Mateo Carno (pantff n error) vs.

Insuar Government of the Phppnes (defendant n error)

212 US 449, 41 Ph
|ustce Homes
How t reached the court:
- Pantff apped for regstraton of a certan and. Intay t was granted by the court, but the
Government of the Phppnes and the government of the Unted states appeaed to the
Court of frst nstance of Benguet (they were takng the property for pubc and mtary
purposes. The CFI dsmssed the appcaton (for regstraton) and ths was affrmed by the
Phppne Supreme Court. Ths was brought to the US Supreme court by wrt of error.
Facts:
- Pantff, an Igorot, possessed the and for more than 30 years before the treaty of Pars. He
and hs ancestors had hed the and for years. The oca communty recognzes them as the
owners of the sad and. Hs grandfather ved upon t and mantaned fences around the
property. Hs father rased catte on the property and he had nherted the and accordng to
Igorot custom. Athough no tte was ssued to them from the Spansh Crown. He tred twce
to have t regstered durng the Spansh occupaton but to no ava. In 1901 he fed a
petton aegng ownershp of the and but he was ony granted a possessory tte.
- Premnary ssues.
o Whether the mode of reachng the US supreme court was rght (ths was a wrt of
error, some were sayng that t shoud have been an appea) - Homes sad that the
mode was correct. Wrt of error was the genera rue, appea s the excepton. He saw
no reason not to appy the genera rue to ths case.
o Another ssue was that even f Carno was abe to have a tte over the and, he coud
not have t regstered because Benguet was one of the excuded provnces n the
Phppne Commssons act no. 926 (AN ACT PRESCRIBING RULES AND REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE HOMESTEADING, SELLING, AND LEASING OF PORTIONS OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.). But that aw deat wth acquston of
new ttes and perfectng of ttes begun under the Spansh aw. Carno argued that he
coud regster the and under Phppne Commssons Act no. 496 whch covered the
entre Phppne archpeago. Homes hed that he coud regster the and f ownershp
can be mantaned
- Main issue: whether Carino owns the land.
o Governments argument: Span had tte to a the and n the Phppnes except those
t saw ft to permt prvate ttes to be acqured. That there was a decree ssued by
Span that requred regstraton wthn a mted tme. Carnos and wasnt regstered
and so n effect t became pubc and.
USSC: Whatever the poston of Span was on the ssue, t does not foow that
the US woud vew pantff to have ost a hs rghts to the and - ths woud
amount to a dena of natve ttes throughout Benguet |ust because Span
woud not have granted to anyone n the provnce the regstraton of ther
ands.
Organc act of |uy 1, 1902 provdes that a the property and rghts acqured
there by the US woud be for the beneft of the nhabtants thereof. Ths same
statute made a b of rghts embodyng the safeguards of the consttuton, t
provdes that "'no aw sha be enacted n sad sands whch sha deprve any
person of fe, berty, or property wthout due process of aw, or deny to any
person theren the equa protecton of the aws". It woud be hard to beeve
that that "any person" ddnt ncude the nhabtants of Benguet. Nor t meant
"property" to refer ony to those ands whch had become such under a
ceremony(of regstraton) many of the peope of the and may have not even
heard of.
Athough n sec. 14 of the organc act, t s sad that the Phppne commsson
may prescrbe rues and reguatons for perfectng ttes to pubc ands, t
shoud be noted that ths secton refers to those cases where the and was
admtted to be pubc and. The US SC hestates to suppose that t was
ntended to decare every natve who had not a paper tte, a trespasser. The
queston st remans: what property and rghts dd the US acqure?
n cases ke ths one, the presumpton woud and shoud be aganst the
government. As far back as memory goes, the and has been hed by
ndvduas under a cam of prvate ownershp, t was never pubc and. It
woud not be proper to |ust et the conqueror to dctate how to dea wth the
Phppne trbes f t reay meant to use the rghts acqured by them "for the
beneft of the nhabtants thereof".
The natves were recognzed by the Spansh aws to own some ands,
rrespectve of any roya grant. They ddnt ntend to turn a the nhabtants
nto trespassers. Prncpe of prescrpton was admtted: that f they werent
abe to produce tte deeds, t s suffcent f they show ancent possesson, as a
vad tte by prescrpton.
athough there was a decree n |une 25, 1880 that requred everyone to get a
document of tte or ese ose hs and, t does not appear that t meant to appy
to a but ony those who wrongfuy occuped roya ands. IT doesnt appear
that the and of Carno was consdered as Roya and nor was t consdered to
have been wrongfuy occuped. Two artces of the same decree provded that
ttes woud be attrbuted to those who may prove possesson for the necessary
tme. There were ndcatons that regstraton was expected but t ddnt mean
that ownershp actuay ganed woud be ost. The effect of the proof was not to
confer tte to them but to estabsh t.
o "Law and |ustce requre that the appcant shoud be granted what he seeks and
shoud not be deprved of what, by the practce and beef of those among whom he
ved, was hs property, through a refned nterpretaton of an amost forgotten aw of
Span. "
|udgment reversed