Carino vs.

Insular Government The Spanish law in force when the United States took possession of
Recitation the Philippines required that all persons claiming title to public lands by
Mateo Carino and the members of the native Ibaloi ethnic group of the prescription should, long prior to that date, have presented and proved
Benguet Province in the Cordilleras of Northern Luzon, petitioned the their claims, complied with the legal regulations, and secured title by
Land Registration Court of the Philippines government for a title administrative adjudication, upon penalty of becoming mere
covering 148 hectares of the Camp John Hay reservation in the City of trespassers and subject to ejectment. Carino did not comply with these
Baguio, which the group has been occupying since time immemorial as requirements, the time within which he could have done so had long
natives of the land. The motion was granted. passed, and he was therefore in the eyes of the law a trespasser on
the public lands of the Philippine Islands at the date when the islands
In 1904, the government appealed the decision of the Land passed to the sovereignty of the United States.
Registration Court with the Court of First Instance claiming that Carino
had no right over the land since he was not able to present any The Organic act of July 1, 1902 did not apply to Benguet Province
Spanish title. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the The situation of Carino has not been changed by legislation of the
government. Carino appealed the decision of the court of First Instance United States or of the Philippine Islands since the change of
with the United States Supreme Court. sovereignty. The act of March 2, 1901 continued the status of the
public lands until further action by Congress. The Organic act of July
The court upheld Carino’s rights over the property, ruling in effect the 1, 1902 empowered the Philippine Government created thereby to
establishment and recognition of “native title” to the property. The promulgate rules and regulations governing the public lands. In
ruling, penned by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is the Mateo pursuance of the powers so conferred, the Philippine Government
Carino Doctrine, that recognizes as valid land rights established by established a court of land registration and prescribed such rules and
testimonies or memories that the land has been held, occupied and regulations. These were, however, suspended as to the Province of
utilized in ownership since time immemorial. Benguet in which the land in controversy is situated, and for that
reason there was no forum in which plaintiff could have legally
Background of the Case established the title he claimed.
This was an application to the Philippine Court of Land Registration for
the registration of certain land. The application was granted by the The land was a military reservation of the United States
court on March 4, 1904. An appeal was taken to the Court of First Military and other reservations were excepted from the provision of the
Instance of the Province of Benguet, on behalf of the Government of organic act. That property acquired from Spain should be administered
the Philippines and also on behalf of the United States, those for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Philippines. Further, in reference
Governments having taken possession of the property for public and to the sale of public lands to actual occupants or settlers and others, as
military purposes. The Court of First Instance found the facts and in reference to perfecting title to those who prior to the transfer of
dismissed the application upon grounds of law. This judgment was sovereignty had fulfilled all or some of the conditions required by the
affirmed by the Supreme Court and the case then was brought here by Spanish law for the acquisition of legal title, yet had failed to secure
writ of error. conveyance of title, there is an express restriction to an area of 16
hectares, and the tract here contains 150 hectares.
Facts: Carino is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, where' the land
lies. For more than fifty years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1899, Issue: Whether Carino acquired ownership over the subject land.
as far back as the findings go, the plaintiff and his ancestors had held [YES]
the land as owners. His grandfather had lived upon it and had
maintained fences sufficient for the holding of cattle, according to the Ruling: The land belonged to Carino under the Igorot law. He had
custom of the country, some of the fences, it seems, having been of inherited it from his ancestors in accordance with the native customs
much earlier date. and his title had never been questioned. The Spanish law explicitly
recognized and scrupulously protected the Indian titles. Possession of
His father had cultivated parts and had used parts for pasturing cattle, land under such circumstances confers a property right jure gentium
and he had used it for pasture in his turn. They all had been' independently of any rule of prescription. Spanish law recognized and
recognized as owners by the Igorots, and he had inherited or received protected rights of the native occupants of its Indian possessions even
the land from his father in accordance with Igorot custom. No more fully and scrupulously than our Government has done in the case
document of title, however, had issued from the Spanish Crown, and of its Indian wards.
although in 1893-1894, and again in 1896-1897, he made application
for one under the royal decrees then in force, nothing seems to have Carino had a legal title under the Civil Code
come of it, unless, perhaps, information that lands in Benguet could not Claimant having actually possessed the land in question for more than
be conceded until those to be occupied for a sanatorium, etc., had thirty years had acquired, under the Spanish Civil Code, good
been designated, a purpose that has been carried out by the Philippine prescriptive title. The provisions of this Code as to prescription apply to
Government and the United States. In 1901 the plaintiff filed a petition, all lands in the Philippine Islands regardless of whether owned by the
alleging ownership, under the mortgage law, and the lands were Government or not, just as they admittedly do in the Spanish Peninsula
registered to him. itself. Carino had a legal title under the Civil Code. Registration was a
mere procedural formality and did not create property. In any event, he
Contention of the Solicitor General had a right of property under Spanish law which was protected by the
Carino possessed no title in the lands at the date of the change of Treaty of Paris.
sovereignty from Spain to the United States
During the period of Spanish sovereignty, the tribe of Igorots had not Recognition of native title
been segregated ‘from the body of the Philippine people as to the Whatever may have been the technical position of Spain, it does not
operation of the general law; no reservation of land was set aside for follow that, in the view of the United States, he had lost all rights and
them, nor did the Spanish Government interfere in their internal tribal was a mere trespasser, when the present Government seized his land.
affairs. The status of the Igorot in his relation to the Spanish laws is not The argument to that effect seems to amount to a denial of native titles
analogous to that of the American Indian in relation to the laws of the throughout an important part of the island of Luzon, at least, for the
United States, and the cases affecting the tribal rights of Indians have want of ceremonies which the Spaniards would not have permitted and
no application to any rights of Carino, jure gentium or otherwise. had not the power to enforce.

Plaintiff's claim of title advanced in the Philippine courts, based mainly Interpretation of the Organic Act
upon "prescription" as valid against the Crown of Spain and therefore By the organic act of July 1, 1902, all the property and rights acquired
surviving the hange of sovereignty and requiring to be recognized there by the United States are to be administered for the benefit of the
under the Treaty of Paris, is untenable under Spanish law. While the inhabitants thereof. The same statute made a bill of rights embodying
law made ample provision for the protection of rights claimed under the safeguards of the Constitution, and, like the Constitution, extends
ancient possession, it was in each case necessary that evidence of title those safeguards to all. It provides that “no law shall be enacted in said
should be submitted to the proper administrative officials. islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal
Carino did not comply with the requirements under Spanish law protection of the laws”. In the light of the declaration that we have
quoted from, it is hard to believe that the United States was ready to
declare in the next breath that "any person" did not embrace the
inhabitants of Benguet, or that it meant by “property" only that which
had become such by ceremonies of which presumably a large part of
the inhabitants never had heard, and that it proposed to treat as public
land what they, by native custom and by long association, one of the
profoundest factors in human thought, regarded as their own.

It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far back
as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals
under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to
have been public land. Certainly, in a case like this if there is doubt or
ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the benefit
of the doubt. Whether justice to the natives and the import of the
organic act ought not to carry us beyond a subtle examination of
ancient texts, or perhaps even beyond the attitude of Spanish law,
humane though it was, it is unnecessary to decide.

Benefit of the doubt is given to applicant