Carino vs. Insular Government

Cariño v. Insular Government 212 U.S. 449 (1909) Argued January 13, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 The Case:  This case is about the application for land registration to the Philippine Court of Land Registration, which the court granted March 4, 1904.  The Philippines and US Government, those governments having taken possession of the property for public and military purposes, appealed the decision to CFI of Province of Benguet, which dismissed the application of the plaintiff and affirmed by the SC.  The Plaintiff brought to US Supreme Court by of virtue of error and not by appeal. Facts: Mateo Cariño is an Igorot of the province of Benguet. For more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1899, he and his grandfather had lived upon it, and had maintained fences sufficient for the holding of cattle. 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 Igorot and he had inherited or received the land from his father, in accordance with Igorot custom. He applied for the registration of a certain land. 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. In 1893 -1894 and 1896 -1897; he made an application but with no avail. In 1901, the plaintiff filed a petition, alleging ownership, under the mortgage law, and the lands were registered to him, that process, however, establishing only 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 

The government argued that the Spain assumed, asserted, and had title to all the land in the Philippines except so far as it saw fit to permit private titles to be acquired (Regalian Doctrine). Such title was acquired by the US by virtue of the Treaty of Paris signed on April 11, 1899.

Issues: a.) Whether or not the Regalian Doctrine applies to lands previously occupied by tribes such as the Igorots, who acquired native title thereof b.) Whether or not Carino owns the land Ruling:

a.) No. The Regalian Doctrine does not apply to lands previously occupied by tribes that already acquired native title thereof, such as the Igorots. By Section 12 of the Organic Act of July 1, 1902, all the property and rights acquired there by the United States are to be administered "for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof.” The same statute made a bill of rights, embodying the safeguards of the Constitution, and, like the Constitution, extends those safeguards to all. It provides that "no law shall be enacted in said islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws." In the light of the declaration that we have quoted from Section 12, it is hard to believe that the United States was ready to declare in the next breath that "any person" did not embrace the inhabitants of Benguet, or that it meant by "property" only that which had become such by ceremonies of which presumably a large part of the inhabitants never had heard, and that it proposed to treat as public land what they, by native custom and by long association -- one of the profoundest factors in human thought -- regarded as their own. 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 (private ownership) before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land. (Principle of Native Title) 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) Regalian Doctrine. b.) 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 lived, 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 be able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription.   Moreover, the decree of june 25, 1880 states that possessors for certain times shall be deemed owners; if a cultivated land 20 years, if uncultivated 30 years.   Here the plaintiff’s father was the owner of the land by the very terms of this decree – by Organic Act of July 1, 1902, all the property and rights acquired there by the US 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), and appeal the exception, confined to equity in the main.   Every presumption is and ought to be against the government in a case like present.   The court said that the reason for taking over the Philippines was different (compared to the occupation of white race against Native Americans). 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 effect of proof was not to confer title but simply to establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law.