Cariño vs Insular Government, 41 Phil 935
Land Titles and Deeds – Regalian Doctrine – Statute of Limitations
1)
Facts: An Igorot applied for the registration of a certain land. He and his
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
for the land when he applied for registration. The government contends
that the land in question belonged to the state. Under the Spanish Law,
all lands belonged to the Spanish Crown except those with permit
private titles. Moreover, there is no prescription against the Crown.
Issue: WON the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown under
the Regalian Doctrine.
Held: No. Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted
title to his land.
The United States Supreme Court, through Justice Holmes declared:
“It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far 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.”
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
immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown, as
an exception to the theory of jura regalia.
2)
FACTS:
 Carino is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, where the land
lies filed for writ of error because the CFI and SC dismissed his
petition for application
 For more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11,
1899, he and his ancestors had held the land as recognized
owners by the Igorots. (grandfather maintain fences for
holding cattle>father had cultivated parts and used parts for
pasturing cattle>he used it for pasture)
 1893-1894 & 1896-1897: he made an application but with no
avail
 1901: petition alleging ownership under the mortgage law
and the lands were registered to him but process only
established possessory title
 Even if the applicant have title, he cannot have it registered,
because the Philippine Commission's Act No. 926, of 1903,
excepts the Province of Benguet among others from its
operation
ISSUE: W/N Carino has ownership and is entitled to registration.
HELD: YES. Petition Granted.
 Land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not
always, public land.
 Spanish Law: "Where such possessors shall not be able to
produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show
that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription." For
cultivated land, 20 years, uninterrupted, is enough. For
uncultivated, 30.
 Applicant's possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at
any such proceedings against him or his father ever was
made.
 Every native who had not a paper title is not a trespasser.
 There must be a presumption against the government when a
private individual claims property as his or her own. It went
so far as to say that the lands will be deemed private absent
contrary proof.
3)
Facts: Mateo Cariño, on February 23 , 1904, filed his petition in the
Court of Land Registration for a title to a parcel of land consisting of 40
hectares, 1 are, and 13 centares in the town of Baguio, Province of
Benguet. This was heard with a petition for a title for a portion of the
land.
The Insular Government opposed the granting of these petitions,
because they alleged that the whole parcel of land is public property of
the Government and that the same was never acquired in any manner
or through any title of egresion from the State.
According to Carino, in 1884, he erected and utilized as a domicile a
house on the property situated to the north of that property now in
question. They said that during the year 1893 Cariño sold said house to
one Cristobal Ramos, who in turn sold the same to Donaldson Sim.
Carino abandoned the house and lived on the land in question.
The court of land registration ruled against their favor. They also ruled
that the land was "used for pasture and sowing," and belongs to the
class called public land.
Issue: Is Carino the rightful possessor of the land?
Held: No, petition denied.
Ratio:
Under the express provisions of law, a parcel of land being of common
origin, presumptively belonged to the State during its sovereignty, and,
in order to perfect the legitimate acquisition of such land by private
persons, it was necessary that the possession of the same pass from the
State.
There was no proof of title of egresion of this land from the domain of
the Spanish Government.
The possessory information was not the one authorized in substitution
for the one in adjustment of the royal decree of February 13, 1894. This
was due to:
1. the land has been in an uninterrupted state of cultivation during a
period of six years last past; or that the same has been possessed
without interruption during a period of twelve years and has been in a
state of cultivation up to the date of the information and during the
three years immediately preceding such information; or that such land
had been possessed openly without interruption during a period of
thirty or more years, notwithstanding the land had not been cultivated
Or such land had been possessed openly without interruption during a
period of thirty or more years, notwithstanding the land had not been
cultivated
2. Under Spanish law, there was a period of one year allowable to verify
the possessory information. After the expiration of this period of the
right of the cultivators and persons in possession to obtain gratuitous
title thereto lapses and the land together with full possession reverts to
the state, or, as the case may be, to the community, and the said
possessors and cultivators or their assigns would simply have rights
under universal or general title of average in the event that the land is
sold within a period of five years immediately following the
cancellation. The possessors not included under this chapter can only
acquire by time the ownership and title to unappropriated or royal
lands in accordance with common law.
In accordance with the preceding provisions, the right that remained to
Cariño, if it be certain that he was the true possessor of the land in
question, was the right of average in case the Government or State
could have sold the same within the period of five years immediately
following for example, if the denouncement of purchase had been
carried out by Felipe Zafra or any other person, from the record of the
case
The right of possession in accordance with civil law remained at all
times subordinate to the Spanish administrative law, inasmuch as it
could only be of force when pertaining to royal transferable or
alienable lands even until after February 13, 1894.
3. The advent of American sovereignty necessarily brought a new
method of dealing with lands and particularly as to the classification
and manner of transfer and acquisition of royal or common lands then
appropriated, which were thenceforth merely called public lands, the
alienation of which was reserved to the Government, in accordance
with the Organic Act of 1902 and other laws like Act No. 648, herein
mentioned by the petitioner.
Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, as a basis for obtaining the
right of ownership. "The petitioners claim the title under the period of
prescription of ten years established by that act, as well as by reason of
his occupancy and use from time immemorial. But said act admits such
prescription for the purpose of obtaining title and ownership to lands
not exceeding more that 16 hectares in extent." Under Sec. 6 of said
act. The land claimed by Cariño is 40 hectares in extent, if we take into
consideration his petition, or an extension of 28 hectares, therefore it
follows that the judgment denying the petition herein and now
appealed from was strictly in accordance with the law invoked.
And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory information,
one part of same, according to the testimony of Cariño, belongs to
Vicente Valpiedad, the extent of which is not determined. From all of
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 judgment and title be declared in favor of the petitioner, Mateo
Cariño. And we should not lose sight of the fact that, considering the
intention of Congress in granting ownership and title to 16 hectares,
that Mateo Cariño and his children have already exceeded such amount
in various acquirements of lands, all of which is shown in different cases
decided by the said Court of Land Registration.
4)
FACTS:On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cariňo went to the Court of Land
Registration to petition his inscription as the owner of a 146 hectare
land he’s been possessing in the then municipality of Baguio. Mateo
only presented possessory information and no other documentation.
The State opposed the petition averring that the land is part of the US
military reservation. The CLR ruled in favor of Mateo. The State
appealed. Mateo lost. Mateo averred that a grant should be given to
him by reason of immemorial use and occupation as in the previous
case Cansino vs Valdez & Tiglao vs Government.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of the land by virtue
of his possession of it for some time.
HELD: No. The statute of limitations did not run against the
government. The government is still the absolute owner of the land
(regalian doctrine). Further, Mateo’s possession of the land has not
been of such a character as to require the presumption of a grant. No
one has lived upon it for many years. It was never used for anything but
pasturage of animals, except insignificant portions thereof, and since
the insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been used by the
petitioner for any purpose.
While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a
deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has
always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper
administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did
the State remained the absolute owner.
G.R. No. 2869 March 25, 1907 MATEO CARIÑO, petitioner-
appellant, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, respondent-appellee.
Coudert Brothers for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee. ARELLANO, C.J.:
Mateo Cariño, the appellant herein, on the 23d of February, 1904, filed
his petition in the Court of Land Registration praying that there be
granted to him title to a parcel of land consisting of 40 hectares, 1 are,
and 13 centares, and situated in the town of Baguio, Province of
Benguet, together with a house erected thereon and constructed of
wood and roofed with rimo, and bounded as follows: On the north, in
lines running 1,048 metes and 20 decimeters with the lands of Sepa
Cariño, H. Phelps Whitmarsh, and Calsi; on the east, in lines running
991 meters and 50 decimeters with the land of Kuidno, Esteban
Gonzales, and of the Civil Government; on the south, in lines of 115
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
Cariño and Mayengmeng.
By order of the court the hearing of this petition, No. 561, and that of
Antonio Rebollo and Vicente Valpiedad filed under No. 834, were heard
together for the reason that the latter petition claimed a small portion
of land included in the parcel set out in the former petition.
The Insular Government opposed the granting of these petitions,
alleging that the whole parcel of land is public property of the
Government and that the same was never acquired in any manner or
through any title of egresion from the State.
After trial, and the hearing of documentary and oral proof, the court of
Land Registration rendered its judgment in these terms:
Therefore the court finds that Cariño and his predecessors have not
possessed exclusively and adversely any part of the said property prior
to the date on which Cariño constructed the house now there — that is
to say, for the years 1897 and 1898, and Cariño held possession for
some years afterwards of but a part of the property to which he claims
title. Both petitions are dismissed and the property in question is
adjudged to be public land. (Bill of exceptions, p. 15.)
The conclusions arrived at the set forth in definite terms in the decision
of the court below are the following:
From the testimony given by Cariño as well as from that of several of
the witnesses for the Government it is deduced, that in or about the
year 1884 Cariño erected and utilized as a domicile a house on the
property situated to the north of that property now in question,
property which, according to the plan attached to expediente No. 561,
appears to be property belonging to Donaldson Sim; that during the
year 1893 Cariño sold said house to one Cristobal Ramos, who in turn
sold the same to Donaldson Sim, moving to and living on the adjoining
property, which appears on the plan aforesaid to be the property of H.
Phelps Whitmarsh, a place where the father and the grandfather of his
wife, that is to say, Ortega and Minse, had lived . . ..
In or about the years 1898 Cariño abandoned the property of
Whitmarsh and located on the property described in the plan attached
to expediente No. 561, having constructed a house thereon in which he
now lives, and which house is situated in the center of the property, as
is indicated on the plan; and since which time he has undoubtedly
occupied some portion of the property now claimed by him. (Bill of
exceptions, pp. 11 and 12.)
1. Therefore it is evident that this court can not decree the registration
of all of the superficial extension of the land described in the petition
and as appears on the plan filed herein, such extension containing 40
hectares, 1 are, and 13 centares, inasmuch as the documentary
evidence accompanying the petition is conclusive proof against the
petitioners; this documentary proof consists of a possessory
information under date of March 7, 1901, and registered on the 11th
day of the same month and year; and, according to such possessory
information, the land therein described contains an extension of only
28 hectares limited by "the country road to the barrio of Pias," a road
appearing on the plan now presented and cutting the land, as might be
said, in half, or running through its center from north to south, a
considerable extension of land remaining on the other side of the said
road, the west side, and which could not have been included in the
possessory information mentioned.
2. As has been shown during the trial of this case, this land, of which
mention is made in said possessory information, and upon which is
situated the house now actually occupied by the petitioner, all of which
is set forth as argument as to the possession in the judgment, is "used
for pasture and sowing," and belongs to the class called public lands.
3. Under the express provisions of law, a parcel of land, being of
common origin, presumptively belonged to the State during its
sovereignty, and, in order to perfect the legitimate acquisition of such
land by private persons, it was necessary that the possession of the
same pass from the State. And there is no evidence or proof of title of
egresion of this land from the domain of the Spanish Government, nor
is there any possessory information equivalent to title by composicion
or under agreement. 4, The possessory information filed herein is not
the title to property authorized in substitution for that of adjustment by
the royal decree of February 13, 1894, this being the last law or legal
disposition of the former sovereignty applicable to the present subject-
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
conditions required by article 19 of the said royal decree, to wit, that
the land has been in an uninterrupted state of cultivation during a
period of six years last past; or that the same has been possessed
without interruption during a period of twelve years and has been in a
state of cultivation up to the date of the information and during the
three years immediately preceding such information; or that such land
had been possessed openly without interruption during a period of
thirty or more years, notwithstanding the land had not been cultivated;
nor is it necessary to refer to the testimony given by the two witnesses
to the possessory information for the following reason: Second,
because the possessory information authorized by said royal decree or
last legal disposition of the Spanish Government, as title or for the
purpose of acquiring actual proprietary right, equivalent to that of
adjustment with the Spanish Government and required and necessary
at all times until the publication of said royal decree was limited in time
to one year, in accordance with article 21, which is as follows: " A
period of one year, not to be extended, is allowed to verify the
possessory informations which are referred to in articles 19 and 20.
After the expiration of this period of the right of the cultivators and
persons in possession to obtain gratuitous title thereto lapses and the
land together with full possession reverts to the state, or, as the case
may be, to the community, and the said possessors and cultivators or
their assigns would simply have rights under universal or general title of
average in the event that the land is sold within a period of five years
immediately following the cancellation. The possessors not included
under this chapter can only acquire by time the ownership and title to
unappropriated or royal lands in accordance with common law."
5. In accordance with the preceding provisions, the right that remained
to Cariño, if it be certain that he was the true possessor of the land in
question, was the right of average in case the Government or State
could have sold the same within the period of five years immediately
following for example, if the denouncement of purchase had been
carried out by Felipe Zafra or any other person, as appears from the
record of the trial of the case. Aside from this right, in such event, his
possession as attested in the possessory information herein could not,
in accordance with common law, go to show any right of ownership
until after the expiration of twenty years from the expiration of twenty
years from the verification and registry of the same in conformity with
the provisions of article 393 of the Mortgage Law and other conditions
prescribe by this law.
6. The right of possession in accordance with common law — that is to
say, civil law — remains at all times subordinate to the Spanish
administrative law, inasmuch as it could only be of force when
pertaining to royal transferable or alienable lands, which condition and
the determination thereof is reversed to the government, which
classified and designated the royal alienable lands for the purpose of
distinguishing them from those lands strictly public, and from forestry
lands which could at no time pass to private ownership nor be acquired
through time even after the said royal decree of February 13, 1894.
7. The advent of the new sovereignty necessarily brought a new
method of dealing with lands and particularly as to the classification
and manner of transfer and acquisition of royal or common lands then
appropriated, which were thenceforth merely called public lands, the
alienation of which was reserved to the Government, in accordance
with section 12 and 13 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902,1 and in
conformity with other laws enacted under this act of Congress by the
Philippine Commission prescribing rules for the execution thereof, one
of which is Act No. 648,2 herein mentioned by the petitioner, in
connection with Act No. 627,3 which appears to be the law upon which
the petition herein is founded.
8. Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, in accordance with the
provisions contained in Act No. 190, as a basis for obtaining the right of
ownership. "The petitioners claims title under the period of
prescription of ten years established by that act, as well as by reason of
his occupancy and use thereof from time immemorial." (Allegation 1.)
But said act admits such prescription for the purpose of obtaining title
and ownership to lands "not exceeding more that sixteen hectares in
extent." (Sec. 6 of said act.) The land claimed by Cariño is 40 hectares in
extent, if we take into consideration his petition, or an extension of 28
hectares, according to the possessory information, the only thing that
can be considered. Therefore, it follows that the judgment denying the
petition herein and now appealed from was strictly in accordance with
the law invoked herein.
9. And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory
information, one part of same, according to the testimony of Cariño,
belongs to Vicente Valpiedad, the extent of which is not determined.
From all of 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 judgment and title be declared in favor of the
petitioner, Mateo Cariño. And we should not lose sight of the fact that,
considering the intention of Congress in granting ownership and title to
16 hectares, that Mateo Cariño and his children have already exceeded
such amount in various acquirements of lands, all of which is shown in
different cases decided by the said Court of Land Registration,
donations or gifts of land that could only have been made efficacious as
to the conveyance thereof with the assistance of these new laws.
By reason of the findings set forth it is clearly seen that the court below
did not err:
1. In finding that Mateo Cariño and those from whom he claims his
right had not possessed and claimed as owners the lands in question
since time immemorial;
2. In finding that the land in question did not belong to the petitioner,
but that, on the contrary, it was the property of the Government.
(Allegation 21.)
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs of
this instance against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days
from the notification of this decision let judgment be entered in
accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded
to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.
Torres, Mapa, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., reserves his vote.
Every presumption of ownership is in favor of one actually occupying
land for many years, and against the government which seeks to
deprive him of it, for failure to comply with provisions of a
subsequently enacted registration act.
Title by prescription against the crown existed under Spanish law in
force in the Philippine Islands prior to their acquisition by the United
States, and one occupying land in the Province of Benguet for more
than fifty years before the Treaty of Paris is entitled to the continued
possession thereof.
7 Phil. 132 reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 212 U. S. 455
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the
United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general
informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal
developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or
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.

U.S. Supreme Court

Carino v. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449 (1909)
Carino v. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands
No. 72
Argued January 13, 1909
Decided February 23, 1909
212 U.S. 449
Syllabus

Writ of error is the general, and appeal the exceptional, method of

bringing Cases to this Court. The latter method is in the main confined
to equity cases, and the former is proper to bring up a judgment of the
Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands affirming a judgment of the
Court of Land Registration dismissing an application for registration of
land.

Although a province may be excepted from the operation of Act No.

926 of 1903 of the Philippine Commission which provides for the
registration and perfecting of new titles, one who actually owns
property in such province is entitled to registration under Act No. 496
of 1902, which applies to the whole archipelago.

While, in legal theory and as against foreign nations, sovereignty is

absolute, practically it is a question of strength and of varying degree,
and it is for a new sovereign to decide how far it will insist upon
theoretical relations of the subject to the former sovereign and how far
it will recognize actual facts.

Page 212 U. S. 450

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.

The Organic Act of the Philippines made a bill of rights embodying

safeguards of the Constitution, and, like the Constitution, extends those
safeguards to all.