CARIÑO v INSULAR GOVERNMENT (1904)

FACTS:
1. On February 23, 1904, Mateo Cariño filed a petition for a title to a portion of land
in the Court of Land Registration w/c consisted of about 40 hectares (1 are, and
13 centares) in the town of Baguio, Province of Benguet.

2. 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.

3. According to Cariño’s possessory information in1884, he erected and utilized as

a domicile a house on the property situated to the north of that property now in
question.

4. 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.

5. The Court of Land Registration ruled against Cariño and stated that:

 Cariño and his predecessors have NOT possessed exclusively and

adversely any part of the said property prior to the date on which Cariño
constructed the house now there

 that the land was "used for pasture and sowing," THUS, belongs to the class
called public land.

ISSUE: W/N Carino the rightful possessor of the land?

HELD: NO

1. Cariño was not able to support his claim. As a rule, 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.
2. However, in this case, there was NO PROOF of:

 TITLE OF EGRESSION of the land in question from the domain of the

Spanish Government
 NOR is there possessory information equivalent to a title under an
agreement
3. The possessory information filed herein, is NOT the title to property authorized
in substitution for that of adjustment by the Spanish royal decree, this being the
last law applicable to the present subject matter of common lands
4. Such condition states that AFTER the expiration of 1 year allowed by such royal
decree, IF LAND IS UNREGISTERED the right of cultivators and possessors to
obtain title lapses and full possession of the land REVERTS back to the State
(Regalian Doctrine)

5. 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.
6. AND in common law, the possession as shown in a possessory information
COULD NOT show right of ownership or title until after the expiration of 20 years
from the time of verification or registry of the same.

NOTE: ((in the Registry of Properties, as prescribed in article 393 of the

Mortgage Law and upon other conditions required by this law.))

7. The documentary proof obtained in this case is conclusive proof against petitioners
as consists of a possessory information under date of March 7, 1901, and
registered on the 11th day of the same month and year

8. His claim of title under the mortgage law is only possessory. He must wait for 20
years to lapse before such can ripen to ownership.

9. THUS, the land in question did not belong to the petitioner, but the property of the
Government.
ADDITIONAL:

 It is true that the American Government provided a new method of dealing w/ lands
specifically acquisition of royal or common lands THEN APPROPRIATED but
were then considered public land; one of which is Act No. 648, herein
mentioned by the petitioner, in connection with Act No. 627, w/c appears to be the
law upon which the petition herein is founded.

 Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, in accordance with the terms and
conditions prescribed in Act No. 190, as a basis for obtaining the right of ownership.
The petitioners claims title under the period of prescription of ten years established
by that act, as well as by reason of his occupancy and use thereof from time
immemorial."
 But said act admits such prescription for the purpose of obtaining title and
ownership to NOT exceeding an extension of 16 hectares, but not when the land
in question consists of an extension of 40 hectares AS IN THIS CASE, or of an
extension of 28 hectares as referred to in the possessory information proceeding
upon which such petition has been based. THUS, the land in question did not
belong to the petitioner, but that, on the contrary, it was the property of the
Government.

DISPOSITION:

By reason of the findings set forth it is clearly seen that the court below did not err:

"1. In finding that Mateo Cariño and those from whom he claims his right had not
possessed and claimed as owners the lands in question since time immemorial;

"2. In finding that the land in question did not belong to the petitioner, but that, on the
contrary, it was the property of the Government." (Allegation 21.)

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs of this instance
against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days from the notification of this
decision let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the
case be remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.