Cariño v. Insular Government, 7 Phil 132 & 212 US 449

Full text: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/212/449/

Facts:

This was an application to the Philippine Court of Land Registration for the registration of certain land. The application was granted by the court on March 4, 1904. An appeal was taken to the Court of First Instance of the Province of Benguet on behalf of the government of the Philippines, and also on behalf of the United States, those governments having taken possession of the property for public and military purposes.

The material facts found are very few. The applicant and plaintiff in error 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, as far back as the findings go, the plaintiff and his ancestors had held the land as owners. His grandfather had lived upon it, and had maintained fences sufficient for the holding of cattle, according to the custom of the country, some of the fences, it seems, having been of much earlier date. His father had cultivated parts and had used parts for pasturing cattle, and he had used it for pasture in his turn. They all had been recognized as owners by the Igorots, and he had inherited or received the land from his father in accordance with Igorot custom. No document of title, however, had issued from the Spanish Crown, and 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 come of it, unless, perhaps, information that lands in Benguet could not be conceded until those to be occupied for a sanatorium, etc., had been designated -- a purpose that has been carried out by the Philippine government and the United States. In 1901, the plaintiff filed a petition, alleging ownership, under the mortgage law, an d the lands were registered to him, that process, however, establishing only a possessory title, it is said.

Ruling of the Court of First Instance:

The Court of First Instance found the facts and dismissed the application upon grounds of law

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines:

This judgment (judgement of the Court of First Instance) was affirmed by the supreme court, 7 Phil. 132, and the case then was brought here 9 (US Supreme Court) by writ of error.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the plaintiff owns the land?

2. Whether or not the plaintiff wrongfully occupy a royal land?

Ruling of the US Supreme Court:

1. Yes, the plaintiff owns the land.

The US Court held that every presumption is and ought to be against the government in a case like the present. 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, the Court 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.

In this case, the plaintiff and his ancestors had held the land as owners. They all had been recognized as owners by the Igorots, and he had inherited or received the land from his father in accordance with Igorot custom.

2. No, the plaintiff did not wrongfully occupy royal land.

The US Court held and cited the laws of Spain that for private ownership, there must have been a grant by competent authority; but instantly descends to fact by providing that, for all legal effects, those who have been in possession for certain times shall be deemed owners. For cultivated land, twenty years, uninterrupted, is enough. For uncultivated, thirty. Art. 5. Also, in Article 6, it is provided that "interested parties not included within the two preceding articles [the articles recognizing prescription of twenty and thirty years] may legalize their possession, and thereby acquire the full ownership of the said lands, by means of adjustment proceedings, to be conducted in the following manner..."

In this case, when this decree went into effect, the applicant's father was owner of the land by the very terms of the decree. The object of this law was to require the adjustment or registration proceedings that it described, and in that way to require everyone to get a document of title or lose his land. That purpose may have been entertained, but it does not appear clearly to have been applicable to all. The regulations purport to have been made "for the adjustment of royal lands wrongfully occupied by private individuals." It does not appear that this land ever was royal land or wrongfully occupied.