This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
23, 1909 Facts: Mateo Carino, an Igorot from the Province of Benguer, contents dismissal of application of registration of their ancestral land through writ of error. Carino’s ancestors maintained fences for cattle, cultivated some parts, and pastured parts for cattle for more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris ( April 11, 1899). This land is also used for inheritance in accordance to Igorot custom. Although the plaintiff applied in 1893-1894 and 1896-1897, no document of title was issued by Spanish Crown. In 1901, plaintiff alleged ownership under mortgage law and the lands were registered to him but it only established possessory title. Then, that the lower court granted the application of land registration on March 4, 1904 An appeal was filed in behalf of Government of the Philippines and as US having taken possession of property for military and public purposes. Thus the application of registration was dismissed. Respondents argues, given that spain assumed and asserted that they had title to all the land in the Philippines except to permit private lands to be acquired, no prescription against the Spanish Crown. Decree of June 25, 1880 required registration within a limited time to make the title good. And US succeeded the title of Spain through (treaty of Paris). Plaintiff’s land not registered and he had lost all rights and a mere trespasser. Also, Benguet never brought under civil or military government of the Spanish Crown, so it is not certain whether registration granted was under Spanish laws Plaintiff’s argues that argument seems to amount to denial of native titles throughout an important Island of Luzon
Whether or not Carino owns the land.
HELD: Yes. Plaintiff Carino should be granted what he seeks and should not be deprived of what by the practice and belief of those among whom he lives, was his property, through a refined interpretation of an almost forgotten law of Spain. The grant to the plaintiff was the result of the principle of Prescription as mentioned in the royal cedula of 1754 states: “Where such possessors shall not e able
as already conferred by the decree. The court said that the reason for taking over the Philippines was different (compared to occupation of white race against Native Ameicans).to produce title deeds. http://www. By Organic Act of July 1. 1902. if a cultivated land 20 years. Every presumption is and ought to be against the government in a case like present. Here. 1880 states that possessors for certain times shall be deemed owners. and appeal the exception.com/doc/71296120/Natural-Resources-Case-Digest .scribd. it shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession. if not by earlier law. if uncultivated 30 years. as valid title by prescription. confined to equity in the main. The effect of proof was not to confer title but simply to establish it. plaintiff’s father was the owner of the land by the very terms of this decree. Our first object in the internal administration of the islands is to do justice to the natives not to exploit their country for private gain. the Decree of June 25. all the property and rights acquired there by the United States are to be administered :for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof/” Obiter Writ of Error is the general method of bringing cases to this court (Federal SC).” Moreover.