Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 129 views

    Carino v. Insular Government

    Uploaded by

    Erikha Araneta
    Mateo Cariño, an Igorot, applied for registration of land that had been in his family's possession for over 50 years. The government claimed the land belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine. The Supreme Court held that native title existed as an exception to the Regalian Doctrine, and that Cariño had ownership through ancestral possession since time immemorial. The Court also found that under Spanish law, cultivated land held for 20 years or uncultivated land held for 30 years continuously established a valid title by prescription. Therefore, Cariño's petition was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Carino v. Insular Government

    Uploaded by

    Erikha Araneta
    129 views1 page
    Mateo Cariño, an Igorot, applied for registration of land that had been in his family's possession for over 50 years. The government claimed the land belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine. The Supreme Court held that native title existed as an exception to the Regalian Doctrine, and that Cariño had ownership through ancestral possession since time immemorial. The Court also found that under Spanish law, cultivated land held for 20 years or uncultivated land held for 30 years continuously established a valid title by prescription. Therefore, Cariño's petition was granted.

    Original Description:

    NATRES

    Original Title

    CARINO V. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mateo Cariño, an Igorot, applied for registration of land that had been in his family's possession for over 50 years. The government claimed the land belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine. The Supreme Court held that native title existed as an exception to the Regalian Doctrine, and that Cariño had ownership through ancestral possession since time immemorial. The Court also found that under Spanish law, cultivated land held for 20 years or uncultivated land held for 30 years continuously established a valid title by prescription. Therefore, Cariño's petition was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    129 views1 page

    Carino v. Insular Government

    Uploaded by

    Erikha Araneta
    Mateo Cariño, an Igorot, applied for registration of land that had been in his family's possession for over 50 years. The government claimed the land belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine. The Supreme Court held that native title existed as an exception to the Regalian Doctrine, and that Cariño had ownership through ancestral possession since time immemorial. The Court also found that under Spanish law, cultivated land held for 20 years or uncultivated land held for 30 years continuously established a valid title by prescription. Therefore, Cariño's petition was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Mateo Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S 449, Law Ed.

    , 594

    Facts:
    Mateo Cariñ o 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

    Issue:
    A.) Whether the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian
    Doctrine.
    B.) Whether Cariñ o has ownership and is entitled to registration.

    Held:
    A.) 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) Regalian Doctrine.

    B.) YES. Petition Granted.


    a. Land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not always, public land.
    b. Spanish Law: "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." For cultivated land, 20 years, uninterrupted, is enough, for
    uncultivated, 30 years.
    c. Every native who had not a paper title is not a trespasser.
    d. Applicant's possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at any such
    proceedings against him or his father ever was made.
    There must be a presumption against the government when a private individual claims
    property as his or her own. It went so far as to say that the lands will be deemed private
    absent contrary proof.

    You might also like