openly without interruption during a period of extent." (Sec. 6 of said act.) The land claimed by Cariño is 40 hectares in
thirty or more years, notwithstanding the land had not been cultivated; extent, if we take into consideration his petition, or an extension of 28
nor is it necessary to refer to the testimony given by the two witnesses hectares, according to the possessory information, the only thing that
to the possessory information for the following reason: Second, can be considered. Therefore, it follows that the judgment denying the
because the possessory information authorized by said royal decree or petition herein and now appealed from was strictly in accordance with
last legal disposition of the Spanish Government, as title or for the the law invoked herein.
purpose of acquiring actual proprietary right, equivalent to that of
adjustment with the Spanish Government and required and necessary
9. And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory
at all times until the publication of said royal decree was limited in time
information, one part of same, according to the testimony of Cariño,
to one year, in accordance with article 21, which is as follows: " A
belongs to Vicente Valpiedad, the extent of which is not determined.
period of one year, not to be extended, is allowed to verify the
From all of which it follows that the precise extent has not been
possessory informations which are referred to in articles 19 and 20.
determined in the trial of this case on which judgment might be based
After the expiration of this period of the right of the cultivators and
in the event that the judgment and title be declared in favor of the
persons in possession to obtain gratuitous title thereto lapses and the
petitioner, Mateo Cariño. And we should not lose sight of the fact that,
land together with full possession reverts to the state, or, as the case
considering the intention of Congress in granting ownership and title to
may be, to the community, and the said possessors and cultivators or
16 hectares, that Mateo Cariño and his children have already exceeded
their assigns would simply have rights under universal or general title of
such amount in various acquirements of lands, all of which is shown in
average in the event that the land is sold within a period of five years
different cases decided by the said Court of Land Registration, Every presumption of ownership is in favor of one actually occupying
donations or gifts of land that could only have been made efficacious as land for many years, and against the government which seeks to
to the conveyance thereof with the assistance of these new laws. deprive him of it, for failure to comply with provisions of a
subsequently enacted registration act.
By reason of the findings set forth it is clearly seen that the court below
did not err: Title by prescription against the crown existed under Spanish law in
force in the Philippine Islands prior to their acquisition by the United
1. In finding that Mateo Cariño and those from whom he claims his States, and one occupying land in the Province of Benguet for more
right had not possessed and claimed as owners the lands in question than fifty years before the Treaty of Paris is entitled to the continued
since time immemorial; possession thereof.
2. In finding that the land in question did not belong to the petitioner, 7 Phil. 132 reversed.
but that, on the contrary, it was the property of the Government. The facts are stated in the opinion.
(Allegation 21.) Page 212 U. S. 455
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs of Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the
this instance against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general
from the notification of this decision let judgment be entered in informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal
accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or
to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered. guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the
information contained on this site or information linked to from this
site. Please check official sources.
Torres, Mapa, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., reserves his vote.
The acquisition of the Philippines was not for the purpose of acquiring
the lands occupied by the inhabitants, and under the Organic Act of July
1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691, providing that property rights are to be
administered for the benefit of the inhabitants, one who actually
owned land for many years cannot be deprived of it for failure to
comply with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the
Philippine Commission or by Spanish law.