CARINO v.
INSULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE PH ISLANDS  The Province of Benguet was inhabited by a tribe that the Solicitor
212 U.S. 449 (1909)
Doctrine: 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.
Facts:
 This was an application to the PH Court of Land Registration for the
registration of certain land. The application was granted by the court.
An appeal was taken to the CFI of the Province of Benguet on behalf
of the govt of the PH, and also on behalf of the U.S., those
governments having taken possession of the property for public and
military purposes. CFI dismissed the application upon the grounds of
law. SC affirmed judgment. Hence, this case through writ of error.
 Applicant and plaintiff in error is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet,
where the land lies. 50 years before the Treaty of Paris (April 11,
1899), the plaintiff and his ancestors had held the land as owners.
o His grandfather had lived upon it. His father had cultivated
parts and had used parts for pasturing cattle.
o They all had been recognized as owners by the Igorots, and
he inherited the land from his father through Igorot custom.
o However, no document of title was issued from the Spanish
Crown.
o He filed a petition alleging ownership under the mortgage law.
The lands were registered to him; however, establishing only
possessory title.
 It is suggested that even if the applicant has a 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.
Applicant claims that he owns the land and is entitled to registration
under the said Act.
o Position of the Govt: Spain assumed, asserted, and had title
to all the land in the PH except so far as it saw fit to permit
private titles to be acquired. There was no prescription against
the Crown, and if there was, a decree of June 25, 1880
required registration within a limited time to make the title
good. The plaintiff’s land was not registered; and therefore
became, if it was not always, a public land. The U.S.
succeeded to the title of Spain, hence, the plaintiff has no
rights that the PH Govt is bound to respect.
General characterized as a savage tribe that was never brought under
civil or military government of the Spanish Crown. It seems probable
that the Spanish officials would not have granted to anyone in that
province the registration to which formerly the plaintiff was entitled by
Spanish laws.
 Our 1st object in the internal administration of the inlands is to do
justice to the natives, all the property and rights acquired there by the
US are to be administered “for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof”.
 Every presumption is and ought to be against the Government in a
case like this.
o It may be proper 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.
o The Spanish did not assume to convert all the native
inhabitants of the Philippines into trespassers or into tenants
at will.
 Re: decree of June 25, 1880. Private ownership must have been a
grant by competent authority; but those who have been in possession
for certain times shall be deemed owners. When this decree went into
effect, the applicant’s father was owner of the land by the very terms
of the decree.
o The requirement that everyone must get a document of title to
not lose his land may not have been applicable to all. The
regulations purport to have been made “for the adjustment of
royal lands wrongfully occupied by private individuals”.
o In Art. 6 of the decree, it is provided that, anyone not included
the articles recognizing prescription of 20 and 30 years, may
legalize their possession and thereby acquire full ownership
of said lands through adjustment proceedings.
o In this case, the applicant’s possession was not unlawful and
no attempt at any such proceedings against him or his father
was made.
o Basically, the decree provides that ownership may be
acquired through prescription: 20 years for cultivated land and
30 years for uncultivated. But this does not apply to those
already in possession because they may already acquire
ownership by adjustment at a certain price.
o The words “may prove” in Art. 4 &5 indicates that registration
was expected from all but does not say that ownership
actually gained would be lost. The applicant in this case was
actually never disturbed.
 Held: We are of the opinion that law and justice require that applicant
should be granted what he seeks, and should not be deprived of what,
 by the practice and belief of those among whom he lived, was his
property, through a refined interpretation of an almost forgotten law of
Spain. (Judgment reversed)
CARIÑO v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT
G.R. No. 2869, March 25, 1907
Petitioner-Appellant: Mateo Cariño
Respondent-Appellee: The Insular Government
Facts:
 Carino filed a 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 (100 sqm), and 13 centares situated in the town of
Baguio, Province of Benguet.
 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 egression from the State.
 Court of Land Registration ruled against Carino.
 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 toexpediente 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.)
 The Court cannot decree the registration of all the superficial
extension of the land.
 A parcel of land, being of common origin, presumptively belonged to
the State during its sovereignty. It is necessary that the possession
must pass from the State to perfect the legitimate acquisition of such
land by private persons.
o There is no proof 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.
 The possessory information filed herein is not the title to property
authorized to serve as substitution for the adjustment provided by the
royal decree.
o First, the land referred to herein is not covered nor does it
come within any one of the 3 conditions required by Art. 19 of
the said royal decree: to wit 1) that the land has been in an
uninterrupted state of cultivation during a period of 6 years last
past; 2) that the same has been possessed without
interruption during a period of 12 years and has been in a state
of cultivation up to the date of the information and during the
3 years immediately preceding such information; or 3) that
such land had been possessed openly without interruption
during a period of 30 or more years, notwithstanding the land
had not been cultivated.
o Second, Art. 21 provides "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.”
 Given such, if Carino was the true possessor, he has the right of
average in case the Govt or State could have sold the land within the
period of 5 years. His possession attested in the possessory
information could not show any right of ownership until after the
expiration of 20 years from the verification and registry of the same in
accordance with Art. 393 of the Mortgage Law.
 Petitioner claims title under the period of prescription of 10 years as
provided in Sec. 6 or Act No. 627; however, this act admits such
prescription for the purpose of obtaining title and ownership to lands
“not exceeding more than 16 hectares in extent”. The land claimed by
Carino is 40 hectares in extent.
 Conclusively, the land in question did not belong to Carino but to the
Govt.
Notes:
Ancestral lands = private but communal property of indigenous communities
FPIC = Free and prior informed consent is required before mining in
ancestral domains
Council of Elders
4 modes:
 Direct utilization
 Joint venture & production sharing agreements
 Small-scale utilization
 Financial or technical assistance