Cariño v. Insular Government 212 US 449, February 23, 1909.docx

Cariño v. Insular Government 212 US 449, February 23, 1909 FACTS: 

This was an application to the Philippine Court of Land e!istration "CL# for the re!istration of certain land on $une %&' ()*& to petition his inscription as the owner of a (+, hectare land he-s een possessin! for  more than fift/ /ears efore the Treat/ of Paris' April ((' (0))' as far ac1 as the findin!s !o' the plaintiff  and his ancestors had held the land as owners in the municipalit/ of 2a!uio. The application was !ranted  / the court on 3arch +' ()*+. ()*+. 4owever' an appeal was ta1en to to the Court of First First Instance of the Province Province of 2en!uet on ehalf of the !overnment of the Philippines and also on ehalf of the 5nited States' those !overnments havin! ta1en possession of the propert/ for pulic and militar/ purposes.



The Court of First Instance found the facts and dismissed the application upon !rounds of law. This  6ud!ment was affirmed / the supreme court' 7 Phil. (&%' and the case then was rou!ht here /  / writ of  error ecause the material facts found are ver/ few. The applicant and plaintiff in error is an I!orot of the Province of 2en!uet' where the land lies. 3ateo averred that a !rant should e !iven to him / reason of  immemorial use and that the ri!ht of the State over said land has prescried.

ISS58: 

9hether or not 3ateo is the ri!htful owner of the land / virtue of his possession of it for some time.

 4ow far a new soverei!n shall insist upon the theoretical relation of the su6ects to the head in past and how fat it shall reco!ni;e actual facts' are matter to decide<  9hat propert/ and ri!hts the 5nited States States asserted itself to have ac=uired< 

9hether 6ustice to the natives and the import of the or!anic act ou!ht not to carr/ us e/ond a sutle e>amination of ancient te>ts' or perhaps even e/ond the attitude of Spanish law' humane humane thou!h it was' it is unnecessar/ to decide.

48L?: 

 @o. The statute of limitations did not run a!ainst the !overnment. The !overnment is still the asolute owner of the land "re!alian doctrine#. Further' 3ateo-s possession of the land has not een of such a character as to re=uire the presumption of an/ ro/al !rant. @o one has lived upon it for man/ /ears. It was never used for an/thin! ut pastura!e of animals' e>cept insi!nificant portions thereof' and since the insurrection a!ainst Spain it has apparentl/ not een used  / Cariño for an/ purpose.

9hile the State has alwa/s reco!ni;ed the ri!ht of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient len!th of time' /et it has alwa/s insisted that he must ma1e that proof efore the proper administrative officers' and otain from them his deed' and until he did the State remained the asolute owner.