Cariño vs Insular Government, 41 Phil 935

Land Titles and Deeds – Regalian Doctrine – Statute of Limitations

1)

Facts: An Igorot applied for the registration of a certain land. He and his ancestors had held the
land as owners for more than 50 years, which he inherited under Igorot customs. 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.

Issue: WON the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine.

Held: No. Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title to his land.
The United States Supreme Court, through Justice Holmes declared:
“It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far 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.”

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.

3)
Facts:
Mateo Cariño, on February 23, 1904, filed his petition in the Court of Land Registration for a
title to a parcel of land consisting of 40 hectares, 1 are, and 13 centares in the town of Baguio,
Province of Benguet. This was heard with a petition for a title for a portion of the land.

The Insular Government opposed the granting of these petitions, because they alleged 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.

According to Carino, in 1884, he erected and utilized as a domicile a house on the property
situated to the north of that property now in question.

It was stated that during the year 1893 Cariño sold said house to one Cristobal Ramos, who in
turn sold the same to Donaldson Sim. Carino abandoned the house and lived on the land in
question.

The court of land registration ruled against their (Cariño’s) favor. It also ruled that the land was
"used for pasture and sowing," and belongs to the class called public land.
Issue: Is Carino the rightful possessor of the land?

Held: No, petition denied.

Ratio:
Under the express provisions of law, a parcel of land being of common origin, presumptively
belonged to the State during its sovereignty, and, in order to perfect the legitimate acquisition
of such land by private persons, it was necessary that the possession of the same pass from the
State.

And there was no proof of title of egression of this land from the domain of the Spanish
Government.
The possessory information was not the one authorized in substitution for the one in
adjustment of the royal decree of February 13, 1894. This was due to:

1. First, for the reason that the land referred to is not covered nor does it come within any of the
conditions required in article 19; second, because the possessory proceedings authorized in said
royal decree for the purpose of acquiring proprietary title, equivalent to that of agreement or
adjustment, can only be brought or instituted within a period of one year, in accordance with
article 21, and the possessory information or proceedings presented in this case was instituted on
March 7, 1901, and registered on the 11th day of the same month and year.

After the expiration of the period of one year allowed by such royal decree, the right of the cultivators
and persons in possession to obtain a free title thereto becomes canceled and lapses, and the land and
the full possession thereof reverts to the State or to the community, as the case may be.

The possessors not included or mentioned in the said provisions of the royal decree can only acquire, by
time, the ownership and title to public alienable lands in accordance with common law.

In accordance with common law, the possession as attested to and shown in a possessory information
could not go further to show right of ownership or title until after the expiration of twenty years from
the time of verification or registry of the same in the Registry of Properties, as prescribed in article 393
of the Mortgage Law and upon other conditions required by this law.

Section 6 of Act No. 627 of the Philippine Commission admits prescription, in accordance with the terms
and conditions prescribed in Act No. 190, covering the title for the obtaining of the right of ownership of
lands not exceeding an extension of 16 hectares, but not when the land in question consists of an
extension of 40 hectares, as is the case with the petition presented herein, or of an extension of 28
hectares as referred to in the possessory information proceeding upon which such petition has been
based.
2. Under Spanish law, there was a period of one year allowable to verify the possessory
information. 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.

In accordance with the preceding provisions, the right that remained to Cariño, if it be certain
that he was the true possessor of the land in question, was the right of average in case the
Government or State could have sold the same within the period of five years immediately
following for example, if the denouncement of purchase had been carried out by Felipe Zafra or
any other person, from the record of the case

The right of possession in accordance with civil law remained at all times subordinate to the
Spanish administrative law, inasmuch as it could only be of force when pertaining to royal
transferable or alienable lands even until after February 13, 1894.

3. The advent of American sovereignty necessarily brought a new method of dealing with lands
and particularly as to the classification and manner of transfer and acquisition of royal or
common lands then appropriated, which were thenceforth merely called public lands, the
alienation of which was reserved to the Government, in accordance with the Organic Act of 1902
and other laws like Act No. 648, herein mentioned by the petitioner.

Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, as a basis for obtaining the right of ownership.

"The petitioners claim the title under the period of prescription of ten years established by that
act, as well as by reason of his occupancy and use from time immemorial. But said act admits
such prescription for the purpose of obtaining title and ownership to lands not exceeding more
that 16 hectares in extent." Under Sec. 6 of said act. The land claimed by Cariño is 40 hectares
in extent, if we take into consideration his petition, or an extension of 28 hectares, therefore it
follows that the judgment denying the petition herein and now appealed from was strictly in
accordance with the law invoked.

And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory information, one part of same,
according to the testimony of Cariño, belongs to Vicente Valpiedad, the extent of which is not
determined. From all of which it follows that the precise extent has not been determined in the
trial of this case on which judgment might be based in the event that the judgment and title be
declared in favor of the petitioner, Mateo Cariño. And we should not lose sight of the fact that,
considering the intention of Congress in granting ownership and title to 16 hectares, that Mateo
Cariño and his children have already exceeded such amount in various acquirements of lands, all
of which is shown in different cases decided by the said Court of Land Registration.